Use of Land in Central Southern England during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age 9781407302737, 9781407321172

Table of contents :
TITLES.doc
Use of land in central southern England during the Neolithic and early Bronze Age
David Field
PRELIMS.doc
USE OF LAND IN CENTRAL SOUTHERN ENGLAND DURING THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE
USE OF LAND IN CENTRAL SOUTHERN ENGLAND DURING THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Summary
CHAPTER 1 CLOCKS, CAGOULES AND WAYS OF EXPERIENCING THE LAND
Introduction 1
Landscape and the Land 2
Analysis of land-use 2
Economic 2
CHAPTER 2 THE SOLENT BASIN: AN ANCIENT RIVER AND ITS EFFECT ON THE LAND
Introduction 14
The structure of the land 14
Quaternary developments 17
Soils 18
Climate 20
Land-use 21
The changing coastline 21
Sea-level 23
Tides 24
CHAPTER 3 CURATING NUTS AND COPING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
Introduction 26
Landforms 30
CHAPTER 4 CARVING OUT A NICHE AND GETTING ALONG WITH OTHERS: THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM 4000-3000BC
Introduction 37
CHAPTER 5 DESCRIBING DITCHES: SACRED AND MUNDANE IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BC.
Introduction 53
CHAPTER 6 THE CONSOLIDATION OF LAND DIVISION: SECOND MILLENNIUM
Introduction 71
Introduction 87
Sea, ships and the zone of information 87
APPENDICES 132
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PREFACE
DATING
CHAPTER 1 CLOCKS, CAGOULES AND WAYS OF EXPERIENCING THE LAND.doc
CHAPTER 1 CLOCKS, CAGOULES AND WAYS OF EXPERIENCING THE LAND
Introduction
Landscape and the land
Economic
Anthropology and human behaviour
The study
Landforms
The region
Historical background
CHAPTER 2 THE SOLENT BASIN.doc
Introduction
The structure of the land
Quaternary developments
Soils
Climate
Land-use
The changing coastline
Erosion
Accretion
Estuaries
The sea-bed
Sea-level
Tides
Breaching the channel
CHAPTER 3 CURATING NUTS AND COPING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE.doc
CHAPTER 3 CURATING NUTS AND COPING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
Introduction
Landforms
Coastal Plain
At Castle Meadow, Downton an irregular group of 23 well-bedded stake holes in an area no more than 2.75 by 1.25m were revealed (Higgs 1959) that form no clear pattern, but appear to polarise into two clusters each confined to an area of about a square metre (Fig 3:4). Section drawings indicate that only nine were upright, the others placed at varying angles and Higgs suggested that in each cluster upright posts formed a semi-circular shelter, with outer, outward leaning posts used as pegs to take supporting ropes. While acknowledging that it is unclear whether these represent one or two separate structures, he felt that they may represent temporary huts similar to those found at Rissen and Detmold in Germany (ibid 231-2). In each case, however, the upright posts enclose an area of less than 1m, an extremely small and uncomfortable shelter, whereas the German examples that he illustrates are a reasonable 3m in diameter. There are further problems. One of the uprights in each group, at least according to the profiles illustrated, is leaning. Other arrangements are clearly possible and indeed the posts need not be contemporary. One that emerges is a straight line of five uprights spanning both clusters from south-west to north-east. Further posts, three of them inward leaning, mimic this axis less than 0.5m to the east. Alternatively, the southwestern group can be visualised as a four poster – supported by four outward leaning posts on a west to east axis. Rather than shelters, the possibility of free-standing structures might also be considered, perhaps a hide stretching, plant drying, or meat smoking frame. An area of charcoal around the eastern post setting was thought to represent a hearth, which, had it been in operation contemporaneously, would have burnt the posts supporting the shelter.
Further inland, a series of sites have been recorded on the Higher Chalk, particularly on or close to the areas capped by Clay-with-flints. Iwerne Courtney (or Minster), Shroton (Summers 1941, 145-6), overlooking Handcocks Bottom has already been mentioned. Rankine described it as the largest surface site in Dorset and the most important outside the Weald, and compared it with the large sites discovered by Draper at Butser in Hampshire (Rankine 1962, 92). It comprised a surface scatter that included over 800 cores and 400 scrapers and was excavated by P G Summers with the unfulfilled expectation of uncovering pit dwellings (Summers 1941, 145-146). Little of consequence was evidently revealed and Summers subsequently thought the soil to be unsuitable for the construction of dwelling pits. More recently, Arnold has considered the site to be an amalgamation of several much smaller concentrations (Green 2000a, 23-4).
No principal sites are recorded on the main interfluves, although small flint scatters and a number of isolated tranchet axes have been found in such positions. Equally sites that occupy hilltop locations, as distinct from high positions OD, are quite unusual. Warren Hill on Hengistbury Head and Fort Wallington, Portsdown, might come into this category. Wakefords Copse might be considered unusual in its prominent upland siting, being situated on the upper slopes adjacent to a re-entrant with views over the Coastal Plain. Mesolithic artefacts were found on the southern slopes of a prominent ridge above Swyre Head, Dorset during excavation of an Iron Age/Romano-British shale working site (Palmer 1977, 143: Toms 1968). It may be that the lack of such sites is more apparent than real.
CHAPTER 4 CARVING OUT A NICHE.doc
Introduction
Use of the Coastal Plain
Relating biographies
In addition to the examples illustrated, a little north of Fussell's Lodge, long barrows are situated at similar distances apart along the Avon at Durrington Walls, Bulford, Netheravon and Figheldean (McOmish et al 2002), while in Cranborne Chase they are situated on ridges that divide the watersheds (Barrett et al 1991). Whether these examples are the survivors of a once extensive arrangement across the region is less easily demonstrated. The extant examples occur mainly on marginal ground and their survival can be put down to use of the land as sheep walks throughout historic times. The problem occurs on the sandy heaths where, although often marginal, there is currently little evidence of monument construction. If long barrows were distributed evenly across central southern England, one might expect some examples in the New Forest or other heathlands of the area. It would seem at present that Pistle Down Barrow, Verwood (NMR No SU 01 SE 30), is the only candidate, the mound of which, when excavated in 1828 by Dr Wake-Smart, was found to be largely composed of gravel and nothing but four lozenge shaped flint arrowheads recovered (Warne 1866, 16). It may be, however, that mound construction coincided with a period when agricultural or pastoral use of the sands had already resulted in exhausted, podsolised soils, in which case an absence of monuments might equate to the lack of 4th millennium agricultural opportunity.
CHAPTER 5 DESCRIBING CIRCLES 2.doc
CHAPTER 5 DESCRIBING DITCHES: SACRED AND MUNDANE IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BC.
Introduction
Although of uncertain origin, the importance of circular figures in belief patterns appears to have taken shape with effect from at least the second half of the 4th millennium BC. William Cunnington recorded the presence of domed structures constructed of turf or stone beneath long mounds on Salisbury Plain during the early years of the 19th century at, for example, Heytesbury North Field and Old Ditch, Tilshead, (Cunnington mss: Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Library, Devizes: McOmish et al 2002, 30). Whether these structures derived from simple piles of material formed in an unintentional manner, or whether there was an overall aim to the design is not clear. A simple mound of turf was present at Raunds, its construction materials mirroring those of the nearby long mound (Windell et al 1990: Healy and Harding 2003), while the inner circular circuit at the West Cotton henge may either represent an earlier barrow, or the two features may have been contemporary, perhaps marking a Duggleby Howe-like monument (R Bradley pers comm). In the north of England circular mounds were also being constructed at that time (Kinnes 1979: Brewster 1992) and indeed some of the larger round mounds of central southern England e.g. Compton, Westbury (Westbury 7), or Tilshead (Silver Barrow), all in Wiltshire, excavated by Colt Hoare (McOmish et al 2002: Hoare 1810), might be of that date as well. Kinnes (1979, 48) pointed out that circular mound construction is an economical and obvious method of creating a visual impact. Beyond that, the domed mounds may have had spiritual significance in terms of earth breakage, for example, as offerings for disturbing the ground, or may have been more symbolic, representing the dome of the perceived world (Bradley 1998). The idea of digging pits and trenches into the ground was resolving into a preference for circular arrangements too. Some of the generally oval circuits of interrupted ditches at causewayed enclosures, at for example, Briar Hill, in Northamptonshire; Whitehawk Camp and the Trundle, in Sussex; Gt Wilbraham, in Cambridgeshire and Roughton, in Norfolk, approached a circular plan (Oswald et al 58, 77), while around the turn of the 4th to 3rd millennium enclosures at Flagstones (c3380-2910 cal BC) and Stonehenge (c 3020-2910 cal BC) were circular.
Circles and pits
Soon after 2500 BC a new material, yellow metal, was introduced into the area. Initially this may have entered the area as gifts and been perceived as highly symbolic, perhaps even sacred. The earliest evidence here, the tanged copper knife with bone pommel from Shrewton round barrow 5k, is dated to this time and associated with it are All Over Cord, European Bell Beaker and Developed Northern British Beakers. Three dates from human bone provide date ranges between 2500 and 2280 cal BC (Needham 1996, 128: Green and Rollo Smith 1984) setting it firmly within Needham's Period 1, which he dates to between 2500 and 2300 (Needham 1996) and which significantly also encapsulates the construction of sarsen settings at nearby Stonehenge. Shrewton 5k is one of 18 barrows that cluster around the northern slopes at the head of a combe that leads down to the River Till and that overlook the probable site of a former spring. The ground to the east rises in height towards Robin Hoods Ball and set just metres in that direction would have ensured greater intervisibility, in particular with Stonehenge, should that have been important.
The metamorphosis of monuments
CHAPTER 6 CONSOLIDATION OF LAND.doc
Introduction
Round barrows and ring ditches
Artefacts
Flint daggers might be considered a ceremonial type and perhaps represent the location of burials. Grimes shows three on his map, two in the Amesbury area and one north of Portsmouth (Grimes 1931). Numbers within the area increased as result of museum inspection to 15, four are present from the Bournemouth area increasing the emphasis on that area as a focal point (Fig 6:6: Appendix 6:2).
Mounds, rivers and settlement
CHAPTER 7 PROBLEMS.doc
CHAPTER 8 SACRED.doc
CHAPTER 9 SEQUENCE.doc
REFERENCES.doc
Wymer, J J 1977 Gazetteer of Mesolithic sites in England and Wales CBA
APPENDICES.doc
ABBREVIATIONS
APPENDIX 4:8 OVING DISTRICT FIELDWALKING SURVEY
Introduction
Topography, geography and geology
Method
The flint
Raw material
Tool preparation
Blades
Tools
Table 2
Notes
Field T = 216
SU 90 SW F2 = Aldingbourne
Table 9
Field 305
APPENDIX 5:11 EASTON DOWN IN CONTEXT: THE PROBLEM OF DOMESTIC BEAKER ACTIVITY ON THE HIGHER DOWNLAND
Introduction
Flint daggers
Untitled
Blank Page
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
SUMMARY
FOREWORD
Table of Contents
LIST OF APPENDICES
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PREFACE
DATING
THE ILLUSTRATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CHAPTER 1 CLOCKS, CAGOULES AND WAYS OF EXPERIENCING THE LAND
CHAPTER 2 THE SOLENT BASIN: AN ANCIENT RIVER AND ITS EFFECT ON THE LAND
CHAPTER 3 CURATING NUTS AND COPING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
CHAPTER 4 CARVING OUT A NICHE AND GETTING ALONG WITH OTHERS: THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM 4000-3000BC
CHAPTER 5 DESCRIBING DITCHES: SACRED AND MUNDANE IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BC
CHAPTER 6 THE CONSOLIDATION OF LAND DIVISION: SECOND MILLENNIUM
CHAPTER 7 PROBLEMS RELATING TO HOW THE LAND WAS USED
CHAPTER 8 SACRED GEOGRAPHIES
CHAPTER 9 SEQUENCE AND DEVELOPMENT
REFERENCES
APPENDICES

Citation preview

BAR  458  2008   FIELD   USE OF LAND IN CENTRAL SOUTHERN ENGLAND

Use of Land in Central Southern England during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age David Field

BAR British Series 458 9 781407 302737

B A R

2008

Use of Land in Central Southern England during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age David Field

BAR British Series 458 2008

ISBN 9781407302737 paperback ISBN 9781407321172 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407302737 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

USE OF LAND IN CENTRAL SOUTHERN ENGLAND DURING THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE

SUMMARY

This study approaches the prehistory of Wessex from an inclusive, broad brush point of view. It incorporates the whole of the land, the soils that the geology supports, the climate and drainage pattern and, in particular, it focuses on the less studied part of the area, the coastal zone. It concludes that settlement patterns in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age little different in Wessex to any other part of Britain and based primarily on the use of the river valleys, while the coastal plain played a significant role although in each case may have been profoundly influenced by responses to rising sealevels. Local land-units utilising a full range of resources were probably formed quite early out of common interest and linked to monuments placed in the margins. The spatial distribution of long barrows and subsequently round barrows in reasonably regularly spaced groups implies that they represent economic and social activities as much as cosmological symbols. Some territoriality was operative and recognisable in the patterning and the biographies of many monuments and may indicate that such land-units had a long history. The mouths of rivers around Bournemouth and Christchurch were particularly important for coastal settlement and these places provide the hinge on which the region rested. These were the locations to which new ideas, materials and products came and were in turn disseminated. Like causewayed enclosures, clusters of artefacts at the fringes of the drainage pattern may represent areas of 'no-mans land', or frontier positions at the limit of the larger polity, and mark gateways or interfaces to other geographical zones.

i

Frontispiece: The mouth of the River Avon, showing Christchurch Harbour and, in the foreground Hengistbury Head (Photo: NMR 21292/07).

ii

FOREWORD

I was brought up in part of Dr Field’s study area and spent some of my formative years as a schoolboy archaeologist cycling around the South Downs, visiting ancient monuments on the chalk. At the same time, I was dimly aware that this was not the only place in which prehistoric material could be found. That was puzzling, as it seemed to be an article of faith that the southern English downland was central to any account of Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. Curiously, that opinion was difficult to dispel even when air photography showed clearly that there were many important monuments in the river valleys. In the same way, field walking and commercial development suggested that the coastal plain of central southern England was equally significant, even if it was not so suitable for aerial reconnaissance. The first requirement was a thorough examination of the archaeology of these lowland areas. The second was a reappraisal of the relationship between the familiar archaeology of the chalk and the productive but less studied region in between the downs and the English Channel. This was not a question of expanding the archaeological record, for it involved a quite different approach to archaeological explanation: one in which monuments like Stonehenge or Durrington Walls were not at the centre of the prehistoric world but somewhere towards its limits. It is this perspective that Dr Field’s study affords. It was a great pleasure working with Dave as he wrote the thesis on which this book is based. It was also an exciting process of discovery. It shows as well as anything how one tenacious worker, armed with energy, enthusiasm and insight, can overturn a century or more of unwarranted speculation. Of course it raises entirely new questions, as any good project should do, but that is why its publication is so important and also welcome.

Richard Bradley Department of Archaeology, Reading University

iii

USE OF LAND IN CENTRAL SOUTHERN ENGLAND DURING THE NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE CONTENTS Abstract List of contents List of appendices List of illustrations Preface Acknowledgements Summary CHAPTER 1 CLOCKS, CAGOULES AND WAYS OF EXPERIENCING THE LAND Introduction

1

Landscape and the Land

2

Analysis of land-use

2

Economic

2

Anthropology and human behaviour

4

Forest dweller

7

Open land

7

Farmer

8

The study

8

Landforms

8

The region

9

Historical background

10

CHAPTER 2 THE SOLENT BASIN: AN ANCIENT RIVER AND ITS EFFECT ON THE LAND Introduction

14

The structure of the land

14

The Coastal Plain

15

The Tertiary Junction

15

The Chalk Uplands

16

Quaternary developments

17

Soils

18

The Coastal Plain

19

iv

The Chalk Uplands

20

Climate

20

Land-use

21

The changing coastline

21

Erosion

22

Accretion

22

Estuaries

22

The sea-bed

23

Sea-level

23

Tides

24

Breaching the channel

25

CHAPTER 3 CURATING NUTS AND COPING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE Introduction

26

Landforms

30

Coastal Plain

30

Tertiary Junction

32

Higher Chalk

33

River valleys

33

Springs

34

Hilltops

35

Making it all go round

35

CHAPTER 4 CARVING OUT A NICHE AND GETTING ALONG WITH OTHERS: THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM 4000-3000BC Introduction

37

Connections with the land

38

Artefacts

45

Frontier zones

49

Use of the Coastal Plain

50

Relating biographies

51

v

CHAPTER 5 DESCRIBING DITCHES: SACRED AND MUNDANE IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BC. Introduction

53

Circles and pits

53

Pottery

59

Flint

61

The gleam of new materials

64

The metamorphosis of monuments

69

CHAPTER 6 THE CONSOLIDATION OF LAND DIVISION: SECOND MILLENNIUM Introduction

71

Round barrows and ring ditches

72

Artefacts

79

Reorganisation

82

Mounds, rivers and settlement

83

CHAPTER 7 PROBLEMS RELATING TO HOW THE LAND WAS USED Introduction

87

Sea, ships and the zone of information

87

th

Pre 4 millennia

88

4th millennium

89

rd

91

nd

2 millennium

92

Development

94

Whose garden was this?

96

The nature of home

98

Nomadic

98

3 millennium

Transhumance

100

Sedentary

101

vi

CHAPTER 8 SACRED GEOGRAPHIES Introduction

104

Sacred rock

105

Stones at Stonehenge

106

Sacred artefacts

106

Sacred animals

107

Sacred places

108

Sacred land

110

Cosmos

112

CHAPTER 9 SEQUENCE AND DEVELOPMENT Introduction

113

Patterns in the past

113

The Coastal Plain and its hinterland

116

The importance of watercourses

116

A framework for land-use

118

Reprise

119

REFERENCES

120

APPENDICES

132

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES 3:1 Mesolithic C14 dates

135

3:2 Mesolithic sites by landform

135

3:3 Mesolithic sites around Christchurch and Bournemouth

137

4:1 Extraction sites

137

4:2 Long Barrows

138

4:3 Jadeite Axes

141

4:4 Ground flint axes

141

4:5 Seamer axes

159

4:6 Leaf arrowheads

160

4:7 Causewayed enclosures

164

4:8 Oving District flintwork

165

5:1 Peterborough Wares

181

5:2 Ground edge flint knives

182

5:3 Maceheads

182

5:4 Discoidal knives

183

5:5 Petit Tranchet Derivative arrowheads

183

5:6 Edge-ground flint axes

186

5:7 Ground axes of rocks foreign to central southern England

188

5:8 Flint sickles

194

5:9 Flat bronze and copper axes

194

5:10 Beakers from Knighton Farm

194

5:11 Easton Down

195

6:1 Bell barrows

200

6:2 Disc barrows

202

6:3 Saucer barrows

204

6:4 Pond barrows

205

6:5 Ring ditches

206

6:6 Flint daggers

209

6:7 Plano convex knives

209

6:8 Barbed and tanged arrowheads

211

6:9 Other arrowheads

215

6:10 Shafthole adzes

216

6:11 Battle axes

217

6:12 Axe hammers

217

viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Frontispiece Hengistbury Head and Christchurch Harbour at the mouth of the River Avon 1:1 Wells clock 1:2 Prospect from St Rocs Hill September 15 1723 by William Stukeley 1:3 Richard C Hoare landscape 1:4 Plan of the Oakley Down Barrow cemetery by H Sumner showing the relationship of the barrows to the spring 2:1 Location maps, showing the drainage of the Solent river 2:2 Geology of the region 2:3 Map showing the course of the Greater Rhine and its tributary the river Solent 2:4 Map of the soil cover of central southern England 2:5 Tides in the English Channel adapted from Hamblin et al 1992, 87 3:1 Map of the distribution of tranchet axes and pebble maceheads 3:2 Plan of pits at Broom Hill 3:3 Photograph of the site of the spring at Blashenwell, Dorset 3:4 Plan of pits at Downton 4:1 Ground axe from Down Farm 4:2 Plan of the location of Holdenhurst long barrow 4:3 Plan of the location of Fussell’s Lodge long barrow 4:4 Plan of Fussell's Lodge long barrow 4:5 Fussell’s Lodge cairn 4:6 Distribution of long barrows along the Wylye Valley 4:7 Map of the distribution of long barrows and causewayed enclosures 4:8 Jadeite axe from Breamore 4:9 Distribution of jadeite axes and axes of rocks foreign to England 4:10 Distribution plot of ground axes of flint. 4:11 Distribution of edge-ground axes and ‘Seamer’ axes 4:12 Map of the distribution of leaf shaped arrowheads 4:13 Comparison of the distribution of ground axes and causewayed enclosures 5:1a Topographical position of the Lavant ring-ditches 5:1b Plan of the Lavant ring-ditches 5:2 Plan of parchmarks at Durrington recorded by RCHME 1989-90 5:3 Plan of parch marks at Durrington in relation to topography and other monuments 5:4 Distribution map of Grooved Ware and Seamer ground axes 5:5 Distribution of ground knives, maceheads and major henges 5:6 Distribution map of ground axes of a) rocks originating in the southwest b) rocks originating in Cumbria c) rocks originating in Wales d) rocks originating in the northeast and midlands and e) rocks from unknown or uncertain sources.

ix

5:7 Distribution map of single piece flint sickles 5:8 Distribution of flat copper and bronze axes 5:9 Land-use and monuments at Winterslow, Wiltshire 5:10 Plan of excavated features at Beaker settlement, Easton Down, Wiltshire. 6:1 Plan of Hengistbury showing location of round barrow excavated by F Grose 6:2 Photograph of round barrow at Hengistbury Head 6:3 Distribution of conical gold button covers. 6:4 Shale cup from Stoborough, Dorset 6:5 Area in Central Southern England searched for air photograph coverage 6:6 Distribution of oblique air photograph coverage held by the National Monuments Record. 6:7 Distribution of round barrows compared to relief. 6:8 Distribution of round barrows compared to geology. 6:9 Photograph of ring ditches at Damerham 6:10 Photograph of the site of Upton Lovell ‘Golden’ barrow 6:11 Map of the distribution of flint daggers and battle axes 6:12 Distribution of barbed and tanged arrowheads. 7:1 Distribution of ground axes on the Sussex Coastal Plain in relation to flint mines 7:2 Distribution of Portland Chert and flint mines 7.3 Distribution of Maritime Beakers (after Harrison 1977) 8:1 Location of long barrows at Wexcombe 8:2 Plot of ring ditches around Downton 9:1 Distribution of ground axes shown against soil types 9:2 Distribution of round barrows shown against soil types 9:3 Distribution of round barrows in the western Weald

x

PREFACE

It is inevitable when dealing with such a huge area and vast period of time that attention will settle on certain selected details and that it will be impossible to incorporate all available data within word limits and time constraints. In any case, it is not desirable to repeat the detailed discussion of sites and areas already covered by others. Instead, I have tried to concentrate on the data that have implications for land-use. This is a mixed body of evidence incorporating, on the one hand extant monuments and, on the other, chance finds of artefacts. It is clear that the monuments themselves cannot tell the whole story, for artefact distributions across much of the lowlands provide a remarkable contrast with the Wessex chalk sites and relate it rather differently. There may also be restrictions imposed as a result of our perception of the Neolithic. Traditionally considered in isolation, each separate period analysis serves to reinforce the validity of that period at the expense of the 'transitions'. In this assessment, the past is depicted by considering changes in landuse rather than by periods of time based on artefact typologies. Thus to use a modern analogue - the question is whether new models of combine harvester encouraged farmers in East Anglia to enlarge their fields, or whether it was the regulation and encouragement of a social system, the EEC. Which led and influenced the other? The first uses artefact as catalyst, while in the latter the artefact is a response. The work is the subject of a PhD thesis researched at the University of Reading between 1999 and 2005 and presented here in a slightly updated and amended form. The project was born out of the experience of a decade of fieldwork on the military ranges on Salisbury Plain, where the lack of modern topographic paraphernalia such as fences, hedges and property boundaries, allowed the worker to get to grips with the land uninfluenced by its modern uses. Thus it was possible to experience the natural

landscape

directly.

Observation

of

soldiers

lost

and

struggling

in

an

hostile

environment…where 24 hours exposure to cold rain and biting wind can result in a spell with the Red Cross……. working alone many miles from the nearest sign of habitation…..where the fox, badger or deer is a welcome and friendly face that you try to communicate with. Hello stone curlew… its nice to see you today. Its OK, don’t worry I'll leave your nest alone….. or where isolated bushes appear to move…every time I look round I'm sure that it gets closer…. Where there are good places in summer that channel the breeze and friendly places in winter that deflect it…and equally importantly, the converse. Here a holistic approach led to the conclusion that, in economic terms, the higher downland was considered marginal land, and that the extant archaeological remains were likely to imply the former presence of equal or greater numbers of sites in areas where soils and other contributory factors were more favourable. The study has involved a comprehensive museum trawl to inspect all types of flint, stone, and pottery relating to the 6th to 2nd millennia BC, visits to the owners of private collections, to archaeological units to collate information about more recent unpublished data and inspect grey literature; it has

xi

incorporated data from the National Monument Record and inspection of a sample of oblique aerial photographs covering some 22,000 sq km. Where such material is not recorded in archaeological databases, relevant details have been incorporated as inventories. While interesting in their own right, the results are by no means conclusive and are more a signpost to further investigation. Already new questions are nagging away. I was extremely fortunate that research was focussed, nurtured, guided and supervised by Professor Richard Bradley, who not only knows the chalklands extremely well, but the Coastal Plain too and has been instrumental in articulating the importance of some of these points through a series of influential publications and was the perfect guru. I must also thank Professor Bob Chapman and Dr Sturt Manning who both supervised the project and not only offered much help, valuable assistance and advice, but also an enormous amount of encouragement that provided direction and boosted confidence. All investigative projects are journeys into the unknown and this was no exception. It was the journey through the avenues of research, the highs and lows, the days of discovery, the occasional disappointments and blind alleys, the great leaps forward, the occasional 'eureka', that was the really exciting part. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

xii

DATING In view of the fact that the study spans a time period of over 4000 years, sites with absolute dates are of considerable importance. Unfortunately, there are too few of them from the area in question and they tend to cluster around certain periods as a result of eager investigation into certain types of monument. A few key sites present themselves and invariably provide a hinge. Amongst these is the Fir Tree Field shaft at Down Farm, on Cranborne Chase (Green 2000: Green & Allen 1997); the Coneybury Anomaly near Amesbury (Richards 1990); Fussells Lodge (Schulting 2000) and, of course, Stonehenge itself (Cleal et al 1995). For the later part of the period, the framework by S Needham (1996) based on the C14 dated metalwork is essential. Undated monuments and artefact types may add a little flesh to this merely on account of similar typology although caution has been exercised with such data. Where utilised, and in order that some reasonable comparisons can be made, I have standardised the C14 dates, using 95% probabilities obtained from the OxCal 3 programme.

THE ILLUSTRATIONS Background data for the distribution maps i.e. contours etc., has been taken from appropriate Ordnance Survey editions, Geological Survey of Great Britain maps, Soils Survey of England and Wales maps and traced using Adobe Illustrator software. The basic broad coverage of the area is described at 1:150,000 scale (reduced to fit the page) and contours depicted are at 60, 120 and 182m above OD respectively with the lighter colouring towards the summits. In addition, while it is acknowledged that the sea-level fluctuated throughout the 4th-2nd millennia BC, the minus 5m OD contour is shown as a general guide to the position of the coastline at the beginning of the 4th millennium BC. Contours on larger scale maps are used to depict landforms. These are shown at 5m intervals, again with lighter colours towards the higher ground, but rarely numbered, the point being to depict the morphology of the land rather than indicate absolute height. All maps and plans are oriented with north to the top and use the National Grid system unless stated to the contrary. The grid on the 1:150,000 scale maps demarcates 10km squares, i.e. each square represents 100sq km. Backgrounds are depicted in three ways, as relief, geology and soils, and in order to obtain clarity, once introduced, mapping paraphernalia such as keys, scales, grids etc., have later been omitted, though the reader can easily refer back to the original.

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In a project of this length and scope there have inevitably been many stimuli, chance conversations, inspirational lectures, books and discussions; realisations from visits to every part of the countryside, even one or two late night TV programmes, that have gone on to influence the final result. However, chief among these influences must be those at the University of Reading, Richard Bradley, Bob Chapman and Sturt Manning all of whom provided exceptional encouragement and inspiration. I owe them all a great debt of gratitude. At the National Monuments Record in Swindon, firstly under the aegis of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England and latterly English Heritage, many of my colleagues have been extremely encouraging and understanding, not to say a little patient at times, among them Humphrey Welfare, Mark Bowden, Graham Brown, Nicky Smith, Pete Topping, David McOmish, Martyn Barber and Deborah Cunliffe, the latter who suffered my endless questions about AutoCAD and Adobe Illustrator. In addition, Felicity Gilmore, Diane Sims and Clare Field in the library, Ken Davies and Robin Page who helped with the intricacies of AMIE/MONARCH all deserve my wholehearted thanks. There are many curators and other individuals at museums across the region, Chichester, Portsmouth, Southampton, Poole, Newport, Winchester, Hampshire Museum Service, Salisbury, Wareham, Devizes, Dorchester, the Red House Museum Christchurch, Bournemouth Natural History Society Museum, all in no particular order, who allowed me to look at their reserve collections and assisted where necessary with records and archives. Archaeological Units at Southampton, Chichester and Wessex were all very helpful, while particular mention should be made of the assistance provided by a number of individuals, associates, friends and colleagues, notably Martin Green, Mike Allen, Julie Gardiner, Gary Momber, Lilian Ladle, Mike Pitts and Robin Upton. Last but not least, my family, who have all been extremely patient, Christine and Catherine, in particular, who bore the brunt of my strange trips, hours at the computer and long absences deserve an archaeology free holiday. My thanks to them all.

xiv

CHAPTER 1 CLOCKS, CAGOULES AND WAYS OF EXPERIENCING THE LAND

Introduction As predominantly town and city dwellers, we pay great heed to mechanical sub-division. Manufactories from the Industrial Revolution onwards placed immense importance on these divisions, while armies of office workers struggled with measured time to create time tables that allowed for the passage of time during the train journey itself. As such, many have become divorced or alienated from the natural rhythms of life and, despite the publication of a flurry of books recording the memories of shepherds and rural craftsfolk as a lost idyll, such accounts are viewed from a distance and their apparently simple world invariably romanticised.

The medieval clock situated high on the wall of Wells Cathedral is undoubtedly an artefact of considerable significance in terms of articulating the transition from former methods of perceiving the world to those that we currently employ. Like other, pre-Copernican examples of timekeeping, the mechanism introduced the concept of mathematically measured time to a countryside where life revolved around cycles of nature, the lunar cycle and the seasons. Measured time may have been important to the monks and nuns of medieval Europe in order to ensure the precise regularity of communal chants and meditational practices, but to those working on the land it was all rather unnecessary, even though too easily acknowledged, as the bell regularly announced reference points throughout each day.

The land itself is also treated in this way. The very word landscape, or landskip, now applied to an aesthetically pleasing illustrative format, ultimately derives from a Dutch school of painting that sought to emphasise the beauty of nature (Hirsh 1995, 2). It provided for an ideal perception of the natural world and a romantic view of the countryside where the aesthetic qualities of scenery could be isolated, refined and improved upon. Gardeners employed by owners of Country Houses pursued this new goal by shifting huge quantities of earth in their parks and

While the Wells clock incorporated solar and lunar cycles into its programme, it also acknowledged the significance of other equally important phenomena by use of illustration. Although the natural cycles could be measured and mechanically subdivided, the inexplicable nature of the wind could only be expressed as the breath of God, and was depicted as such (Fig 1:1).

Figure 1:1 Part of the Wells medieval clock where the otherwise unexplained four winds, each held by an angel, are depicted as the breath of God (from and original photograph by R Neale in Lovell and Neale 1994, with the kind permission of the Chapter of Wells).

1

gardens and constructing lakes, coppices and eyecatching ruins and mock castles in order to create visually stunning, or at the very least pleasing, asymmetry and other effects. All helped in creating a view of countryside as neat, tidy and harmonious. The dirty old farm was screened from view and sometimes literally removed.

some, superficially similar landforms. For example, the bright, warm, sunlit, south-facing escarpments when compared to the dark, damp, moss covered north facing slopes. Even today most farmworkers will talk of working 'the land' or 'on the land' rather than 'in the landscape' and those who went out into the countryside to grow food during the Second World War were 'landgirls' rather than landscape workers.

This account attempts to avoid this modern perception of the countryside as landscape. Instead, in considering a sizeable portion of the land mass of central southern England, it attempts to construct signposts that lead us towards a map as it might have been perceived at points of time during prehistory.

The difference is not just one of pedantic etymology, but something quite fundamental if we are to try and construct and interpret maps of the past (Ingold 2000: Tilley 1994). The nearest that many of us may come to struggling with land is perhaps occasionally digging for potatoes in the garden, or for a couple of weeks in summer on an archaeological excavation. It is not that aesthetic is irrelevant, but it is the appreciative glow born of well-placed and productive hard-work, of having just mown the lawn rather than passively admiring someone else's efforts that assumes greater importance. Neither is it purely about direct experience of the land as other factors, for example the elements, play a decisive role. Even in Britain ferocious weather on some landforms can rapidly reduce a hardy soldier to quivering jelly. Sun, heat, thunder, rain, are all easily explained today with our daily dose of weather forecasts, and it is easy to forget that just a couple of hundred years ago things were very different and as noted above, could only be explained as divine intervention. Without the psychological comfort of modern trappings and knowledge that you have a meal and warm bed to go home to, even if you do have to walk for another four hours to obtain it, the land, and indeed the elements that are allied to it can be frightening.

Landscape and the land Although in considerable vogue during recent decades and having given its name to a sub-discipline within archaeology, use of the term landscape might now be considered a little overused. Those twenty years ago Bradley (1980, 58) pointed out that landscape archaeology was in danger of becoming obsolete if it did not turn its attention to the investigation of social processes of the past. Now, despite being able to study much larger canvasses as a result of new technological processes, we are again faced with the possibility of landscape studies becoming mere stamp collecting of sites, ever larger site-catchment studies, more parish histories to add to the catalogue. While topography might be described cartographically in terms of relief, or names with stacked up memories (c.f. Tilley 1994, 19), the very notion of a piece of ground as 'landscape' may be part of the problem. It implies the ability to observe from more than one place and provides a rather different emphasis to that involving the functional prehistoric environments that we are trying to get to grips with. Landscape implies more than movement round and about; it implies travel. The ability not only to view things from different directions, but to observe and compare landforms from multiple viewpoints and to appreciate differences between them. Appreciation of landscapes could only come about as an experience of travel, a result of transport systems on an industrial and commercial scale. Landscape is an artefact of travel.

Analysis of Land-use Economic Simple distribution patterns of known ancient monuments and artefact types have played an important analytical role in the relationship between archaeological activity and topography. Maps of archaeological sites on Salisbury Plain constructed by the Ordnance Survey surveyor Philip Crocker, for example, were an important ingredient of Richard Colt Hoare's ground-breaking fieldwork first published as Ancient Wiltshire in 1810. During the earlier part of the 20th century, Grimes (1931) and then Clark (1929) used maps to good effect in depicting the then known distribution of flint daggers, discoidal knives and sickles in Great Britain, while subsequently Cyril Fox (1947) used maps of flint, pottery, coins, bronze and gold artefacts, quite extensively to depict widespread contrasts in the density and location of ancient activity. Grinsell (1972) indicated how important such maps could be if presented in an unambiguous manner, while more recently whole theses

This, however, is not the same thing as topography and has little to do with the land itself. Land, whether a mere handful of it, or a larger portion encompassing many hectares, has other characteristics. It smells; it has warmth, or may be cold. It is hard or soft, fine, stony, sticky. It has colour, white, red, yellow, orange, brown, black. It may contain or filter water, insects, and fungi. The natural forms of the land, scarps, coombes, reentrants, knolls, may provide shelter from prevailing winds, or help channel water, vegetation, insects, and animals into certain positions with or without their cooperation. Vegetation and fauna may be quite different on

2

have been based around the construction of such charts (e.g. Rowlands 1976: Green 1980). Presentation of data in this manner has been made in various ways; by comparing a number of artefact or monument types, or against a backdrop of geology, drainage or vegetation types, actual or predicted; or by constructing contours or isolines (e.g. Birks et al 1975: Cummings 1979) to demonstrate links or levels of activity as well as differences between certain areas, or simply of one type of artefact in order to reveal the position of clusters of interesting material.

sheep with an early bite of grass (McOmish et al 2002). Following the work of Chisholm (1968), Sherratt applied these ideas to a Neolithic context, pointing out the advantages of sedentary settlement to a community engaged in agriculture, where the more labour intensive activities were located closest to the settlement (Sherrat 1972). One could also apply similar ideas to the location of ancient 'industrial' monuments such as flint or copper mines, quern quarries, or pottery production. The work of Alfred Weber in 1909 and others divided such resources into two (Friedrich 1929). Minerals themselves only occur in certain places, while wood, water and similar resources occur over wider areas, essentially the distinction being between materials that were more or less mobile. Manufactories that developed and transformed these into useable goods would be placed at points where the least outlay in transport and labour costs occurred and where other industries might be linked for mutual benefit. Here too, such ideas might be modified in the light of actual human behaviour which may prefer, for example, to utilise an easily accessible flint source of poor quality in preference to flint that requires a great investment of energy to extract.

The analysis of land-use has generally focussed on economic factors, and the importance of this to archaeology should not be understated. Clarke's demonstration of the potential of estuarine and riverside habitats in the Mesolithic based on the potential availability of resources, or the assessments by Mellars and Rheinhardt (1978) of tool-type use on differing geological deposits, for example, changed perceptions at a time when site distribution merely emphasised the major use of dry forest or lake edges. Formerly, it was the need to examine such use of the land in a methodical manner that first led to the development of Isolated State Theory by Johann Heinrich Von Thunen in 1826 (Hall 1966) and ultimately to Central-Place Theory by Walter Christaller, a human geographer, in 1933. Central Place Theory, in particular, was adopted widely within archaeology and much of this had Von Thunen's theory of The Isolated State, or adaptations of it (e.g. Wolpert 1964), at its core. Von Thunen suggested that certain predictable factors influenced the nature of agricultural production and introduced the concept of a central settlement or 'isolated state' to which the intensity and use of the surrounding land could be related. As applied to prehistoric settlement this might incorporate the type and amount of produce needed to sustain the settlement, the nature of transportation i.e. whether traction was to hand or crops had to be carried manually from the field to the settlement, together with the incentive for each land holder to make the maximum economic use of the available land. Thus the immediate environs around a settlement might be used for milk production and growing vegetables because of the necessity of frequent visits to and from the fields, crops cultivated along the flood plain terraces, wooded zones for firewood beyond, fallow cropping and pasture beyond that and livestock farming at a distance. This sort of analysis had its basis in post-medieval systems of land-use and agriculture and, with variations, can certainly be applied to the agrarian regimes of that time on the chalk where, for example, the amount of land that could be cultivated was directly proportional to the number of sheep that could be pastured. The sheep being kept at a distance from the settlement but brought close by, to be folded and manure the cultivated fields at night. Pressure to enlarge areas of cultivation, leading to a need for a greater amount of pasture and, of course, manure, ultimately led to the innovation of water meadow construction to provide

Christaller's Central Place Theory helped to explain the spatial distribution of towns and their size and frequency in relation to their smaller satellite settlements, by accounting for the services provided by each for the other at, for example, markets. Applied to archaeology, the distribution of Early Dynastic settlements in Egypt was predicted and in the United Kingdom monuments such as hillforts were considered to represent locations from which such services might be provided. Territorial limits could be suggested by drawing hexagonal boundaries around them (e.g. Johnson 1972: Grant 1986). One of the most frequent methods of assessing the resource base has been Site Catchment Analysis whereby concentric rings are drawn, radiating at say 1km, 5km and 10km, around a site, (Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970: Jarman 1972: Jarman et al 1972) and the natural resources and other archaeological evidence analysed to infer economic potential. Much of this was based on the work of M. Chisholm (1968) on the relationship of distance and resources to settlement, coupled with influential studies that had taken place among the !Kung Bushmen (e.g. Lee 1967: Marshall 1970), which indicated that critical thresholds were appropriate for time spent travelling to conduct certain activities, such as cultivation or hunting. Like earlier methods of economic analysis, the original ideas were adapted and developed and indeed widely used (e.g. Ellison and Harriss 1972). Such studies continue to be used as a method of commenting on the resources available around a site (e.g. Sargent 2001). Application of these ideas invariably focuses on a prominent archaeological site, a hillfort or causewayed

3

enclosure, which is then treated as a central settlement; an important place with appropriate economic needs and implications. As a result these pieces of land are seen as of greater importance than others. In essence they are emphasised as places. Much of the world – fields, woods, hunting grounds - is left as something out there, worth little study in its own right or on its own terms. In contrast, this study starts from the view that all of the land was of equal importance – and it is simply that parts of it might have been used in different ways.

of, for example, the gunflint industry, might easily tip the results away from those predicted. Such variation is particularly applicable within prehistory. Isaac (1981), for example, indicated how Palaeolithic hunter/gatherers might continue to revisit places such as a favoured fruit tree; association with the place being reinforced at each visit not only by the continuing experience of the desirable fruit, but also by still visible surface traces of past visits. It is this repetition that is most visible archaeologically as patterns of activity (Binford 1982, 6). However, the task must not simply be to establish an archaeological presence, but to determine why that particular piece of land attracted repeated visits.

The idea of characterisation of land has been with us for a while now. The new agriculturists of the late 18th and 19th centuries (e.g. Davis 1811: Young 1813: Stevenson 1815) were aware of many of the important features that conditioned optimum use of land and made recommendations according to the nature of the available land. The Land Utilisation studies of the 1940s also provided some indication about character, although on quite a broad scale. They tended to take soil types, aspect and climate into account; the aim being to characterise the potentially available land for growing food during times of national emergency. None of these took individual topographic features into account, nor could they do at the scale at which the investigation took place.

New approaches, using phenomenology for example, recognising that experience and observation of a locale will influence how it is perceived (Tilley 1994), have been intriguing and useful developments, and the publication of diaries to record feelings and emotions about the land rather novel (Bender et al 1997), but there remains a tendency to be constrained and proscribed by 17th-20th century countryside paraphernalia, fences, hedges, pathways, all the while conditioned by a full stomach, a flask of coffee, a pocketful of chocolate bars, and warmed by fleece and cagoul. One does not here experience the interface of human nature with our world, with the animals and plants we share it with, or its elements - what some may describe romantically as the spirit of the land. Nor is experience in fieldwork necessarily recurrent (Bradley 2003).

C Taylor, however, pointed to deficiencies in these methods and outlined the most serious problem in studying land-use as one of archaeological bias created by variable intensity of fieldwork. He went further and emphasised the difference in archaeological survival in those agriculturally productive areas that have been continually farmed, compared to areas of marginal ground that were only brought into cultivation from time to time; the former being termed the zone of destruction and the latter the zone of survival (Taylor 1972). Layers of agricultural activity could easily be traced in more marginal areas, such as the chalk, where preservation was often so good that ridge and furrow could often be observed to overlie 'Celtic' fields; a palimpsest of multiperiod earthworks. In a similar manner, the more intense ridge and furrow of the 'champagne' soils of the Midlands is likely to mask earlier activity. In the south, by contrast, evidence of agriculturally based prehistoric settlement on the more productive soils is likely to have been levelled by cultivation long ago.

The early archaeological perspective of ancient peoples has often reflected the contemporary accounts of travellers and explorers. Hunters and gatherers, first often considered as miserable savages, in turn became noble figures, and then exemplars of how to live in harmony with nature (Ingold 2000: Schama 1996). Thurnam (1869), for example, utilised accounts of American Indian sacrificial practices in his interpretations of cleft skulls found in long barrows. More recently there have been attempts to understand non-western societies on their own terms. Observations and reports of anthropologists certainly make it abundantly clear that perception of landforms by indigenous people across the globe differ markedly from those of Industrial Age Europeans (Ingold 2000: Hirsh and O'Hanlon 1995: Tilley 1994: Carmichael et al 1994: Kelley and Francis 1994). Of course, no one example will provide a secure parallel for what took place in prehistory, but we might be able to obtain a kind of general overview; an idea of the trends that might have prevailed, and as such come a little closer to being able to interpret individual archaeological sites as well as their wider context. We can be sure that the prehistoric people of southern England did not adhere to the Christian and commercial values of Western society and the only method of obtaining insight into former perspectives on the land is to 'jettison our own cultural baggage' and to run with these accounts.

Anthropology and human behaviour In great part, the foregoing methods of analysis reflect the social systems of 19th and 20th century laissez-faire capitalism and in general they all assume that given ideal economic conditions individuals will respond to commercial pressures in a similar manner. In practice, however, human values and ambitions differ widely and land may be used in other ways out of tradition; or greater distances may be travelled out of family, political or feudal loyalty; or factors such as government sponsorship

4

In recent times both archaeological and anthropological writing has begun to address these points and there has been an increasing recognition that parts of the land, and indeed all of it, might have been perceived very differently before the Christian era (e.g. essays in Carmichael et al 1994: Hirsch and O'Hanlon 1995; and in Ashmore and Knapp 1999: Bradley 1996; 2000). Already there has been recognition that certain funerary and ceremonial monuments tended to cluster together and that certain monuments could lie on the sites of others – the locations being foci of activity over considerable periods of time (Bradley 1993; 2002: essays in Bradley and Williams 1998). But now ideas of the sacredness of much of the landmass have begun to emerge, and with it a twofold division of the land: the mundane, that is the everyday settlements, non sacred lands, fields and their economic environment (e.g. Barnes 1999, 103); and the sacred, perhaps incorporating those 'built' ceremonial and burial monuments of the 'ritual landscape', but also taking into account natural features, places with spiritual and symbolic meaning. The importance of these latter places, mountains, springs and caves is now seen as an important counterbalance to the archaeology of the built environment (Bradley 2000a).

features: natural features, important in the interpretation of how the countryside was used. This is the Conceptualised Landscape; a landscape that is not built and perhaps unmarked, but which includes natural features that contain cultural or sacred meanings; places such as mountains, bogs, lakes and caves (ibid 11). Ideational Landscapes on the other hand are holistic and subsume both of these categories, and not only the visible features, for they are essentially landscapes of perception, landscapes of the mind, incorporating sacred belief, mythology and memory, where certain physical or spiritual events that take place are as important as the places themselves (ibid 12). Although this terminology might sound a little confusing, and the latter category has both supporters and critics (Van Dommelen 1999, 281: Barnes 1999, 101), whatever its drawbacks it is essentially the Ideational, a complete view of land, that needs to be considered. Thus this study incorporates the whole of the land. It includes the Constructed, the well-known built prehistoric landscape of central southern England: the monuments such as barrows, causewayed enclosures and henges as well as evidence of, perhaps transient, activity marked by flint scatters or certain chance finds. It incorporates the Conceptualised Landscape, in this case perhaps, the well known landforms such as the Higher Chalk with its dramatic coombes and escarpments, or prominent outcrops by the coast, but it also focuses on the Ideational nature of the landscape, perhaps the most difficult of all to identify, and the one which must incorporate the accumulated but changing perceptions of the land at any point in time – the barrow cemetery, for example, only part constructed, will be thought of differently to the same cemetery after a hundred years of accumulated burial.

Exactly how much of the land might be considered sacred is something of a problem, as is the very nature of the term 'sacredness'. We are now familiar with the concept that striking landforms, Uluru (Ayers Rock), in Australia, for example, might be considered as such, or even large pieces of topography such as the Black Hills of Dakota, but invariably there are indications among anthropological literature that the whole of the land, the very earth, was considered sacred (e.g. Kelley and Francis 1994: Brady and Ashmore 1999, 126). Such perspectives regarding the landmass may be less helpful when studying it, as during the kind of time period under review, perceptions about the land may have changed considerably. Indeed, there may be competing contemporary perceptions, the land being simultaneously viewed in different ways and perhaps argued over by different groups of people (Van Dommelen 1999, 281). Neither does it allow for the possibility that some land might not be sacred.

Notwithstanding the tendency to consider the whole of the land as sacred, some places nevertheless appear to be more sacred than others, that is, they may have been directly related to the spirit world in one way or another (Bradley 2000a). Consistently there appears to be a suite of such places that incorporate mountains, hills, caves, prominent outcrops, gorges, and other striking visual features. Water bodies too feature prominently, particularly springs, but also lakes and rivers (e.g. van de Guchte 1999, 154). These features are considered liminal, sometimes literally, but more often metaphysically. Either way, such places might be considered as interfaces between the spirit and human worlds, where upper and underworld meet the living, either because of their height and thus closeness to the sky, or because of the way that they lead into, erupt from, or provide entry to the ground (Crumley 1999, 274). Tacon (1999, 38) goes on to record how, in Australia, some such places are so highly symbolically charged that only certain individuals are qualified to visit them and how rituals, ceremonies and painting of rocks 'allow individuals to tap into the power'

In their introductory essay to an important volume of essays on Archaeologies of Landscape, Ashmore and Knapp (1999) encapsulate many of these ideas and identify three topographies termed by them, Constructed Landscapes, Conceptualised Landscapes and Ideational Landscapes. The first of these, Constructed Landscapes are essentially those physically created by people, and incorporate settlements, base camps, and ceremonial and funereal monuments (ibid 10); the features elsewhere described or referred to as the built environment. A Bernard Knapp (1999, 231) points out, however, that in the past exclusive study of these landscapes has effectively excluded a whole range of other landscape

5

of such places. These though, are only the permanent features of nature that can be identified and we are reminded that exceptionally large trees or other vegetal features might have also been perceived in a similar way (van de Guchte 1999, 154). Broadly these landforms might be divided into four (Tacon 1999, 37), a) formations resulting from high energy transformation such as mountains, volcanoes, gorges b), natural boundaries of obvious change such as interfaces between forest and grassland, drainage, or dramatic changes in height c), unusual features such as caves, tors or prominent outcrops and d), viewpoints, places providing a panoramic vista.

for shrines and ceremonies and, like sacred mountains, are often considered central to origin and creation myths (Brady and Ashmore 1999, 126-7: Layton 1995, 217, 227: Humphrey 1995,149). Water too, plays a central role. Important as a life giving force, inexplicably appearing out of the sky as rain, out of the ground as springs, and possessing enormous physical power in currents and tides. Even now in some parts of the world rivers are sacred, the Ganges being the supreme example. The deposition of prehistoric artefacts from the Mesolithic onwards in, for example, the River Thames (Bradley 1990: Adkins and Jackson 1978: Ehrenburg 1980: Needham and Burgess 1980: Field and Cotton 1987: Field 1989) carries some implication of sacred association. Springs, like mountains, are almost universally considered places of sacred significance (e.g. Snead and Preucel 1999, 190: Bradley 2000a). There are further implications. Bodies of water, especially pools, can act as mirrors and become 'symbols of shamanic power ' (Brady and Ashmore 1999, 137).

As elsewhere, topographic features in the south of England that stand out as strikingly different from the usual might have quickly attained mythological value beyond the strictly utilitarian. It might be possible to investigate such natural sites and compare them with known archaeological data in order to consider their potential significance. Here this might apply to the steep escarpments or deeply incised coombes of the chalk, or the dramatic cliffs, prominent stacks and headlands, or the caves that they harbour, situated along the coast. Tacon (1999, 37), for example, noted how individuals often respond to some features with exclamations of awe and respect concerning the beauty and power of such places. I can certainly remember as a child being struck in this way as I regularly approached the dramatic South Downs escarpment from across the Weald. The feature invited one to stop and explore, to experience the landform itself, not simply appeciate any view that could be seen from its summit. The white scars left by former quarries or landslips made it doubly mysterious and fascinating and gave it a past worthy of investigation.

In any piece of topography such places, potentially of sacred significance, might in general, be easily identified and ring-fenced. Beyond them and the mundane settlement, however, there remain large areas of ground with no archaeological signature. The anthropological literature suggests that the boundary between sacred and mundane sites may be marked by important trees, boulders, isolated shrines, all known by the stories that become attached to them. These markers help to provide a sense of direction, they provide order in the world, a cosmos with cardinal points and limits (Snead and Preucel 1999, 190-1). Within the forests of Siberia, for example, Jordan (2001, 94) graphically describes a site where an elk was hunted and despatched and a fragment of fur cut from its throat hung was on nearby trees in order to inform the spirit that the animal has been killed. Similarly carvings are made on trees when a bear is killed. Thus the land is liberally labelled to passers by and such signs indicate the importance of certain locales and help to fill blank areas on the map between places of greater significance.

From the Americas to Asia, mountains are almost universally considered sacred features. Where mountains are in short supply dramatic hills will do. Sometimes they might bound the cosmos (e.g. Tilley 1994), though in other cases they might be at its heart. Early Hindu and Buddhist cosmography, for example, revolves around a mountain situated at the centre of the world, which in turn is surrounded by seven other mountain ranges interspersed with metaphysical oceans (Barnes 1999, 113, 119). In Asia in particular, mountains are considered to be sanctuaries for those seeking enlightenment or spiritual powers and have been the venue of pilgrimages. Individuals might even have personal relationships with certain mountains (Humphrey 1995, 137).

Over the time span considered in this study, these perceptions of land can never at once have been all embracing, but constantly changing with the ebb and flow of human life. Families or groups will in any case always perceive the land in slightly different ways according to their own personal experiences; where they have travelled; the stories that they have heard and the ceremonies with which they have been educated (Snead and Preucel 1999, 173). Stress amongst tribal groups or as a result of economic pressure may even result in a change of perceptions over a single generation as the old ways rapidly become legend. Jordan (2001, 83) points out that cultural meanings are 'never fixed' even to contemporary groups of people, and different individuals

Caves too are significant and seen as interfaces or entries into the interior of mountains, or to the earth in general, where supernatural elements dwell, or where ancestral beings are thought to have emerged, being particularly important in terms of interrelationships with the spirit world. (Van de Guchte 1999, 155). Such features are invariably considered extremely fecund, and used as foci

6

might view places differently according to their experience, even to the extent of quarrelling over or contesting the nature of certain places. The process of continually changing cultural influence on the physical environment and its culmination of layers of symbolic labels he describes as landscape enculturation (ibid 83). Importantly, Jordan's study (2001, 91) points to three interrelated components: that of the living - the mundane; the sacred – the world of the spirits of the natural world; and that of cemeteries or burial places inhabited by ancestral spirits.

respected. In the Amazon, for example, such places continued to be considered the work of the original makers until the memory was completely lost (Gow 1995, 49). Equally, old garden sites and settlements in Fiji are identified from the nature of the vegetation and earthwork remains. They are considered dangerous places and avoided (Toren 1995, 165-6). Dangers from the forest, therefore, were not only physical, but spiritual too, though respectful engagement with the spirits of animals and environment may have ensured a comfortable existence and the forest itself need not have been hostile. A process of transformation of the forest, modification through burning, utilisation of timber, etc enabled new relationships, both with nature and the spirits, and with time certain events might become legend. In Australia, for example, where '….The ancestral women cut down trees in the inland forests as they looked for honey….where the trees fell they created water courses and lakes, or ceremonial grounds, or stone spear quarries…' (Morphy 1995, 184).

Forest dweller Assuming the closed canopy forested environment of the literature during the Mesolithic (but see Chapter 3 below), perception of the land of central southern England is likely to have provided a markedly different experience to that of later farmers. Along with darkness and short days, essentially the world must have been one of trees, of short vistas, of high horizons, when, that is, such a horizon was visible. At no time could the full extent of the land be seen and the map of the world would be held only in the mind. Writing of Amazonia, Gow (1995, 43) recorded how visibility is quite limited among the trees and, although a little better along rivers where the canopy was broken, even there no distant horizon was visible. Occasionally, especially on the hillsides, the cover might be broken and Bloch (1995, 65) recorded how at such places there was a tendency to stop and appreciate the view and discuss the map revealed. Gow (1995, 59) emphasised how familiarity with the forest is obtained by moving through it, by observing the signs of earlier human activity and by listening to the stories and accounts of that activity. Restricted vision might result in an enhanced importance on other sensory abilities such as hearing, and Gell (1995, 240-1) describes how the forest of Papua New Guinea is perceived as a soundscape by the Umeda.

Hunting/gathering economy need not imply a nomadic lifestyle (c.f. Rowley-Conwy 1983; 1984). The resources of river valleys and estuaries, might encourage more activity about certain places, and Jordan (2001, 91-2) emphasised how semi-nomadic lifestyles can be usefully based on the resources of a river basin (using predictable fish migration, gathering etc). Seasonal movement takes place from riverside base camps to winter hunting hides (2001, 91-2) within the forest. Such a system has echoes of transhumance and of the medieval agricultural regime that so depended on pastoral use of the landscape. Jordan's map depicts a) huts alongside the river, that is the settlement of living, b) sacred sites both c 600m up and downstream and c) settlement of the dead at a similar distance but set back a little from the river. Beyond that the hunting territory extended perhaps 40km either side of the river; one side of the river for early winter and the other for late winter hunting. The forest around the sacred sites was not exploited as it was considered to belong exclusively to the spirits and thus movement of people was channelled along certain corridors in order to avoid those areas. Sacred and burial sites themselves could only be entered on certain defined occasions and along approved paths. Together they formed a considerable component, some 10% of the land available to the community and provided an accepted and wellunderstood infrastructure of places and trails all linked by associated sounds and smells that formed the world.

For those that live within the forest, legend, belief and tradition are likely to focus more centrally on wood and trees, the central features of their lives. Jordan (2001, 94), for example, indicated that success in hunting only resulted from the cultivation of good relationships with the spirits of the forest. Thus offerings were left on trees or on stones when people were out on hunting expeditions. The forest may be considerably modified, becoming a complex mosaic of vegetation at different stages of regeneration, of natural and cultural signals respecting a multitude of spirits and taboos. Even in a closed canopy environment it may be wrong to think in terms of lack of variation. Areas of clearance and settlement even when overgrown and long forgotten would easily be recognisable from the secondary vegetation and cultural debris and consequently

Open land The economic nature of the greater part of subsistence during the 4th millennium BC is far from clear. With little direct evidence for the construction of gardens, the

7

emphasis is largely placed on a pastoral economy with an assumption of considerable movement in order to find new pastures. This may, of course, simply have been a continuation of the activities that had taken place during previous millennia. Movement through the land would certainly provide continuing knowledge of it. But it is the nature of the vegetation cover as much as this movement that might create different perceptions. Pastoral nomads need open territory. Indications of an open landscape on the chalk around Stonehenge early in the 4th millennium as well as early in the 2nd millennium BC suggest that there, at least, pastoral activity was intensive enough to keep tree regeneration at bay, while there is some recognition that the downland on Cranborne Chase may not have supported the closed woodland formerly imagined (French et al 2003). It is a great and possibly dangerous leap to assume that the whole of the landscape was like that, but in order to compare extremes it might be worth pursuing the matter. In an open landscape the world seems very different. One can view the horizon for 360º and obtain a perception of the extent of the land. For those on the move the world can be perceived as a shifting dome and there are many reference points of similar value (e.g. Layton 1995, 229: Humphrey 1995, 135, 141). Writing of Mongolian nomads, Humphrey (ibid 142) emphasised the degree of interaction with the land involved in everyday life and that 'energies far greater than the human' were involved in the relationship. Even though wide open spaces were preferred to narrow valleys, small subtle features, low hills and shallow pools all contained spiritual powers. There it was considered anathema to disturb the harmony of the landscape and codes of conduct determined against moving stones, or interfering with the ground, or nature in any way so that the powerful energies of nature were left to work in harmony.

owner. How sedentary farmers approached a land already full of the remains of old sites, each with layers of significance, is far from clear. Thus even a piece of cultivated land will continue to contain a mosaic of inherited meanings, sacred, taboo, and so on. The farming land is one of familiarity, it provides comfort and the impression of permanence (Snead and Preucel 1999, 172: Bloch 1995). Names affectionately given to fields treat them as places, and the construction of fields themselves might be considered as the 'complete merger of the human and natural' (Bloch 1995), effectively domesticating the material world. Thus the built environment, fields and villages, might reflect cosmological models in order to assist in legitimising the process (Snead and Preucel (1999, 172).

The study Landforms From the above it has become clear that one restriction in the study of 'landscape' archaeology is the continued focus on 'archaeological sites'. The discipline of course attempts to put such sites within some context, but frequently fails, sometimes because of the very lack of other such sites nearby, thereby leaving negative areas, as they are sometimes called. Reasons for such negative responses could be multiple even if the usual archaeological biases are taken into account, but we might observe such identifiable topographical features as, say, unusually prominent hills situated in a flat landscape, or an isolated spring, without archaeological evidence and ask why such evidence is lacking. The situation is even more pointed when one considers that a rock 50m away with artefacts behind it may be perfectly placed to observe animals drinking at the spring (Dunn pers comm), or that funeral monuments are placed around the base of the hill and it maybe that the hill itself is devoid of obvious archaeology because it was too sacred a place to defile. Failure to address such 'negative areas' may significantly impede progress in the search for ancient maps. The new task then must be to investigate complete landforms rather than rigidly assessing sites by themselves.

Such pastoralism evidently required large ranges and depended on great expanses of unmanaged grasslands. Quoting Kazekevich, Humphrey (1995, 144) indicated how a radius of some 25km around a camp is required and that movement between camps might be of the order of 50km. The nomad world extended to a distance of about 150km. Farmer The world of the sedentary farmer is very different. For one thing it is fixed (Layton 1995, 229). Restricted to a defined piece of land and probably limited by neighbours that confine movement beyond the boundary, the emphasis must be on greater economic use of the land. Full of meaning even if memory of events is lost, there will be recognition, perhaps an archaeological one, of ancient artefacts and vegetation at certain points in the locality, a constant reminder that the land is simply being cared for and the incumbent is custodian, rather than

One problem occurs in how to characterise chosen pieces of landform. It cannot be merely a matter of size, of five or ten km circles radiating around a site or natural feature. Some natural features, hills for example, are larger than others, and sometimes reach sinusoidally in awkward directions. Any method needs to be flexible in order to accommodate the vagaries of nature. However, a further problem concerns the different types of evidence available. For anything earlier than the 4th millennium BC there are no monuments and a restricted amount of

8

cultural debris to utilise, whereas for the later periods monuments are so ubiquitous that it would be churlish to ignore them. This study, therefore, will incorporate a varied approach according to the nature of the evidence available and, although this may not be comparing like with like, it will instead be able to address the problems and disparities thrown up by these different types of evidence.

poses problems of interpretation, in that their position on land considered marginal for agricultural purposes during the last two millennia allows the possibility that such sites are by no means typical of settlement or the social fabric of their time. They may of course represent just the tip of an iceberg leaving many similar monuments to be detected elsewhere, or may be representative of certain monument types, for example, reserved ceremonial or burial areas at the expense of, say, settlement or defended sites.

The region

The accounts of 18th and 19th century travellers, such as Defoe (1724-6) or Cobbett (1830), committed to paper as they moved through the chalklands, indicate how wild these areas were considered to be. In addition, illustrations by early antiquaries such as William Stukeley (e.g. his Prospect of Heddington) depict how, in contrast to the cooler, windier, Higher Downs, the warmer vales were extensively cultivated right to the foot of the chalk scarps. Not until improving agriculturists such as T Davis (1811), A Young (1813) and W Stevenson (1815) actively encouraged entrepreneurial farmers to set up on and cultivate the Higher Downs, or the economic stimuli of the Napoleonic Wars, was there significant activity. The fact that the downs were used so extensively during prehistory, and the 'Celtic' fields do suggest widespread cultivation on them, would indicate some special need to do so unmatched until this recent conflict. Indeed it may be possible to explain the extensive Romano-British presence in this way, as agricultural over-stretching in order to provide surplus for export and to feed Roman armies.

Central southern England, the area known to many as Wessex, played an enormous role in British archaeology during the 20th century. The region not only harbours the great internationally known prehistoric monuments of Stonehenge and Avebury, but a great many other extant sites as well. The chalk downs of Wiltshire, Dorset and Sussex, in particular figure prominently, supporting literally hundreds of burial mounds, hectares of ancient fields, and many earthwork hillforts: no wonder that it has attracted considerable archaeological attention. Until recently, and perhaps more so than later archaeological periods, consideration of the archaeology of the 5th to 2nd millennium BC in central southern England has focussed, with a few exceptions, almost exclusively upon the earthwork monuments that lie extant across the chalk downs. This is not surprising as such sites provide ideal opportunities for considering spatial and chronological relationships of both settlement and ceremonial activities. In addition, some 200 years after the work of prominent antiquaries such as William Cunnington and Richard Colt Hoare, the artefacts from their investigations still provide a rich storehouse of fruitful research. The very presence of such sites has encouraged a cyclical pattern of research, where one could be certain of dramatic and positive results, and which in turn provide a catalyst for further activity.

Of course, that such use was made of marginal land implies that more easily cultivated land, the loams of the warmer, more sheltered lower ground was also heavily cultivated. Should historic patterns of cultivation, that is, of agriculture dependant on environmental variables, have been similar during prehistory, then it would imply considerable, if not greater, use of parts of central southern England other than the chalk. There is, of course, some supporting evidence for this. Distribution of artefacts has long been considered to contrast with that of extant monuments. The importance of the distribution maps of flint, stone and bronze tools prepared by Fox (1947), Clark (1929) and Burgess (1968), for example, is that they force one to confront the dichotomy between the clusters of tools in the middle and lower Thames Valley with their almost complete absence in Wessex. Given the extensive archaeological work on the Wessex monuments and the almost complete lack of similar research elsewhere, all things being equal one might expect the reverse. Recent work on artefacts, both in the Thames Valley (e.g. Bradley 1990: Needham and Burgess 1980: Field and Cotton 1987) and in the south generally (Rowlands 1976: Gardiner 1984) has only served to confirm the importance of these low-lying areas relative to the Chalk, while long-levelled sites are being increasingly recognised and sometimes excavated e.g.

The emphasis has given rise to cultures – the Windmill Hill culture, and the Wessex Culture, explanations of prehistoric phenomena that between them have reinforced the view of Wessex as a coherent political and geographical unit. While it is clear what most authorities mean by use of the term Wessex, when challenged it is more difficult to apply boundaries, and modern use appears to result from Hardy's use of the term to provide geographical definition to his novels (Pelham 1964, 169). Recent multi-period field survey by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England on Salisbury Plain, a piece of topography central to the Wessex idea has, however, indicated that while such monuments do indeed provide a remarkable opportunity for spatial analysis, their existence is purely a result of their location on higher downland, at a distance from the destructive nature of Medieval and later settlement and agriculture (McOmish et al 2002). Their very survival

9

Neolithic sites at Orsett (Hedges and Buckley 1978), Runnymede (Needham 1985) and Eton Rowing Lake (Allen 2004).

Numerous strands of evidence therefore need to be assimilated in order to make sense of ancient land-use. In terms of chronology there must be some restriction, for it would be easy to be too open ended, stretching evidence too thinly as well as over-emphasising bias by concentrating on points in time where the evidence may be strongest. The aim of the study is to focus on the period of time that led to recognisable organised systems of agriculture in the landscape, that which is now almost a transitional period between what is usually considered a hunter-gathering lifestyle and the large scale engraving of 'Celtic' fields. The latter use of the land, being close to that which we might recognise today.

Such patterns are not restricted to the Thames Valley. On the contrary, they appear to be quite widespread. Woodward's (1978) important study of ring-ditches along the floodplain of the River Ouse emphasised the potential, while, in the south, chance finds around the mouth of the River Avon (Calkin 1962; 1964: Gardiner in Cunliffe 1997), together with the result of excavations of levelled sites in the same area, e.g. Latch Farm (Piggott, C M 1938) and Holdenhurst long barrow (Piggott, S 1937), indicate that similar processes may be at work there too. Importantly, Bradley (1980) brought together these separate strands in an essay on the Bronze Age in Wessex and the Thames Valley, in doing so emphasising the importance of studying social patterns in contrast to providing economically determined solutions. Indeed, he was able to utilise the Middle and Late Bronze Age data to propose a system of Wessex as core area with a buffer zone in the Thames Valley, the importance of the latter zone increasing through time until it eventually supplanted the dominance of Wessex. Whether such patterns could be observed for earlier periods and whether they are part of the ebb and flow of relations between periphery and hinterland throughout prehistory is still not clear. Certainly there are hints in the archaeological data; the distribution of flint tools in relation to metal ones would provide enough scope for study, for ultimately it is this dynamic relationship with which this investigation is concerned.

Historical background Study of the archaeological landscape in Wessex has a fine pedigree within the history of archaeology and the description of sites figure amongst the earliest of archaeological writing. The region has been served by innumerable surveyors, diarists, antiquaries and topographers, who invariably preferred to comment on the areas of potential interest to other commercial travellers. Even John Leland journeying west to east through the region, commented that the chalk around Cranborne, Salisbury and between Andover, Romsey and Winchester was 'champayn', unenclosed and 'barren of wodde' and rarely mentioned the fine prehistoric monuments that covered parts of the then uncultivated downs. He passed Maiden Castle without comment and referred only briefly to Badbury Rings and Old Sarum. The Coastal Plain he considered more varied, the wooded and often enclosed area between Winchester and Southampton being thought 'more appropriate for breeding of cattle', in contrast to the Isle of Portsmouth which was said to be 'fruteful of corn' (Toulmin Smith 1964, 254-285). These evidently early enclosures of the valleys and Coastal Plain provide some indication of the intensity of use of that area. Similarly, in contrast to Wiltshire, Camden described Hampshire as 'abounding with corn', although he also commented on the heathland in the New Forest and Purbeck, the latter 'full of stags and red deer' (Camden 1607, 60, 129, 165). He noted, however, that while some forest may have formerly existed in the area, the nature of much of it was artificially created, the 'Conqueror took away the ground from God and man to dedicate it to wild beasts and the sport of dogs; in which he destroyed 36 mother churches' (Camden 1607, 166). Like Leland, Camden only referred to the foremost of monuments, dwelling chiefly on sites such as Maiden Castle and Stonehenge (although later additions of his work e.g. that of Gough 1806 provide a slightly more comprehensive inventory, describing for example the discovery in 1767 of the Wessex type material in Stobarrow, Dorset (Chapter 6 below)).

This study, then, takes as its spatial zone of interest the drainage pattern of the Solent Basin, a region with its own characteristics formed essentially prior to the final glaciation by the enormous influence, the movement, deposition, and erosion, of the palaeo river Solent. Today, as throughout the Holocene, the water tables of Salisbury Plain, and allied areas, Cranborne Chase and the Hampshire Downs, provide the heart of the system and feed the major arteries that ultimately issue into the sheltered waters of the Solent and the English Channel. As previously mentioned, the downland of these areas has been well studied, the extant monuments mapped, excavated, re-excavated and re-studied. In contrast, the lower ground to the south, the sands and clays, gravel and mud spreads have seen less investigation and for comparative purposes it is in these areas that resources need to be marshalled. The south coast itself is intensely utilised, in places densely redeveloped. The role of the natural harbours in the modern economy, together with unrivalled opportunities for recreation and tourism along the coast, mean that it has never been easy to study the surface of the land in the way that one could the chalk. In addition, the natural process of erosion has ensured that the configuration of the coastline remains dynamic.

10

In contrast, Aubrey's notes of encounters made between about 1665 and 1693 are liberally splashed with references to the earthworks of Wiltshire, Dorset, Hampshire and Sussex (Fowles ed 1980). In addition to extensive comments about Stonehenge, he noted, for example, that both Badbury Rings and Maiden Castle were situated at springs (ibid 368-71), while at Whitebarrow, Tilshead, he astutely noted that the long barrow was associated with a linear ditch (ibid 894-5). He recorded that the standing stones at Nine Stones stone circle were placed in order of ascending height (ibid 7201), while on Cranborne Chase reported that the downs there were covered in barrows, noting the presence of 100 between Woodyates and Blandford alone and among the nineteen at Oakley Down 'two or three circular trenches with a little tump or two' that he thought must be for burning corpses (Fowles ed 1980, 532-3).

spatial as well as stratigraphical data. As Augustus LaneFox, he investigated the 'camps' on the summits of the South Downs and described them as 'hillforts' of the Britons. His excavations at the flint mines of Cissbury were particularly important in demonstrating the enormous antiquity of some of the earthworks and also isolating an important resource of the Neolithic period (Lane-Fox 1869a, b and c; 1876). Subsequent work on Cranborne Chase in Dorset concentrated on Roman and Iron Age settlement, but also featured excavation of round and long barrows along with Bronze Age enclosures (Pitt-Rivers 1887). Concerned with the rate at which earthworks were disappearing during the decade before World War I, the Society of Antiquaries established an Earthworks Committee and recommended that earthworks in all counties be recorded as quickly as possible. This encouraged a period of recording by Hadrian Allcroft in Sussex and Williams Freeman in Hampshire, and others such as the Rev Downman, whose plans were sometimes used by the Victoria County Histories (Pattison et al 1999, xi-xii). The early work of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments was also site based, and indeed most earthworks were left to the Ordnance Survey to depict until after World War II, when a major effort by the former organisation was established in Dorset. Significant earthwork complexes were then analysed and the importance of investigating the wider topography demonstrated by the sheer extent of the 'Celtic' field systems recorded.

Stukeley's observations (1724; 1740; 1743; 1776: also Mortimer 2003) concerning Stonehenge and its environs were extensive. However, much of his work was on the wider downland, from Dorchester to Sussex and, in particular, he provided a plan of the Roman Road cutting through Oakley Down barrow cemetery. In a world devoid of Ordnance Survey maps his pen sketches of the landscape around Avebury were unique. In an effort to depict the relationship of topography and archaeology they were among the first to re-construct the form of the land on paper (Fig 1:2). This was no mean task and his surveys, interpretations and reconstruction drawings remained influential (e.g. Peterson 2003).

Inventories of earthworks on Cranborne Chase and on the sands and gravels of the New Forest were compiled by Heywood Sumner and many local sites were surveyed and illustrated by him. Amongst them are plans of Hambledon Hill and Knowlton Rings, though he was careful to relate monuments to their surroundings. He not only surveyed large areas of linear ditches and other works around, for example, Gussage Down, but prepared the only survey that marked the position of a spring at Oakley Down (Fig 1:4) (Sumner 1913; 1917).

Of the Cunnington/Hoare archaeological partnership it was Hoare the fieldworker who placed the monuments within their topographical setting (Fig 1:3). Philip Crocker, a surveyor for the Ordnance survey, provided Hoare with accurate depictions of archaeological sites that sometimes covered hectares, placing them on maps that depicted their position in relation to the topography. Among these was the earliest depiction of 'off site' archaeology, including what were later referred to as 'Celtic' fields and linear ditches (Hoare 1810, 32, 84, 106, 108: Ainsworth et al 1999, 1).

Figure 1:2 Stukeley's illustration of the Trundle hillfort, which overlies a caisewayed enclosure, but note his depiction of the countryside as a whole, with what appear to be long established fields extending across the Coastal Plain below, as far as Chichester Harbour in the distance (Stukeley 1776)

Pitt Rivers’ work was a little more site based, but he nevertheless covered huge areas of the south providing

The work of O G S Crawford - not least that from the air - had an enormous impact. Working together with

11

Williams Freeman, photographs taken from air of parts of Hampshire revealed something of the potential extent of 'Celtic' field systems and other monuments (Crawford 1924: 1929), while his air reconnaissance work with A Keiller within 20 miles of Salisbury provided support and notably in the present context, resulted in identification of the long barrow at Fussell's Lodge (Crawford and Keiller 1928, 31). Crawford's influential 'Archaeology in the Field', published in 1953, emphasised the importance of seemingly insignificant parts of the ancient topography, trackways, 'Celtic' fields, linear earthworks, ponds, quern quarries, parks and caves, as well as the, by now familiar, hillforts, settlements and barrows. He established a system of record cards (OS Record Cards) for sites and finds across the UK on which all modern monument records are based. At the same time Hoskins (1955) introduced the idea that the landscape itself, as opposed to archaeological features within it, could be investigated and analysed; that the landscape developed, hedgerows had a history and sequence and that it could be investigated and analysed. In doing so he profoundly influenced the 'landscape archaeologists' that were to follow. Landscape had sequence and depth.

picture. In doing so it takes into account all kinds of evidence. As J Gardiner emphasised in her recommendations for research on the Neolithic in Hampshire, in addition to monuments `..It is vital that the approach encompasses not only artefactual but also ecofactual assemblages …… We need to get away from the narrow focussing of attention on individual sites and consider the broader landscape within which human activity occurred…' (Gardiner 1996, 11). But it is the land itself that will ultimately provide the answers. Herein lies the material in which the manner of subsistence and lifestyle depend. The folds of the land, the shape, form, topography: its composition, rocks and soils: here all have one thing in common: the ancient Solent river. This had enormous influence, being responsible for the drainage pattern and subsequently the topography and soil types right across the area. Its inter-relationship with other natural phenomena such as the climate, not least in the immediate post glacial period was also extremely influential. We will now turn to investigate this in greater detail in order to assess the potential for land-use by human beings.

During the 1970-80's an explosion of relevant literature both academic and popular discussed archaeological sites in Wessex. Looking back on those years Geoffrey Wainwright (2000) described how rescue excavations in Wessex used machinery to clear large areas and revolutionised the investigation of prehistoric sites, while during the same period through the influence of C Taylor and others, 'landscape' archaeology become a subdiscipline. A Matter of Time (RCHME 1960) emphasised just how much archaeology lay waiting to be revealed, Taylor observing that much of the arable land around villages and towns lay in areas long cultivated and forming his Zone of Destruction. Along with his colleagues at the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, Colin Bowen, Desmond Bonney, Peter Fowler, and Isobel Smith and others, he emphasised how whole landscapes could be interpreted without recourse to expensive techniques, as they extended the corpus, investigated and analysed, and described in greater detail the sites first noted by R C Hoare and others. More recently work has concentrated on Cranborne Chase (Barrett et al 1991; Green 2000a: French et al 2003), South Wiltshire (RCHME unpublished) and Salisbury Plain Military Training Area (Bradley et al 1994: McOmish et al 2002). While much, then, is known of the archaeology of parts of central southern England, most of it has been considered in terms of discrete areas, Salisbury Plain, Cranborne Chase, the Stonehenge Environs, or the New Forest. Being part of the same drainage system, all of these zones must interact and to some degree be mutually interdependent. This study attempts to consider the whole region; to put these areas in context. It considers the big

Figure 1:3 Philip Crocker's survey of the area north of Sidbury Hill, Tidworth, Witltshire, depicting archaeological features in relation to each other as well as the landform on which they are located (Hoare 1810).

12

Figure 1:4 Survey by Heywood Sumner of a barrow cemetery, Oakley Down, set within its immediate landform. Note the location of the spring (from Sumner 1913).

13

CHAPTER 2 THE SOLENT BASIN: AN ANCIENT RIVER AND ITS EFFECT ON THE LAND

and this is likely to have affected the recovered archaeology to a considerable degree. On the one hand such developments have obscured landscapes, but on the other they have provided exceptional opportunities for the recovery of chance finds.

Introduction The Solent Basin provides the geographical focus of central southern England. Its geology forms a coherent unit, while its weathered drainage channels have influenced the modern communication pattern. Rarely has the Basin been considered as a complete topographical entity, at least in archaeological literature. Instead, it is invariably divided along political and county boundaries, or into smaller distinct geographical zones - the Chalk Downs, the New Forest, the coast, the Hampshire Basin, the Isle of Wight. Even the chalk rim is usually subdivided, and studied within areas defined by names such as the South Downs, Hampshire Downs, Cranborne Chase and Salisbury Plain.

Resources available for exploitation in the Solent Basin during the 4th to 2nd millennium BC are likely to have been as wide and varied as they are today. However, while little has changed to the basic structure of the land, both natural and anthropogenic factors have ensured that the surface veneer has changed quite considerably. Without doubt, the most radical change has been that of the sea-level. This has risen quite dramatically and engulfed considerable tracts of land along the coast, and it is also likely to have had a consequential effect on the lower reaches of river regimes. Slow deforestation of the land too, whether as a result of human or other factors has played an important role, not least in terms of the resulting soil movement.

Instead of considering such areas in detail, this study aims to set the archaeology into a broader context by disregarding such boundaries, so that archaeological evidence from the whole of the area served by the common drainage can be considered. The Solent Basin, here simply defined as the area of catchment of the ancient Solent River (Fig 2:1), includes those areas found alongside the main path of the former river, the gravel terraces from Wareham to Chichester, as well as those of the former tributaries as far as the chalk watershed to the north. In the south, the full extent of the drainage is uncertain, for much is now underwater, but it certainly includes the tributaries that emanate from the former Wight-Purbeck chalk ridge and the Isle of Wight as a whole has therefore been included. In order to provide a convenient area for mapping, co-ordinates Eastings 365000 and 500000 and Northing 170000 bound the zone in question, leaving an area that stretches along the coast from Weymouth in Dorset as far as the Adur Gap at Lancing in Sussex. Drainage of other river systems that impinge on the area have been excluded from the study in order to provide clarity, although it must be borne in mind that activities relating to these systems will have influenced events on common watersheds.

This chapter will therefore first take account of the solid and drift geology, the soil types that they engender and the vegetation favoured. It will take into account climate within the region, before going on to consider the impact of the rising sea-level and changing coastline. In subsequent chapters, models of prehistoric land-use will be proposed, and the archaeological record trawled for evidence of the exploitation of resources that are likely to exist within the area and, just as importantly, the discussion will highlight where resources outside the area may have been utilised. The structure of the land The rocks found in the study area are all soft, themselves the product of ancient marine or estuarine deposition, and consequently are easily moulded by both water and wind. A silicate, chert (or flint), second hardest to diamond, is present amongst the Cretaceous deposits and in places where the soft parent rock has weathered away, nodules have sometimes become displaced and accumulated as gravel beds some distance from their original position. Its durability not only ensured that it became an attractive medium for early tool manufacture, but also an extremely useful one for archaeological research and much will be made of the flint artefact data here. The rocks, however, provide other useful resources, in particular the sandstone, not only for small tools and quernstones, but also potentially for construction. Even the plastic clays,

Much of the coastline with its variety of beaches and warm climate is extremely well-known, particularly to holiday makers and daytrippers, while certain areas, notably Portsmouth, Southampton, Lymington, Poole, Christchurch, Langstone, Pagham and Chichester provide safe harbours for ships and boats. Comparison of early Ordnance Survey editions makes it clear that some of these coastal areas have become intensively developed in recent times, particularly around the docks of Poole, Lymington, Southampton and Portsmouth, and the tourist resorts of Bournemouth, Swanage, Selsey and Bognor,

14

7

7

9

8

0

2

1

3

4

5

6

8

7

9

0

7 6

6 Basingstoke

5

5

Warminster

4

4

mble

R. Rother

2 R. Arun

R. Ha

R. Av on

3

Southampton

1 0

R. Test

2

Winchester R. Itc hen

Salisbury

3

R. S

ST

to u

r

R. From e

8

SU

TU

Bognor

Portsmouth

Christchurch

Poole

Dorchester

9

Chichester

Fareham

8

SZ

SY 7

8

0 9

Bournemouth Wareham

Weymouth

6

1

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TV 8

9

0

Fig. 2:1 Relief map of central southern England depicting the area of drainage of the ancient Solent river. Contours are at -5, 60, 120 and 182m OD. The minus 5 contour provides a visual approximation of the sea-level at the beginning of the 4th millennium BC. The grid demarcates 10km squares. Ordnance Survey data. ©CrownCopyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

of pipe clay and with green sandy lenses that contain much glauconite (e.g. Tubbs 1968, 28). The Barton Beds contain great subdivision too (Hodson 1964, 29) with a flint pebble bed at the base. In the case of just one element, the Headon Member, some 33 units of clays and sands (Hodson 1964, 30) provide immense variety to the soils around Brockenhurst and Beaulieu Heath as they outcrop.

which form a countryside annoying to traverse, are useful for ceramic production. The Coastal Plain comprises a series of Tertiary sands, gravels and clays known respectively as the Barton and Bracklesham Beds (mapped in Fig 2:2 as one unit) which, to their north, are encompassed by further narrow ribbons of sands, gravels and clays; the London Clay, Oldhaven, Blackheath, Woolwich, Reading and Thanet Beds (grouped in Fig 2:2 as London Clay and Blackheath Beds). The latter group form roughly concentric arcs at successive distances north of the coast, each rising gently towards the chalk of Salisbury Plain and the Dorset, Hampshire and Sussex Downs that ultimately frame the area (Fig 2:2). Each of these deposits has its own characteristics in terms of topography, drainage and vegetation, and so is touched on briefly here.

Tertiary Junction To the north of these lies a ribbon-like group of deposits little more than 3km in maximum width, that provides great contrast and variety in soil type and in the vegetation that they support over a small area. In places these are obscured by Quaternary solifluction and other head deposits, and form the area between the 65 to 20m contours referred to by Roberts and Parfitt (1999, 27) as an Upper Coastal Plain.

The Coastal Plain Whereas some of these deposits, such as the Reading Beds, are reasonably well drained, the heavy London Clay is not. This is tenacious blue-grey clay said to be sandier in northern Hampshire (Hodson 1964, 28) and Dorset (Melville and Freshney 1982, 95) than elsewhere. It appears on the surface as a narrow ribbon of low undulating countryside that follows the line of the chalk

Most of the land that forms the Coastal Plain consists of a complex mosaic of Bracklesham and Barton deposits, each of which comprise sands, sandy-clays, gravels and occasionally clays that display considerable variation. The Bracklesham group of deposits are composed primarily of rounded flint pebbles with occasional lenses

15

hills, but there is some capping of the `summits' by deposits of the Bagshot Beds, particularly between the Rivers Test and Itchen (Small 1964,45). It provides an area that is difficult to cultivate, and which has generally only been settled in recent times. Stratified above the London Clay and occurring in places on the surface to the south of it, particularly in the area between Fordingbridge and Portsmouth, lie Bagshot Beds. These are extremely variable in composition but are essentially micaceous sands, sometimes with a thick, although barely workable, flint pebble bed.

of the material being found at good distances from the similar deposit in the London Basin (pers observation). The Chalk Uplands North of the Tertiaries, lies the chalk, the oldest and highest of these deposits above OD. In recent and historical times this has been quarried for pipeclay, lime, chimney linings, cement and building materials and it is conceivable that it was extracted in ancient times for whitewashing buildings (D Olaussen pers comm) or even for body decoration (M Green pers comm). Traditionally divided into Upper, Middle and Lower deposits, each being distinguished by the fossils that it contains, it is marked on its northernmost edge by a dramatic escarpment that in part provides a convenient boundary to the present study area. Extremely thick, over 400m in places, it is also highly permeable with a great capacity for weathering, resulting in typical undulating scenery with some steep-sided coombes and subtly rounded hills. It is particularly important not only for providing topographic height and calcareous nutrient to the lower ground, but also as its aquifer supplies much of the fresh water of the area and is the source of many of the clear streams now respected for trout fishing.

In terms of relief, the topography is altogether less dramatic than the hinterland and the interfluves and low hills are all subtly weathered. To the north, beyond the London Clay lie sands and clays of the Reading Beds, some 30m thick, interspersed with occasional lenses of gravel and seams of ironstone (Melville and Freshney 1982, 94). Like the London Clay, they occur on the surface as a low-lying narrow ribbon little more than 1km wide following the southern flank of the chalk hills. At the junction with the chalk, a distinctive seam of flints with black or sometimes green cortex, the Bullhead Bed, occurs. This is particularly good for knapping purposes (M Green pers comm) and its attractive lustrous appearance ensures that it had widespread use, artefacts

Basingstoke Warminster

Salisbury

Winchester

Southampton Fareham

Dorchester

Poole

Chichester Bognor

Portsmouth

Christchurch

Bournemouth Wareham

Weymouth London Clay

Blackheath Beds

Hampstead Beds

Portland and Purbeck Beds

Kimmeridge Clays

Upper Greensand and Gualt Clay

Barton Beds

Chalk

Oxford and Weald Clays

Oolite and Lias

Lower Greensand

Clay with flints

Fig of of thethe region taken from BGS data. IPR/95-63c British Geological Survey ©NERC. OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Fig2.2 2:2Simplified Simplifiedgeology geology region. Survey. All rights reserved.

16

The terminology relating to these deposits dates to the turn of the 19th century, but has recently been completely re-evaluated by Bristow et al (1997) and new schemes proposed that are potentially of use to archaeology in highlighting flint-rich deposits. Unfortunately the new British Geological Surveys of the region are only partially complete and it is too early to utilise such information here. Excluding the southern parts of the Isle of Wight and Purbeck, the exceedingly thick (60m) Cenomanian or Lower Chalk extends right across the region. Above this lies the Turonian or Middle Chalk, also up to 60m in thickness (Melville and Freshney 1982, 86). There are occasional flints particularly in the upper levels of this, but they seldom occur in regular seams or are indeed large enough to utilise in anything but an occasional manner. The Campanian or Upper Chalk is altogether more extensive as a surface deposit and reaches over 250m thick in Dorset (ibid. 88). Flint occurs right across the area as both thin tabular sheets and as seams of nodules of various shapes and sizes. There is, however, considerable variation in the nature of flint layers, and in places, for example, parts of Cranborne Chase, there are no flint seams close to the surface and where they do exist they are often of poor quality (M Green pers comm: Green and Allen 1997, 129: but see below).

extensive spreads of gravel on its former floodplain; great extents of flint pebbles brought down and deposited during periods of high energy. Fed by its major upper branches, the Frome and the Stour/Avon, the ancient river flowed west to east passing to the north of the Isle of Wight and then southwards to discharge into a great palaeovalley (Hamblin et al 1992, 80) sometimes referred to as the Greater Rhine, somewhere in what is now the English Channel (Fig 2:3). Its exact course west of the Isle of Wight is uncertain, but the River Yar on the Isle of Wight, and other streams serving Langstone and Chichester Harbours on the mainland almost certainly fed into its course. To the east, submarine evidence suggests that both the rivers Adur and Ouse in Sussex, continued further south, but discharged directly into the Greater Rhine rather than the Solent (Hamblin et al 1992, 77). The levels of the river fluctuated dramatically throughout the Pleistocene according to the amount of landlocked ice and its pressure on the earth's crust, and resulted in a well-established system of channels incised to a depth of 46m below OD (Dyer 1975, 239: Nicholls 1987, 100). A north to south gravel channel, submerged off of Poole Quay, is considered to represent an ancient course of the Frome rather than the Solent (Nicholls 1987, 101) and it is therefore considered that the Frome had been captured and discharged into the sea through a breach in the Isle of Wight–Purbeck chalk ridge at an early stage. According to Nicholls (1987), such an event would reduce the capacity of the Solent and the river would then rely to a greater extent on supply from the Stour and Avon. Dyer (1975) and others considered this to be a Flandrian event, during which wave erosion carved out Poole and Christchurch Bays (Hamblin et al 1992, 86) and which, given the later dates now suggested for similar erosive events in the Straits of Dover (Coles 1998), may have been of similar age here. However, Nicholls (1987, 111) and now Bridgeland (2001, 20) and others believe that this event took place by the Middle Pleistocene and that separation of the Purbeck and Wight chalk ridges could have taken place in a number of distinct phases, leaving the Stour, Avon and Test as the major drainage features, supported by the Meon, Lymington, Beaulieu, Itchen, Wallington and smaller tributaries draining land to the north; while the Yar, Newtown, Medina and Blackridge served the south. Thus exactly when the final breaching took place is unclear, but it appears that by the Middle Pleistocene the Solent was certainly less powerful and Poole and possibly Christchurch Bays had been formed (ibid). Whatever the nature of the original breach, and it may have been a simple river gap, sea-level transgression during the Holocene flooded the lower reaches of the whole system, eventually ensuring the separation of the Isle of Wight.

While often considered as a plateau, the undulating nature of the chalk means that its height varies quite considerably. A Pliocene sea is considered to have covered the Hampshire Basin and cut successive benches in the Higher Chalk, leaving the Chalk Summits with their capping of Reading Beds and Clay-with flints standing proud. At its junction with the Tertiary Beds, height may reach no more than 60m above OD, but to the north the ground rises to three times that height and in places is as much as 275m above OD where the northern escarpment is reached (Small 1964, 38). Gifford (1957) divided the Wiltshire chalk into Lower and Higher Plain benches, at levels between 120 and 200m OD, each effectively the result of a Pliocene transgression. The Chalk Summit is capped extensively by Clay-with-flints between 182m and 213m OD and, together with remnants of Reading Beds, which are more prevalent in the west, this provides a useful variation in the expanse of chalk, encouraging different flora. Its constituent flint varies too, from the east where it is frost shattered to the west where it is extremely good for knapping. Quaternary developments Only traces of the massive, high-level, Solent River river now remain (Hamblin et al 1992, 80), but its influence can be seen in the terraces, interfluves and valleys moulded by its great erosive capacity as the sea-level fluctuated. The ancient river formerly ran from at least Wareham to the English Channel, draining land for considerable areas on either side of it, and leaving behind

Immense change has occurred since then; much coastal erosion; the lowering and raising of sea-levels and of the land itself, in both cases a result of post-glacial

17

phenomena, with the final course of the river Solent now being partly masked by the sea itself. A complex series of deposits around Gosport and Portsdown are thought to represent juxtaposition of Solent estuary and marine episodes (Bates 2001, 36). It is this fluctuation of sealevel and its effect on local drainage patterns and indeed coastlines that is likely to have influenced the way that much of the land, particularly along the Coastal Plain, has been utilised at different times in the past.

particularly well represented at Selsey, Wittering, Bracklesham, Portsmouth, Fareham, Gosport and Hayling in the east (Palmer and Cooke 1923, 263: Mottershead 1976, 7: Roberts and Parfitt 1999, 25 fig 17: Bates 2001) and Portland Bill in the west (Hodson 1964, 33). The fluctuating sea-levels of the Pleistocene have left other evidence. On the Coastal Plain sizeable Quaternary erratics, often reaching over 1m in length are present at Portsmouth and elsewhere along the West Sussex coast, at for example, Rustington, Portsea and Hayling Islands and apparently in some numbers at Bracklesham Bay. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that they are the result of ballast or shipwrecks (Briggs 1976) and they are generally considered to have been deposited by pack-ice during the Cromerian or earlier (Hamblin et al 1992, 75). While some of these boulders are of regional origin, others have moved considerable distances and include greenstone, granite, basalt and diorites from as far away as Cornwall (Mottershead 1976, 9) and France (Venables 1970), though notably there is an absence of rocks characteristic of southwest Wales and northern England, all of great interest from an archaeological point of view. Occasionally overlying these are clays and muds that represent an Ipswichian marine transgression (Mottershead 1976, 10), though the erratics erode onto the beach and into stream channels. Occasional pebbles of these materials are found in the raised beaches and Bridgeland refers to such clasts as exotic rather than erratic (Bridgeland 1999, 100), questioning the drift-ice hypothesis and concluding that they may derive from seaweed rafts (Collcut 1999, 99).

Although little studied, each of the tributaries contains deposits of river gravels, forming terraces at various levels above OD and which in some cases extend as far upstream as the chalk. Each represents an episode of high-energy river action, and invariably comprises deposits of flint pebbles that originated in the chalk, but with an occasional sarsen or greensand admixture from the Tertiaries or beyond. A series of gravel covered terraces, marking sea-levels at 70, 56, 50, 45, 30, 21, 10, 4.5, -9, and –18 m OD, has been identified by Everard (1954) and modified by Allen and Gibbard (1993), and these are all thought to represent deposition events of the ‘Solent River’ (Bridgeland 1996). In the case of the Avon, over ten terraces have been identified between Fordingbridge and Bournemouth, the lower four of which, all below 40m OD, occupy the present valley, while the others above that level occupy the high ground of the New Forest (Clacket and Green 1987: Reid 1902). Alluvium lines the main valley floors adjacent to the present river courses, but is almost invariably a more recent deposit.

Ri ve

rS

ole nt

Further inland, on the chalk, peri-glacial conditions further eroded coombes, leaving them asymmetrical in profile as a result of differential weathering. Some of these valleys became choked with material while others deposited coombe rock on the lowlands. The latter deposit is ubiquitous at the junction of the dip-slope and Coastal Plain, particularly in the Portsmouth area, where it is some 3-5km in width (Mottershead 1976, 10-11). Indeed Palmer and Cooke (1923, 254) claim that it is found right across the Coastal Plain and cite the evidence from 40 different exposures that enabled the depositional sequence of Tertiary sands > river gravels or raised beach > Coombe Rock > brickearth > alluvium to be established.

r Rhin Greate

e

Soils

Figure 2:3 The former course of the Greater Rhine and the River Solent (adapted from Bridgeland 2001).

The overlying soils are influenced not only by their parent rock, but also by such factors as local drainage and vegetation, and are extremely varied, with great swathes of alkaline soils in the north overlying the chalk deposits. Further south acidic soils predominate on the sandy heathlands, with more neutral soils over much of the gravel (Fig 2:4). The nature of the soil cover has of course changed with time and use, and some of the

Evidence for these changing Pleistocene drainage patterns is present not only as a series of gravel river terraces of varying height above sea-level, but also in raised coastal beaches. At least two such beaches have been recognised, loosely at 4.5m to 15m OD and 23m to 43m OD. They occur across the region but are

18

evidence for this will be reviewed below. By and large, the soils will have determined much of the vegetation cover, certainly throughout the Atlantic, if not into the Sub-boreal as well.

the northern side of the New Forest and in Dorset. Others are found on the Barton Sands particularly around Lyndhurst (Birch 1964, 68-9). How these soils developed is unclear - the view that it was generally a result of anthropogenic processes, of forest clearance for grazing and cultivation leading to soil deterioration (Dimbleby 1974) is now receiving less favour. Certainly podsols appear in buried soils beneath round barrows and earthwork enclosures in the New Forest, which implies that podsolisation of the plateau gravels took place some time before the Middle Bronze Age and, if anthropogenic, may have had a Neolithic or Earlier Bronze Age origin (Reynolds and Catt 1987, 525). At Rackham in Sussex, a Neolithic site situated within deciduous woodland, deforestation and use of the area for rough grazing may have led to the development of heath and podsolisation of the soil (Dimbleby and Bradley

The Coastal Plain The coarse acidic sands of the New Forest and the Dorset heathlands comprise a mosaic of podsols, soils unable to resist the loss of nutrients, or where vegetation is insufficient, to replenish the mineral loss. Fragile brownearths exist in places where deciduous woodland prevails (Birch 1964, 67-8). Podsols occur extensively on plateau gravels of the New Forest, north of Bournemouth, and to the west of Southampton, where they are referred to as the Southampton series. A further podsol, the Shirrel Heath series, occurs over Bracklesham Beds on

Vale of Pewsey

Thames Valley

Somerset Levels The Weald

l Va

e

ac Bl f o

r oo km

Upton: shallow over chalk valleys

Bromsgrove: loam over sandstone

Park Gate: silty, loess content

Icknield: shallow over chalk slopes

Sollom & Holme Moor: sandy & acidic

Holidays Hill & Bolderwood: acidic loam

Andover 1: over chalk

Fyfield 4: loam over sand

Hornbeam: loam over clay

Carstens: silt over clay, many flints

Evesham; permeable clay

Bursledon: loam over clay

Coombe: silty over chalk

Denchworth & Windsor: clays subject to waterlogging

Beyond study area

Wickham: silt over clay, often waterlogged

Undifferentiated & built up areas

Fig. 2:4 Major soil types of central southern England (based on National Soil Resources Institute Soil Survey of England and Wales 1:250,000 soil map Fig. 2:4 Major soils ofthe central southern England onthis Soil Survey of England & the Wales 1:250,000 Soil Map). ©Cranfield University and for Controller of HMSO 1983. (based No part of may be reproduced without express written permission of Cranfield University).

19

1975, 186), and similar processes may have been responsible in the New Forest.

maps produced by the Soil Survey of England and Wales of the West Sussex Coastal Plain, show extensive areas of Park Gate series between Chichester and Selsey, interspersed with pockets of Hook Series with a linear stretch of Charity Series soils at the junction of chalk and Coastal Plain, and this pattern is likely to extend further west.

As indicated, in places particularly in the valleys to the north of Southampton, fertile coarse textured brown earths occasionally co-exist alongside the podsols. They were analysed by Kay (1939) who reported that they are all now generally cultivated and used for market gardening. The valley gravels and alluvium of the Avon and Stour also provide good well-drained soils (Birch 1964, 69) useful for cultivation. Areas of London Clay and allied fine clays with poor drainage generally produce gleys often now used for pasture and woodland.

The Chalk Uplands Moving northwards towards the chalk rim, soils change from the wholly acidic to the wholly alkaline and tend to be shallow dark-grey or brown friable loams, mostly assigned to the Icknield and Andover Series. The former comprises a dark grey flinty matrix, while the Andover series is much lighter in colour (Birch 1964, 70). Also present, the Coombe series occurs in valleys and lower slopes on colluvium and is easily cultivated (Findlay et al 1984, 127). While these dry, often thin, soils of the Upper and Middle Chalk are also easily worked, the presence of flints can make agriculture difficult and according to Findlay et al (1984, 214), permeability can lead to a loss of water in both spring and summer resulting in crop failure. It is conceivable, however, that former loess cover might have alleviated this problem. In contrast, the Lower Chalk is altogether more easily cultivated, and the marls also retain moisture. There is adequate evidence for a higher water table in both ancient and recent times. One interpretation of the Wilsford Shaft, for example, is of a now dry well (Ashbee et al 1989, 150), while two wells of Roman date at Woodcutts, one with a bucket at the base, are now dry (Pitt Rivers 1887). In part, this is the result of water companies and the military extracting huge quantities from the aquifers and early Ordnance Survey editions depict streams starting much higher up the valleys (Field 1999).

Both sands and chalk are for the most part well drained, but in the few areas of poor drainage, gleys have developed (Birch 1964, 68). Overlying many of these sand and gravel deposits, for example at Beaulieu Heath East or Lepe Cliff (Fisher 1973), or those in the Porstmouth area, is a sheet of brickearth up to 2m in depth. In part, this represents pre-Devensian flood loams, but particularly in the central and eastern areas there is a significant post-glacial loess component (Reynolds 1987a and b: Mottershead 1976, 12). The latter is part of an extremely fertile mantle, that according to Catt (1974; 1978), covered the whole of southern Britain in the Late Devensian. In archaeological literature it is often inferred as capping the chalk alone, but was clearly once a much wider deposit, covering Tertiaries and gravel terraces alike. The advantages to agriculture of water retention on sandy and chalky soils, together with well-aerated soil particles to improve drainage on clays, may consequently be applied to the more acidic soils. Light, free of stones and easily cultivated, such deposits are nevertheless easily eroded. In places, particularly further north on the steeply dissected Higher Downs, with little vegetation to bind it together, much loess is likely to have swept to the valley floors during the Late Devensian, leaving remnants perched on hills and interfluves. Remnants are certainly present in Icknield series soils on the Higher Downs (Cope 1976), though not reported in significant excavations at, for example, Fussell's Lodge (Cornwall in Ashbee 1966, 74), Windmill Hill (McPhail, in Whittle et al 1999, 121-126), Stonehenge itself (Cleal et al 1995, 61), or sites nearby such as Durrington Walls (Wainwright and Longworth 1971), Amesbury W58 long barrow or the North Kite W52 (Richards 1990, 108, 185).

Over the Clay-with-flints, Carsten series soils are deep and moisture retentive, but even today the massive number of flints can cause problems in cultivation (Findlay et al 1984, 117) and broken ploughshares are a recurring problem. Such land was often considered too intractable for cultivation during historical times (e.g. Jones 1960) and instead retained as woodland. In the west, however, where the Clay-with-flints contains a greater Reading Beds component, soils are more suitable for cultivation.

On the Coastal Plain of Hampshire and West Sussex, the loess, at 2m thickness, is unweathered (Catt 1974: also Roberts and Parfitt 1999, 27) and here, these calcareous soil deposits, termed Hamble (well-drained), Hook (moderately well drained) and Park Gate (poorly drained) by the Soil Survey, are used predominantly for market gardening. These are the fertile soils that attracted Neolithic agriculturists as far distant as the North European Plain and China (Catt 1974) and represent exactly those loams that Wooldridge and Linton (1933) felt would be attractive to early settlers. The 1:25,000

Climate The local climate is influenced by topography as well as position in relation to the coast, and this is important particularly for agriculture. The prevailing wind here is from the south-west, which together with rainfall and temperature, diminishes towards the east.

20

The temperature of the region decreases inland with height above OD. Barry (1964, 83) compared temperature figures for Southampton on the coast, with Porton on the Wiltshire Downs, and concluded that the effect of elevation on temperature was quite dramatic; the difference being, on average, one degree lower on the Higher Downs. This has important implications for the growing season, and Barry remarked that the long hours of sunshine in spring and early summer, can result in a shortage of moisture in the soil during summer (Barry 1964, 82).

example, had flocks of over 3000 sheep, and some 300,000 sheep were sold annually at Weyhill and other fairs (Taverner 1964, 131-2). Horses, formerly of great importance, were bred from at least the 16th century. The suitability of the undulating chalk for this is unsurpassed and attested by the continuing presence of major racehorse stables at Beckhampton, Barbury, Lambourne, Cranborne Chase, and Salisbury, and racecourses at Barbury, Salisbury, Goodwood, and Brighton. Pigs were important on both the Hampshire and Wiltshire Downs, but they were also turned out annually in the New Forest for pannage. Today chalk farms are devoted to cereal, mainly barley cultivation, but other crops, and recently rape and linseed, have been introduced as a result of EEC subsidies (Taverner 1964, 133-8). Before mechanical traction, cultivation on the chalk was considered difficult (Vancouver 1813, 124), although in the Avon Valley soils were light and easy to plough. Taverner's system of land classification was based on farm size and is therefore appropriate only for comparison during the 20th century. Hence his 'profitable' farms were located on the chalk as they were able to expand easily on to sheepwalks and cultivate ever larger areas using modern methods. Such expansion was impossible off the chalk where a multitude of small and medium farms, although on rich soils, could not develop in the same way. In contrast, based on elevation, relief, climate, aspect, soil depth, texture and water conditions, the University of Bristol (1947, 36) categorised the downland as of poor quality for agricultural purposes.

While most of the Coastal Plain is free of frost until the late autumn, frequent frosts occur on the chalk during late winter and spring through to May. Barry recorded frost at Larkhill, Wiltshire, in June and August during the 1920's and 30's (ibid 84), while minus 0.5 degrees was recorded at Yatesbury, near Avebury, on 23rd July 1999. This variation in weather conditions between the coast and the chalk is echoed in the average number of days of snowfall, 4.6 at Sandown, Isle of Wight, 8.5 at Southampton, Hampshire, compared to 10.6 at Porton, and 11.7 at Larkhill, Wiltshire: and also of ground frost, with 64.8 days at Southampton, 94.1 at Larkhill, and 102.8 at Porton (all figures from Barry 1964, 91). Similarly the distribution of rainfall is uneven and there are local fluctuations in, for example, the New Forest (Newbould 1960). In the central part of the Basin there is an average annual total of 760mm of rain (Barry 1964: University of Bristol 1947, 9) and whereas much of the coast receives as little as 700mm, the Higher Downs can receive as much as 880mm (ibid 1964, 80-1).

Much of the coastal zone, the docks and holidays centres, is now residential or has been developed in other ways and was therefore categorised as useless for agriculture by Taverner (1964, 139-141). However, most of the prime agricultural land there was under the plough by at least the 16th century (e.g. Toulmin-Smith 1964, 254-285) and probably much earlier, and there had been assarting of waste ground by that time (Taverner 1964, 131-2). As a result of the Great Depression many farms were converted to dairying to supply the cities and ports. Vancouver (1813) stated that `…A great mildness of climate distinguishes the whole of this district', and his map of the area illustrates most of the Coastal Plain as fertile gravely loams, intermixed with clay and brickearth. The New Forest is still used for open grazing, and the inclosures are mainly historical, set up in response to demands for timber in the 17th century. The area currently supports some 2000 ponies and 4000 cattle, along with 1000 fallow and 300 roe deer (Taverner 1964, 143) and any significant change in this complement is likely to have effects on the vegetation.

By themselves climatic factors appear to indicate that it might be more difficult to cultivate cereals on the Chalk Downs than on the Coastal Plain. There appears to be a lack of summer precipitation along the coast (Sutherland 1984, 182), while Davis (1811, 2) amongst others, remarked on the length of winter on the downs as being unfavourable to many agricultural practices, referring instead to the great use of Cow, Sheep Downs and Summer Downs, that were used for pasture during the summer months. Land-use There appears to be a major difference in the way that land has been used between coastal lowland and chalk upland. While the Coastal Plain has a long established tradition of agriculture, right across southern England the Chalk Downs appear to have resisted change until recent times. According to Defoe (1724-6) the sheepwalks on the chalk were first cultivated during the 17th century, but the Great Depression soon resulted in a return to sheep farming. However, the manure of sheep flocks allowed greater areas to be cultivated and flocks were taken from the Higher Downs and folded overnight on fields in the valleys. Some parishes, Upavon in Wiltshire, for

The changing coastline A number of factors have contributed to the form of the southern coastline, among them Alpine folding, crustal uplift, glacial rebound, the creation of the English

21

Estuaries

Channel and the meandering and fluctuating levels of the Solent river. In addition, the differential erosion of soft rocks has resulted in the creation of bays at, for example, Studland, Swanage, Bournemouth and Durlston, and these are interspersed with headlands of slightly harder limestone, Portland stone and chalk (British Geological Survey (BGS) 1996, 21-2).

The configuration of the south coast has, therefore, changed quite considerably, but will nevertheless formerly have provided a similar range of habitats that allowed exploitation of both marine and inter-tidal resources. Todays estuaries and harbours provide some indication of the type of resources that might have been available. Over twelve estuaries lie within the region and in addition to the Frome, Avon/Stour, Test, Itchen, Meon, Hamble, Wallington, and Arun, incorporate Chichester, Langstone and Portsmouth Harbours. There are also five small estuaries on the Isle of Wight discharging into the Solent Basin, at Wootton, Newtown, Medina and two at the River Yar (Davidson 1996, 62). All of these comprise greater or lesser expanses of tidal mudflats, saltmarsh, reedbeds, and wet grassland.

Erosion In fact, most of the southern coastline is extremely susceptible to erosion. Chalk underlies the complete stretch of coastline outcropping in the west at Swanage and in the east at the Seven Sisters, effectively bracketing the study area. Offshore a now submerged, wave-cut chalk cliff or platform, lies at up to 0.5km from the present cliff line (Doody 1998, 13-14), indicating that the coastline has receded considerably. The areas susceptible to greatest change are those where soft, easily eroded, Tertiary deposits outcrop, particularly between Christchurch and Milford on Sea, and Bournemouth and Hengistbury Head. Cliffs of Bracklesham Beds at Selsey Bill are weathering at an average rate of 2m per annum (Mottershead 1976, 9: BGS and Sawyer 1998, 19-20). In places, where cliffs have eroded, streams have downcut deeply, to form a series of typical transverse ravines referred to locally as chines (Small 1964, 49).

While plankton are crucial to the food chain, they are sensitive to change, being dependent on constant temperature and salinity. Currently they are plentiful around the southern coastline and in turn there are good stocks of shellfish, lobsters, edible crabs, scallops, whelks, cockles and mussels (Pawson and Robson 1996, 103: Doody 1998), while the area has one of the largest reserves of oyster in Europe (Pawson and Robson 1996, 103 see distribution maps of lobster and crab figs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 which show the whole coastline including the Poole, Wareham area as suitable). Crab is present in the extreme eastern Solent, and in Langstone and Chichester Harbours; while oyster, whelks and cockles are still exploited in Poole Bay, and oysters and clams in Southampton Water and the eastern Solent.

Accretion In contrast, coastal accretion has occurred in low-lying sheltered areas, providing a variety of features from shingle spits to sand dunes and mud flats. Much of this is the product of material from cliff erosion that has swept along the coast; for example, the sand dunes and shingle beaches around Pagham and Chichester Harbours (Doody 1998, 13-14). Such spits and bars are thought to have developed during the Holocene and been consolidated by Spartina Townsendii (e.g. Haynes and Coulson 1982). The age of sand dunes along the south coast at, East Head near West Wittering, Studland, Hengistbury Head, Sandbanks, Hayling Island and Climping (BGS 1996, 35; BGS and Sawyer 1998, 33-4), is unclear but, in northern England and Scotland dunes have been recorded as sealing prehistoric forest and occupation sites and it is quite possible that they are of late Holocene date here. The series of low-lying harbours that comprise sequences of tidal mud flats and saltmarsh from Poole to Portsmouth, Langstone, Chichester and Pagham, are thought to result from drowning of these areas by rising sea-levels (Allen and Gardiner 2000). Similar environments occur on the Isle of Wight at Bembridge Harbour, Wootton Creek, Kings Quay, and in the estuaries of the Newtown river and the Rivers Medina and Yar (Doody 1998, 13-14).

These in turn provide food for fish and birds (Pawson and Robson 1996, 104-5; 1998, 88). A wide range of fish is currently exploited around the coast, some fifty-one species being recorded off-shore (Doody 1998). Cod are plentiful throughout the area, as are herring, mackerel and sprats, particularly in the summer and autumn. Plaice and Dover Sole fare better on the sandier parts of the sea floor, i.e. away from the chalk exposures, while bass and mullet are found on the sea-bed close to the shore with effect from spring (Pawson and Robson 1996, 113-114; 1998, 95-6). Salmon, sea-trout and eels are present in most rivers (Aprahamian and Robson 1996, 117; 1998, 99). Of particular importance is the bird population. The coastline is on the main migration route to and from the Mediterranean and African coast, and its sheltered estuaries provide an ideal location both for roosting and for resting birds (Davidson 1998, 53). The mud flats and wet grassland of these extensive estuaries, particularly Chichester, Portsmouth, Langstone, Poole, and Pagham Harbours today support waterfowl populations of international importance. Some 98,000 birds have been counted in mid-winter, and Chichester Harbour alone

22

Weymouth Bay, where they are some 10m thick (BGS 1996, 24).

supports some 20,000 wintering waterfowl (Davidson 1998, 54-5: Stroud and Craddock 1996, 129: May and Law 1998, 108-9).

Beneath the Holocene deposits on the sea-bed, lies a series of palaeovalleys, which mark a complex Pleistocene river drainage system. The main channel of the ancient Solent is the most important of these and, incised to over 46m below OD in the East Solent, contains some 30m of infill (BGS 1996, 25 map 2.2.2), while to the west, off Selsey Bill, it follows the line of Southampton Water (BGS 1998, 22).

In most cases extensive saltmarsh is present, particularly so in Chichester, Poole, and Pagham Harbours and in the Solent. Much of this is of recent origin (Hill 1998, 50), but similar vegetation will have prevailed in ancient estuaries, providing superb wildfowl habitats (Hill 1996, 57-60). Sites containing wet grassland are extensive and used widely for grazing. Such rich wet forage is relished by cattle, in the case of the Shannon estuary in Eire, for example, it is said to be difficult to keep them away from it (E Grogan pers comm). Here, it occurs extensively around Poole, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, along Southampton Water, the Solent and East Home Meadows, Wareham Meadows and the Moors, around the estuaries of the rivers Frome, and Piddle, and on the Isle of Wight around the Brading Marshes and Newtown Estuary (Gee 1996, 53-5; 1998, 47-9).

Sea-level Perhaps the single most influential factor affecting topography and morphology of the coastline, is that of changing sea-level, although this is notoriously difficult to categorise with any precision. The innumerable problems involved were emphasised by Everard (1980), who listed 28 potential variables. Some of these were to do with instrumentation, others the degree of influence of global, regional or local influences (Everard 1980). Devoy too (1982, 86-70), placed great importance on the factors involved in selection of sea-level indicators. For him, coastal shape, compaction of sediment, and tidal variations were as important as tectonic disparities. Shennan (1982) noted all of these limitations, but aimed to provide consistency in recording sea-level index points by ensuring data was dated by C14 and linked to vegetation and diatoms and that common tide-levels and other factors were used.

The sea-bed Generally the sea-bed shelves gently as far as a submerged cliff, or wave cut platform at a depth of c40m, that in the east, lies up to 0.5km from the present coast (Doody 1998, 13-14: BGS et al 1998, 25). To the west of this a limestone reef lies c 2km off Selsey Bill (Irving 1998, 60), while other sandstone reefs, the Bognor Rocks and Barn Rocks, exist off Bognor Regis and Selsey Bill (Irving 1998, 61: BGS and Sawyer 1998, 19-20) and there are other outcrops off Selsey at the Outer Owers (BGS et al 1998, 25).

To date most research in southern England has taken place in the Thames Estuary and along the Essex coast (e.g. Greensmith and Tucker 1973; 1976; 1980), in Romsey Marsh (Long et al 1996 and references therein), or the Severn Estuary (Allen in Rippon ed 2000) all of which confirm a trend of rising sea-level. Long and Innes (1993, 232) plotted the evidence from East Sussex, Romney Marsh and East Kent and, while acknowledging that there are variations between the regions due to differing crustal movement, they concluded that a general rise in sea-level along that part of the south coast is evident from –27.5m OD at 7970-7750 cal BC to –6.5m OD by 3800-3755 cal BC.

In the west, the Christchurch Ledges, deposits of ironstone boulders, lie up to 5km off Hengistbury, while south of Studland Bay a chalk platform known as the Ballard Ledges, lies at 5-8m deep (Irving 1996, 67). Off Kimmeridge Bay too, there are a series of ledges as far out as a former cliff line 1-2km offshore (Irving 1996, 67). All of these mark former shorelines, though their age has not been established. Off the Isle of Wight, the chalk extends for some 1km offshore and around the Needles it forms sub-littoral caves and gullies (G Momber, Southampton Oceanography Centre pers comm.). Over much of the area, sea-bed deposits comprise gravels and sands derived from the underlying bedrock, but the erosion of cliffs has also resulted in sediment being redeposited elsewhere along the coast. In addition, rivers have brought down sediment and discharged it in estuaries (BGS 1996, 24). To the south-west of Beachy Head, for example, sand up to 20m thick occurs (BGS 1998, 22), the deposit reducing to less than 0.5m towards Selsey Bill before diminishing and disappearing completely (Doody 1998, 13-14). Further offshore, sands occur in the Poole Bay area, in the eastern Solent and off

Long and Roberts (1997) have produced graphs to illustrate sea-level trends in the south-east and south-west respectively (Table 2: 1 below). At Romney Marsh, a rapid rise in sea-level is recorded between 5920-5800 cal BC and 4920-4780 cal BC, while Devoy (1982, 71) plotted time by depth, using 55 sea-level indicator points around the south-east coast in order to re-construct relative sea-level (Table 2: 2 below). This seems to work reasonably well, although while other work, for example, Dyer's level for the Solent at –2m OD in 1880-1740 cal BC slots in nicely, his level of –6m OD at 6420-6340 cal BC, does not (Dyer1975).

23

While all of these data differ in detail, and variation might be expected according to the location, there is broad agreement concerning the overall trend. Lambeck (1995) was able to depict the palaeo-coastline at c 5000 BC, based on a model of land rebound after glacial unloading, and suggested that configuration of the south coast bore much resemblance to the modern coastline at that time, while the Isle of Wight had been separated from the mainland.

While the regional processes mentioned above have been important in determining relative sea-level, local topographical and tidal factors have ultimately influenced the detail of coastal change (Long and Innes 1993). Sutherland (1984) believed that barrier development influenced sea-level at Studland Heath and the Moors site, near Poole (ibid 225). Long et al (1999) demonstrated that the rate of sea-level rise in Poole Harbour increased significantly in recent times after increased sedimentation and the development of saltmarsh. Here, a transgression event on the Arne peninsula, produced a C14 date of 1780-1730cal BC from a depth of –1.14m, and 1440-1390cal BC from a depth of -1.99m OD and from this a long-term rise of 59mm per annum has been extrapolated, but this differs considerably from other regional estimates. Whereas Shennan (1989) indicated that relative sea-level rose at the rate of 2-3mm per year, Emery and Aubrey (1985:1991 quoted in Shennan 1989) are said to indicate a relative sea-level rise of some 6-8mm per year. In the latter case it was centred on Sussex, where they suggest there is greatest crustal movement, reducing again to 24mm per year towards both Dorset and Kent.

The current Wootton Bay study, together with the Land Ocean Interaction Study (LOIS), is likely to resolve many of these problems (Long and Roberts 1997). The latter, in particular, is likely to revolutionise the subject and aims to focus attention on, and overcome, the problems outlined by Everard. It will provide extensive data of the post-glacial evolution of the coast, using an extensive series of sea-level index points (SLI's), together with a C14 dating programme based at East Kilbride. Already palaeogeographic models have been produced showing the coastlines at 9500-9300 cal BC, 6890-6820 cal BC, 4920-4780 cal BC, and 2565-2520 cal BC. The same data can evidently be used for modelling tidal ranges, which during the early Holocene are shown to be less than at present; with today's range being achieved around 49204780 cal BC (Horton et al 1999, 45-6). Even though the general trend appears to be clear, there remains considerable uncertainty as to detail. The map of the coastline as it probably appeared at c5000 cal BC (Fig 2:1) using contours below OD therefore inevitably contains error in detail, but for practical purposes will allow general trends in the archaeological data to be considered.

Date South-west South-east 5920-5950 cal BC -12.5m -14 to -11m 4920-4780 cal BC -8m -11 to -7m 3800-3755 cal BC -5.5m -8 to -4m 2565-2520 cal BC -4m -8 to -2m 1320-1210 cal BC -3.5m -4 to –3m Table 2: 1 Sea-level trends in southern England (data from Long and Roberts 1997, figs 12 and 13).

Sutherland (1984) investigated four sites around Poole Harbour and sunk fourteen boreholes at the Moors, Dorset, and eleven on Studland Heath, Dorset. Additional cores from the western Yar, Yarmouth, Isle of Wight and Stokes Bay, Lee-on-Solent were also used. The evidence was broadly consistent with at least three major phases of rising sea-level, from 7190-7080 cal BC to 5950-5915 cal BC sea-level stood at around –19.2m OD, at 5380-5310 cal BC it was at between –4.07m to –3.55m OD, and at 700-540 cal BC at around -1.97m OD.

Date 6420-6340cal BC 6420-6340cal BC 6080-5990cal BC 5370-5300cal BC 5320-5290cal BC 5320-5290cal BC 2919-2900cal BC 2146-2030cal BC 1940-1880cal BC 1440-1390cal BC 821-747cal BC

Tides Today's tides are well-established, the regime having prevailed from about 5485-5465 cal BC (Macmillan 1964, 57-8), being influenced by the morphology of the sea-bed, as well as by the coastline and the prevailing winds. In general, the tide is less powerful in the open ocean, but it increases in speed as it approaches the

Climate Atlantic

Pollen VIIa

Site Hamworthy

Height OD -11.58 m

Atlantic

VIIa

Atlantic Sub-boreal

VIIa VIIb

Sub-boreal Sub-Atlantic ?VIII

VIIb

Fawley Fawley Fawley Poole Harbour Fawley Fawley Fawley Poole Harbour Poole Harbour

-7.32m -7.3m -7.2m -3.01m -2.7m -2.7m -4.1 to -4.2m - 1.99m -0.97m

Table 2:2 Sea-level trends in the Solent basin.

24

Source Devoy 1987 Dyer 1975 Devoy 1987 Godwin & Switsur Godwin & Switsur Devoy 1987 Devoy 1987 Godwin & Switsur Godwin & Switsur Long et al 1999 Devoy 1987

harbouring ships without the need for lock gates (Macmillan 1964, 57-61).

English Channel (BGS et al 1998, 25). Today, the tide moves up the English Channel taking 6.5 hours to move from Cornwall to Kent (Hamblin et al 1992, 86), with the greatest speed being achieved around the Cherbourg peninsular and between there and the Isle of Wight (Fig 2:5). At Portland, Dorset, the range is 2.5m, increasing to 4m at Chichester, and 7m at Dungeness, but in the sheltered areas of Poole Harbour and Christchurch Bay, where the range is the smallest in Britain it scarcely reaches 2m (BGS 1996, 28-9: Davidson 1996, 63). In fact the lowest tidal amplitude in the English Channel focuses on the area around Poole Bay.

Solent entrances producing additional sustained high water effects

of Area

igh w long h

tand ater s

Lo w

Breaching the channel Whether the Channel was breached over time, or in one rapid movement is not clear. In the North Sea, the presence of ‘Doggerland’ will have affected the tidal regime. Coles' hypothetical map of the area during the later Holocene, depicts six smaller islands remaining in the southern North Sea as Doggerland began to submerge (Coles 1998, 68 and Fig 11). The greatest rise in sea-level appears to have taken place around 6900-5800 cal BC and there is some indication that final breaching of the channel might have occurred rather later than previously envisaged (Coles 1998, 67). Lambeck (1995) suggests that full marine conditions did not exist there until about 5000 BC. The process will, however, have dramatically affected the tidal regime, and the dual high-tide at Southampton will not formerly have occurred. Before breaching, the tidal range along the south coast is likely to have been similar to that of the present River Severn, inclusive of its `bore', the currents being funnelled into the narrowing Channel. The great tidal range will have created extensive mud flats on all low-lying coastlines and the estuarine conditions noted above will have been extensive.

tide

e High tid

tide High tid Low

e

Figure 2:5 Tidal flow along the English Channel (based on Hamblin et al 1992).

Final breaching of the Straits of Dover would not only have altered the tidal range, but also affected the plankton, which are disturbed by the slightest environmental stress, with catastrophic consequences further along the food chain (Edwards and John 1998, 65). Not only would the changing tidal regime affect habitats, but the molluscs and fish that occupied the shorelines may also have been decimated. It is unclear what effect the catastrophic tsunami event recorded in east Scotland (Coles 1998, 69) and at Broomhouse Farm, Haggerston, in Northumberland (Horton et al 1999, 148152) at around 6200-5450 cal BC, had on the south coast, but it may have prolonged or exacerbated economic problems, if not kick-started a process of change. Certainly for communities living alongside the coast these events would have disrupted both subsistence and social patterns and enforced change. How the population responded and faced up to new challenges remains to be investigated.

Southampton's protected position alongside the English Channel shares with Cherbourg and Dieppe an unusual double high-water stand, the result of the incoming Atlantic tide bifurcating, one part entering the English Channel, the other circumnavigating the British Isles and returning to the south coast via the North Sea. The process was referred to by Bede (transl Sherley-Price 1975, 234) who commented that 'two ocean tides that flow round Britain from the boundless northern seas meet in daily opposition off the mouth of the river Homelea (Hamble)', while Camden (1607, 170) was so astonished that he considered it to be 'among the wonders of Britain'. The respective entrances of the Solent also influence and enhance this unusual tidal regime. The tide at Southampton rises or stands for 8¾ hours, while the ebb takes only 3¾. This together with the shallow tidal range and protection from wind and gales by the Isle of Wight make it a superb site for navigating shallows and for

25

CHAPTER 3 CURATING NUTS AND COPING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

The sparse, but nevertheless important, evidence from sites such as Hengistbury Head, or much further inland at Fisherton, near Salisbury, or the caves of Mendip, indicates a significant human presence in the region from early in the post-glacial period. Flint artefacts discovered, certainly at the latter site, imply considerable movement through the countryside, at least in so far as the raw material for these tools might only be obtained from the chalk deposits of central southern England. Implicit in this movement is a knowledge among travellers of the position of different resources. Without doubt the interior of much, if not all, of our region had already been explored and its products utilised by 8100-7100 BC. For at that time trees were being cut down and erected as a free-standing arrangement alongside a small re-entrant off the Avon valley, at what later became Stonehenge, in Wiltshire (Allen in Cleal et al 1995). Here, open pine and hazel woodland had developed, and even then local clearances were noted in both pollen and mollusc assemblages. Without intervention pine grows quite densely, but the open nature here allowed hazel to colonise and flower.

Introduction Given the inundation of land around the River Solent and Greater Rhine, it must be expected that much evidence is missing from the record. Considerable numbers of finds have been trawled from the North Sea and around 'Doggerland' and it has been emphasised that the area was not merely a 'land bridge' but a plateau supporting human occupation in its own right (Coles 1998). Thus occupants of the northwest bank of the Greater Rhine Valley might be expected to have increasingly moved inland in response to the rising sea-level. While industrial fishing off the South Coast is a less intensive activity than elsewhere, certain individuals have nevertheless accumulated collections of material from the sea-bed (G Momber, Southampton Oceanography Centre pers comm). However, there is also a certain amount of material from landward sites, some of it of 5th or 6th millennium date, but some that can be allocated to a relatively early period in the Holocene. Early interventions along the coast by antiquaries and naturalists provide supporting evidence of a different coastal configuration (Shore and Elwas 1889: Everard 1953: 1954). Development of the foreshore at Southampton, for example, began in 1838, when the Southampton Dock Company acquired the mudflats at the confluence of the rivers Itchen and Test. The first dock, the Outer Dock, was constructed in 1842, and an Inner Dock in 1851. Subsequently quays were constructed on the made ground to the south of the medieval city, within which the Empress Dock was constructed late in the 19th century: then the Ocean Dock was finished in 1911 and finally the New Docks were completed in 1933 (Eastburn and Griffiths 1964, 278, 284-5). Observation of these excavations revealed a series of submerged peats that contained flint flakes and animal bones, some of which, for example, reindeer and hare, were thought to have been deposited during a cold climate. Other pieces such as a perforated macehead may date to later in the Holocene (Shore and Elwas 1889: Shore 1891-3; 1905: Anderson 1932: Godwin and Godwin 1940). The sequence of peats and muds has been studied elsewhere along the coast too, at Fawley (Hodson and West 1972), Hamworthy (Godwin et al 1958) and Lee-on Solent (Mottershead 1976); to the west of Southampton around the mouths of the Bourne and Beauleau rivers (Green and Keen 1987); and to the east in Langstone and Portsmouth Harbours (Shore 1891-3: Godwin 1945: Mottershead 1976: Meyer 1870), all of which has recently been summarised (Allen and Gardiner 2000) and testifies to the relentless and unstoppable encroachment of the sea.

Pine was also present on the chalk on Cranborne Chase in Dorset at around the same time, for at Fir Tree Field, Down Farm, Sixpenny Handley, deposits within an unusual natural shaft, sunk deep into the chalk, contained evidence of a shaded forest soil (Green and Allen 1997,125). Some excavated sites have revealed depressions thought to be tree holes, for example, at Chalk Pit Lane, Lavant, West Sussex, where some 50 pits were thought to represent a formerly wooded countryside (Kenny 1993, 26). There have also been suggestions that some of the Mesolithic 'pit dwellings' might, in fact, represent the occupation of such hollows (Jacobi 1980, 20). However, the degree to which such vegetation was able to gain a hold on the chalk after the openness of the post-glacial is unclear and dense woodland implies a relative lack of herbivores, which usually relish fresh shoots. Even small groups of mammals present in the countryside must have influenced the vegetation pattern as plants became established during the earlier Boreal. However, more recent work within the vicinity (French et al 2003), has provided a more satisfactory view of a countryside with a greater degree of openness. Pollen and macro fossil evidence at Church Moor in the New Forest indicated a replacement of pine forest with mixed deciduous woodland at around 7480-7130 cal BC (Clarke and Barber 1987) and a similar process is recorded from Cranes Moor near Burley nearby, where it is dated to 7830-7540 cal BC. Like Church Moor, there is an increase in Alder here at about 6010-5720 cal BC (Barber and Clarke 1987). At Gatcombe Withy Bed on the Isle of Wight the increase in alder and a decidous

26

woodland base was dated to 5480-5290 cal BC. Glades were present but Scaife was cautious about whether they were natural or humanly created (Scaife 1987), though at Winfrith Heath, Dorset, open heath vegetation occurred in association with a Mesolithic site (Haskins 1978). Further east in Sussex, a series of cores taken both longitudinally and transversely across the Brede valley at Pannell Bridge (Waller 1993, 367) may provide a vegetation sequence for the Weald rather than Chalk or Coastal Plain, but here `persistent openings in woodland canopy after the arrival of deciduous trees' dated to between 7582-7536 cal BC and 4929-4780 cal BC are interpreted as human activity. The later, cursus ditch at Down Farm, Cranborne Chase, cut through a site in Chalk Pit Field where bone material was dated to 56405140 cal BC and 5980-5560 cal BC, and where evidence for small scale clearings existed (Allen in Green 2000a, 40), while a later episode of clearance nearby is dated to about 4350-4000 cal BC (Allen in Green 2000a, 42).

is present at Winnall Moors near Winchester and Snelsmore, Berkshire (Waton 1982, 77) in what is considered to be a Mesolithic context. Not only would the burning of vegetation provide benefit to human hunters in that animals would behave more predictably, but plant resources for both animal and human consumption could also be controlled. If this is so, we might expect the impact of human intervention on vegetation to outweigh the effect on it of other animals. After several thousand years of mammal exploitation, changing patterns of vegetation must have resulted in a patchwork of open, closed and regenerating cover, within which areas – coombes, re-entrants, valleys – may have channelled animal movement and which in turn encouraged established patterns of human use over wide areas of the land. By the 6th or 5th millennium BC one might expect human knowledge and use of resources to be well rooted in tradition, with activities reflecting the utilisation of these resources being detectable in the debris left behind.

Some authorities (Mellars 1976: Mellars and Rheinhardt 1978: Moore 1997) have suggested that much of the vegetation was anthropogenically modified by fire during the later Mesolithic, and given the favourable climate of the Solent Basin, this might occur, in particular, on the warmer sandy soils where the shrubs, grasses and trees would be more susceptible to burning. It has been suggested that substantial quantities of late-boreal sediment in valleys on the Isle of Wight may be the result of use of fire (Scaife 1987, 158; 1982, 70), while charcoal

Occupation by humans at the present mouth of the River Avon dating to the eighth millennium BC has been confirmed on Hengistbury Head (Barton 1992, 61) and early human use of the important riverine corridor between Christchurch and Stonehenge becomes an intriguing possibility. The similarity in topographical location of these two early sites is striking. Whereas the Hengistbury Head site formerly lay on the lip of a hill

Figure 3:1 Distribution of flint axes with tranchet sharpening (circles) and pebble hammers (squares). OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved

27

overlooking the Coastal Plain and close to the very edge of the land mass, Stonehenge too, occupies the lip overlooking a steep sided coombe, Stonehenge Bottom. Both sites lie in similar relationship to the River Avon, one at its mouth, the other in the heart of the countryside, at the other end of the river system close to the source of freshwater.

longevity. The excavated site at Broom Hill is a case in point, where, of four pits set within a few metres of each other, none appear to be absolutely contemporary. It might, therefore, be necessary to briefly consider some of the evidence from the 6th and even 7th millennium, in order to pick out these general underlying trends. Broom Hill, itself situated close to a spring at Braishfield, Hampshire (O Malley 1978; 1982: O'Malley and Jacobi 1978), might, at present, be considered the major site of the area. Here a series of four pits were revealed (Fig 3:2), two of which produced a sequence of C14 dates. The largest and most amorphous of these, number 3, was associated with some 20 postholes mostly situated around the circumference of the pit, together with a further 33 stake holes. Charcoal found on the clay base of the pit, 1.31m below the surface, provided date ranges of between 7800-7350 cal BC, 7750-7340 cal BC, 75407170 cal BC, and 7050-6450 cal BC (Q 1192, Q 1528, Q 1383, Q 1460) (O'Malley 1982, 16), while a deposit of hazelnuts in the pit infill at 0.93m deep was dated to 6220-5980 cal BC (Q 1191). If we take these dates at face value, and there should be some caution about this as O'Malley's published plan (O'Malley 1982, 21) shows two of the dates as being obtained from outside the area of the pit, the pit had silted less than 0.4m in some 700 years, and it is likely to have been an extant feature in the local landscape when Pit 2 was being utilised. Charcoal from the latter feature, recovered from a clay hearth, and the most relevant from our point of view, resulted in a single determination of 5570-5360 cal BC (Q.1128).

Despite the lack of supporting evidence from secure contexts there is no reason to doubt that this movement and pattern of activity continued, and the chalk become a focus of resource-round visits from the surrounding regions, as much to obtain flint, as anything else. The distribution of chance finds of tranchet sharpened coretools, for example, an artefact type of great longevity, clusters around the mouth of the Avon at Bournemouth and Christchurch, but it also spreads upstream right into the interior and on to the interfluves and watersheds. Even at this early date great emphasis is placed on the importance of the river valleys (Fig 3:1). Low frequency scatters of flintwork containing Mesolithic traits occurs around the lower and middle reaches of the river (Light et al 1995: Barton 1992) and along with the excavated site at Downton (Higgs 1959) provide support for this general trend. There remains a problem in defining the nature of change in sites and assemblages of the 5th millennium compared with those of the fourth. Although a fair number of Mesolithic sites from the region have been recorded in the literature, most of these are surface scatters of material with little precision regarding date. Sites with well-dated features are few and suites of C14 dates are even rarer. Traditionally the apparently abrupt change in economic and ritual activity present from around the turn of the 5th to 4th millennium has been interpreted as signalling the presence of new blood. The introduction of domestic animals, cultivation of crops and construction of monuments, coupled with the sudden introduction of new stone tool-kit components, has all been thought to represent an archaeological signature marking out the Neolithic as a separate culture. The change has been seen as comprising the replacement of microliths and tranchet axes by single piece arrowheads and ground axes: a replacement, that is extremely insecurely dated, resting on the one hand, on sites like Wawcott, Berkshire, with dates of 5300-4700 cal BC (BM 826) and 4350-3750 cal BC (BM 449) (Froom 1976), and more recently Charlwood, Surrey, 4350-3900 cal BC and 4710-4330 cal BC (Ellaby 2004), that indicate traditional Mesolithic activity into the late 5th and possibly the early 4th millennium BC; and on the other of the introduction of long barrows such as Horslip and Fussell's Lodge (see discussion by Schulting 2000) and settlement sites like Eton Rowing Lake (Allen et al 2004) that imply presence of a fully developed Neolithic soon after c.4, 000 BC.

Figure 3:2 Broom Hill, Braishfield, Hampshire, on a ledge in the hillslope above a series of springs: showing the extent of the flint scatter (shaded); site of Mesolithic pits (square); and Neolithic site (circle); with the excavated pits shown inset.OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

Similarly the ancient spring at Blashenwell, near Corfe, Dorset (Fig 3:3), first brought to attention by MansellPleydell (1886), appears to have been an important focus of activity over a considerable time span (Reid 1896: Rankine 1962). The calcareous water had resulted in the formation of a considerable bed of tufa some 2.5m thick that was excavated and used for marl during the late 19th century (Reid 1896, 69). One cutting through this revealed a sequence of cultural refuse, sealed beneath a

The intriguing factor concerning many sites of this time is that even on a small scale they appear to have great

28

level containing Roman pottery. Three separate layers were identified (Reid 1896, 69). At the base, a marly deposit containing occasional flint flakes; above this granular tufa with flint flakes, animal bones, limpet and other marine shells, together with a generous deposit of charcoal and; sealing this, hard tufa with flint flakes, charcoal, land mollusc shells, and leaves of hazel, elm and oak. Reid was surprised at the lack of finished tools from the site, mentioning the presence of 4-500 flint flakes, all evidently found in-situ and often crudely knapped with no secondary retouch. Elementary inspection of some of the material at Dorchester Museum, however, revealed a tranchet axe, micro-blade cores and microlith waste including a micro-burin (Dorchester Museum 1977. 63.1-8). The microlthic element was not recognised in the 19th century and it may be that the full assemblage contains diagnostic material. Bones of wild pig, red and roe deer, large ox (?bos primigenus), the latter deriving from the middle zone (Rankine 1962, 94) and subsequently dated to 4730-4450 cal BC (BM 1527) and 4370-4040 cal BC (BM 1528) by radiocarbon (Barker and Mackey 1961) were also present. As a result of the absence of pottery, Reid concluded that the site was of 'very early Neolithic date' (Reid 1896, 73) and although it is evident that a sequence of activities is present, over a century later with the benefit of a C14 date it would seem that he was not so far out.

Tree Field, Down Farm (Green 2000a, 28) and also occur at Wakefords Copse (Bradley and Lewis1974), but particularly Broom Hill where 80% of the 2000 odd microliths are considered to be later types and rods outnumber scalenes in pits 2 and 3, with micro rhomboids occurring high in the silting profile (Jacobi 1981, 17). According to Jacobi (1978, 19), nine sites of this period occur on the Sussex Coastal Plain. In contrast, there appears to be little or no clear evidence of a late date at Castle Meadow, Downton (Higgs 1959) and the lack of scalenes and presence of hollow based points implies an intermediate date. At Fir Tree Field, Down Farm, on Cranborne Chase, a clutch of seven microliths were found close together at the base of the weathering cone of the shaft. Five of these are rods, dated by C14 on a bos primigenus bone to 43404040 cal BC, and the group is thought to represent the presence of a quiver or hafted implement (Green and Allen 1997, 121-132). Elsewhere on Cranborne Chase (Arnold et al (1988), nine other sites are known to contain major percentages of scalenes, but three of four sites where they are the predominant type are on Greensand to the north of the chalk and the landform location might compare with Wealden sites. Eighteen are present as a minor, though nevertheless significant, component at Iwerne Minster, though the presence of Horsham Points and other microliths there hint at a mixed long term site (Summers 1941, 145). One of the most significant sites in the Chase is Woodcutts 1c, a small site, but which contains an overwhelming predominance of scalene microliths (Arnold et al 1988, 120). Aside from the examples from the Down Farm shaft, rods themselves, are rare (a single example from Pentridge and possibly others from Woodcutts and Bussey Stool being present in M Greens Collection) though micro scalene triangles and micro rhomboids possibly indicators of the latest Mesolithic (Ellaby 1987: 2004) are present at Woodcutts C, and in single numbers at some of the other sites, perhaps indicating that activity, though present, was less than intensive towards the end of the 5th millennium.

Figure 3:3 Site of the spring at Blashenwell.

Much of this chronology, however, is based on what is usually thought of as hunting paraphernalia, which need not be representative of sites or settlement as a whole. The larger sites on Cranborne Chase exhibit other tool types – crude axes and other core-tools, scrapers etc., in good quantity, although these are less easy to distinguish from Neolithic pieces in the same area. Across the Higher Chalk and Clay-with-flints of the region, from Dorset, across Hampshire to Sussex, such assemblages are widespread and this material has long been recognised as posing an interesting interpretative problem. Often referred to as Campignian (Dale 1917-18, 29), the assemblages invariably and typically comprise a variety of sometimes blunt and crudely made pick-like implements. These have alternatively been considered the by-product of flint extraction (Gabel 1957: Care 1979), or agriculture (Green 2000a), but the sites are usually

Thus sites firmly dated to the 5th millennium BC can hardly be said to be ubiquitous (Appendix 3:1) and understanding of the chronology is not good. Here, as elsewhere, it is necessary to fall back on typology, and dating rests largely upon the presence of percentages of microlith styles. Hollow-based Horsham Points diminish in numbers from the 6th millennium and there is a predominance of scalene triangles and rods. For the fifth and fourth millennia, however, those sites where rod-like narrow backed bladelets and scalene microtriangles are present continue to be of importance. From c5000BC, rods appear to be slowly replaced by micro-rhomboids and micro-lunates (Jacobi 1978, 19: Ellaby 1987, 64). In general, sites containing rods are quite rare within the studied area, they occur at the Endless Pit site and in Fir

29

surface collections and comprise broken ground axes and other Neolithic types alongside tranchet tools and microliths.

certainty been allocated a specific position in time (Riley in Richards 1990, 225-8 and cf. Froom 1976). Aside from the special tool types, little change appears to have taken place in the every day tool kit itself. Pitts and Jacobi (1979) have emphasised the blade-like nature of much early Neolithic flintwork, though it is only the overall percentage of blades and flakes that change through time rather than replacement of one type by the other. An inspection of material in museum stores reveals that there are often large numbers of flakes and flake cores among Mesolithic assemblages. Too few sites have, however, been excavated to be certain of other trends during this period, and the possibility of functional variation, or of differential curation of material on sites located at a distance from source material, needs to be taken into account.

As long ago as 1917 Smith (1917-18, 2) noted that some of these tools were sharpened by transversely struck flakes, but the unaesthetic appearance of many may have contributed to a lack of analysis. In the first study of Mesolithic core-tools Rankine (1938) recognised that tranchet axes occur in the Neolithic too, while Piggott (1954) also recognised that some of these types were often of Neolithic age and indeed they formed one component of his Secondary Neolithic. More recently both Julie Gardiner (1987) and Martin Green (2000) have provided impressive support. Gardiner in particular, considered that tranchet detachment technique occurs on a wide range of tools and the technology was quite integral to the Neolithic. Certainly fine axes with tranchet detachments occur, some approaching the form of Neolithic ground axe pre-forms (Field 1989), though unfortunately none have been discovered in secure contexts.

With no recognised equivalent of the Ertebølle or Swifterbandt in Britain, and only rare and questionable examples of Ertobølle-like artefacts, such as the 'lamp' found in a Neolithic pit at Heathrow, Harmondsworth, Middlesex (Grimes 1960, 197 and fig 78), reliance must be placed on the stone tools to articulate cultural activities. Most late Mesolithic sites in southern Britain have been found on acidic soils where crude pottery of the Swifterbandt type (de Roever 1979) is unlikely to survive and it may be that ceramics of this period remain to be discovered. The special and the domestic (or mundane) tools appear to tell different stories. It may be that this is a result of gender, the interpretation of the material having received a male bias. The change in 'special' tools coupled with the presence of new monuments might imply a change in social processes rather than economy. Stafford (1999), for example, has envisaged the transition in Denmark as a gradual process, being reliant on the acquisition of occasionally imported ground axes and other new tools as desirable items, possession of which signalled status and in turn created further demand.

Care (1979) investigated the tranchet axes from these sites and concluded that the attraction lay in the flint nodules that were present within the clay subsoil, in which case, the sites may represent procurement and production activity. She also recognised the later element in the assemblages and concluded that the crude picks and other tools were a feature of industrial sites and that such resources are likely to be used with increasing intensity into the Neolithic. At Broom Hill, one of the principal Mesolithic sites, 85 adzes, 17 of them from sealed contexts were recovered. One piece, a crude Hassocks type, is associated with a C14 date of 5720-5260 cal BC. Present too, is the crude flaking found in the Neolithic assemblages, and caution is required as a large Neolithic site, identified mainly because of a pottery component (Percival and Piggott 1934), is located not 100m away (Fig 3:2). The problem, however, may be one of nomenclature and if we refrain from trying to squeeze such artefacts into one period or the other the differences might whither away.

Landforms Sites with excavated features, supplemented by surface sites of considerable extent, are here divided into the broad landforms upon which they are located, i.e. Coastal Plain, Tertiary Junction or Higher Chalk, then subsequently by topographical position (Appendix 3:2).

Once the special tools, the carefully made microliths, leaf arrowheads and ground axes are excluded from the type list, it is difficult to be certain whether an assemblage is Neolithic or Mesolithic in date. Serrated blades, for example, are present at causewayed enclosures, but also on Mesolithic sites (e.g. Oakhanger VII – Jacobi 1981, 11: Rankine 1949, 25-6; 1956, 14: Froom 1976, 148), fabricators, part of the typical Neolithic tool-kit (Gardiner 1987), are also present in the Mesolithic (e.g. Froom 1976, 152). The ubiquitous scraper, the easiest of tool types to manufacture, but also the most difficult to analyse, fares no better, for as many Mesolithic scrapers appear to be made on flakes as on blades. Only the smaller `button' or 'thumb' scrapers have with any

Coastal Plain Some 19 sites have been discovered on the present Coastal Plain, most of them represented as surface scatters and situated within 2km of the present coastline. Like most of the coastal sites they appear to be low-key, but collectively they form a picture of consistent activity in the area. In view of the known sea-level changes it is

30

expected that considerable numbers of sites now lie underwater.

and cores, from an area of two acres at low tide from a spit of gravel, Rainbow Bar, at the mouth of the River Meon. However, this was a mixed assemblage, with Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and later finds all considered as one group.

In the west, the Isle of Portland has been intensively investigated, and much of the southern part of the area found to be littered with surface scatters, of which two sites, Culver Well and Portland I, have been excavated (Palmer 1999:1977, 143-4). The huge number of picks of Portland Chert found here in a restricted number of locations has resulted in suggestions that, like the sites on the Clay-with-flints, the area was a procurement centre, although it would seem unlikely that all of them represent discarded extraction tools – they each comprise usable raw material - and it may be that the picks are some kind of pre-form ready for transportation.

In fact, a low-key, but not insignificant, scatter of material can be found right across these low-lying areas and particularly alongside the present shore around Fareham and Portsea (Draper 1968: Bradley and Hooper 1975: Palmer 1977). At Cosham, Portsmouth, for example, a site discovered by Hooper (1968), with distinctive obliquely blunted point and other material, was thought to represent the edge of a site still partially buried. A further site discovered by E M Venables at Church Farm Caravan Holiday Camp, Pagham Harbour was reported by Palmer (1977, 86) as being visible at low tide. The full inventory is not published but Palmer (ibid) refers to the presence of picks, illustrating two of these along with five blades and a flake. Similarly, further artefacts were recovered by Venables from the foreshore at Bognor. More recently, over 4000 mixed period flints were recovered during the survey of Langstone Harbour (Allen and Gardiner 2000) and pieces diagnostic of Mesolithic activity, tranchet adzes, a sharpening flake, picks and serrated blades were all present (ibid, 142). The material confirms the impression obtained during earlier work of a significant coastal presence and of activity taking place alongside riverine routes into the interior (Draper 1958; 1968). Much evidence comes from what are now a series of small islands, North Binness and South Binness, Long and Baker's Island, situated east of the Farlington Marshes and all now only accessible at low tide. The Farlington Marshes themselves have also produced material, including Later Mesolithic microliths (Jacobi 1981, 21). As noted above the present Harbour was a considerable distance inland during the Boreal, but the survey by Allen and Gardiner (2000) revealed the presence of two silt filled ravines leading inland from the coast, and it may be that these provided corridors into the interior. The finds, however, came from what would have been the higher ground bordering these and were considered to represent the transient activities of small groups.

In contrast, flint pebbles appear to have been extracted from a pit at Bestwall Quarry, near Wareham, probably for use as either potboillers or raw material for tools. A good quantity of material comes from that site as a whole (Ladle 1997). There are similar spreads of artefact debris from the terraces of the River Stour (Poole Museum Collections), most of it struck from river gravel pebbles and the number of pieces with Mesolithic traits observed in museum collections from the Bournemouth/Christchurch area is quite considerable (Appendix 3:3: also Palmer 1972, 24-8: Barton 1992, 247). The small streams, chines, and easy access to the sea may have made this an attractive locale. Considerable amounts of material have also been found on Hengistbury Head slightly to the east of these, much of it assembled by H Druitt at the Red House Museum, Christchurch, and part catalogued by his successor J B Calkin. There have been other collectors since, including the Marchese Alessandro Nobili-Vitelleschi, A J Cotton, R Atkinson, B King, as well as C Draper (Rankine 1956, 37: Palmer 1977, 129). The Marchese Nobili-Vitalleschi material housed at Hampshire Museum Service, Winchester, is typical, with artefacts recovered from right across the promontory, but with pieces marked Warren Hill, North Field and South Field prominent. Palmer (1977, 129) noted that all of these sites produced numbers of microliths, while Barton (1992, 247) recorded further finds including late microliths not only on and around the higher ground of Warren Hill, but also lower down towards the foreshore, as well as in the North and South Fields situated to the north of the hill. Although diagnostic Later Mesolithic material is relatively rare, the assemblage indicates use of the hill and slopes toward the river throughout the Mesolithic.

At a little distance inland, a number of low-key sites have been recorded from the sandy heaths of the New Forest. Small amounts of scrapers and microliths were recovered from sand overlying plateau gravel on Wootton Common close to the south-east corner of Broadley Inclosure (Seaby 1950). Other sites were located adjacent to springs and small streams and mentioned below. In a similar situation to that in the Fir Tree Field shaft, Mesolithic debris comprising some 3000 pieces of struck flint, over 100 cores, 15 axes, 14 scrapers, 7 microliths, and 450 blades was encountered in the upper fills of a series of solution hollows on Portsdown, close to the junction of the chalk and 30m raised beach that overlooks Portsmouth Harbour (Hughes and ApSimon 1978).

On the opposite side of the River Avon, Mother Siller's Channel comprised two hearths of Purbeck Limestone slabs set amid blackened and burnt sand, the associated flint scatter including geometric microliths (Palmer 1972). This was situated on a small sandy knoll known as Crouch Hill within Stanpit Marsh. Similarly, Draper (1951) recovered a considerable quantity (Jacobi 1981, 21 reports several thousand pieces) of flint, mostly flakes

31

A similar trend can be traced right across the West Sussex Coastal Plain, where assessment of the known finds by Pitts (1980), revealed only a thin veneer of activity and to some degree this was confirmed by the results of extensive fieldwork along the coastline around Chichester Harbour (Cartwright 1984). Typical was the material recovered by Hooper from Chidham adjacent to a small stream feeding the Bosham Channel that revealed a small scatter of waste flakes, just seventeen of them utilised, together with eight scrapers, and a single core. Despite a considerable surface area that was stripped to the underlying clay no associated features were discovered (Hooper 1969, 126). A series of discoveries of tranchet adzes along the Selsey coast at The Looe, East Beach, West Beach, and West Street, however, together with other finds from East Beach, represent sites presumably formerly located a considerable distance inland.

revealed at Wakeford's Copse, near Havant, Hampshire (Bradley and Lewis 1974), may not represent the length of occupation at the site, for the chronological range of flint material found in the other pits may indicate that there too, a lengthy sequence of activity was present. At Castle Meadow, Downton an irregular group of 23 well-bedded stake holes in an area no more than 2.75 by 1.25m were revealed (Higgs 1959) that form no clear pattern, but appear to polarise into two clusters each confined to an area of about a square metre (Fig 3:4). Section drawings indicate that only nine were upright, the others placed at varying angles and Higgs suggested that in each cluster upright posts formed a semi-circular shelter, with outer, outward leaning posts used as pegs to take supporting ropes. While acknowledging that it is unclear whether these represent one or two separate structures, he felt that they may represent temporary huts similar to those found at Rissen and Detmold in Germany (ibid 231-2). In each case, however, the upright posts enclose an area of less than 1m, an extremely small and uncomfortable shelter, whereas the German examples that he illustrates are a reasonable 3m in diameter. There are further problems. One of the uprights in each group, at least according to the profiles illustrated, is leaning. Other arrangements are clearly possible and indeed the posts need not be contemporary. One that emerges is a straight line of five uprights spanning both clusters from southwest to north-east. Further posts, three of them inward leaning, mimic this axis less than 0.5m to the east. Alternatively, the southwestern group can be visualised as a four poster – supported by four outward leaning posts on a west to east axis. Rather than shelters, the possibility of free-standing structures might also be considered, perhaps a hide stretching, plant drying, or meat smoking frame. An area of charcoal around the eastern post setting was thought to represent a hearth, which, had it been in operation contemporaneously, would have burnt the posts supporting the shelter.

Pitts (1980, 161) made particular comment on the small size of these collections and the noticeable absence of microliths in comparison to the enormous quantities of material recovered only a few kilometres to the north on the Greensand sites of the Weald. Pitts' own fieldwork as part of the Oving Field Survey confirmed the impression of a thin, but nevertheless significant, scatter across the area. Aside from these, Pitts' distribution map (ibid, 154) shows that the remaining sites are scattered close to the Tertiary Junction, including Westhampnett by-pass, where flint was found in association with charcoal thought to have resulted from woodland clearance early in the post-glacial period (Fitzpatrick 1992a). Tertiary Junction Just a little over 10 km from the coast, the site at Broom Hill, Braishfield, revealed a cluster of four pits considered to be Mesolithic dwellings. All were situated within a few metres of each other (Fig 3:2 inset). In one of these, Pit 4, a neatly cut rectangular bench was cut along one side and thought by the excavator to be a bed. The largest and most amorphous of the pits, No 3, was associated with some 20 postholes, most of which were situated around the circumference of the pit. Last but not least, pit No 2 was uncovered early in the campaign in 1972, a hearth positioned close to its base and a core-tool (Hassocks adze) inserted vertically into the clay floor, while a small posthole was located on the sloping side at the southern end. It is by no means clear that O'Malley revealed all the structures present on the site as his excavations were based on the presence of surface scatters. For a site that manifests itself in a flint assemblage of some 97,000 pieces, including over 2000 microliths, it might be considered surprising that so little structural activity was present. In addition, the radiocarbon dates indicate that the structures are unlikely to have been contemporary. Similarly, the date of 48004250 cal BC (HAR 233) for charcoal in one of eight pits

Small quantities of Mesolithic material were recovered elsewhere along the Tertiary Junction, for example, during fieldwalking close to springs at Angmering Decoy, West Sussex, where the material was thought to have been obtained locally (Graves and Hammond 1993), and on the basis of the microblade cores felt to represent late Mesolithic activity. Other finds come from Angmering, where Lewis (1960) reported the discovery of flint artefacts `of Mesolithic type' including a 'Thames Pick' from Seven Acre Pig and Mushroom Farm. Perhaps typical of these sites is Marsh Farm, Binsted, with a mixed assemblage containing a little over 350 pieces - a few cores and worked pieces, a single micro-burin, eight tranchet adzes, and thirty small blades. While the presence of adzes testifies to the importance of the location, the lack of microliths implies a range of activities very different from some of those on the chalk.

32

Cooking holes

Unexcavated

Charcoal

Upright posts

Outward leaning posts

0

Inward leaning posts

period with a Neolithic admixture (Willis Collection: Hampshire Museum Service). There is less evidence from the hills of Wiltshire, perhaps because extensive military presence has provided little opportunity for surface collection. Further east, Draper (1951) reported the presence of a Mesolithic assemblage recovered from outside the rampart of Old Winchester Hillfort that included cores, rejuvenation flakes etc. The site was noted independently as part of a survey of the hillfort by RCHME in 1994 and, like the sites around Basingstoke, the assemblage noted to have a later admixture of material. Significantly, although the site lies on the slopes of the Upper Chalk, it is located close to the junction of Clay-with-flints capping. Eleven small sites around the upper slopes of Butser Hill, Sussex, described by Draper (1953) are located in analogous positions and similar sites can be traced into West Sussex, in the area around Lavant, Boxgrove and Slindon (Upton Collection: Chichester Museum).

N

2.4m

Figure 3:4 Postholes excavated close to the river bank at Downton (adapted from Higgs 1959).

Higher Chalk River valleys

Further inland, a series of sites have been recorded on the Higher Chalk, particularly on or close to the areas capped by Clay-with-flints. Iwerne Courtney (or Minster), Shroton (Summers 1941, 145-6), overlooking Handcocks Bottom has already been mentioned. Rankine described it as the largest surface site in Dorset and the most important outside the Weald, and compared it with the large sites discovered by Draper at Butser in Hampshire (Rankine 1962, 92). It comprised a surface scatter that included over 800 cores and 400 scrapers and was excavated by P G Summers with the unfulfilled expectation of uncovering pit dwellings (Summers 1941, 145-146). Little of consequence was evidently revealed and Summers subsequently thought the soil to be unsuitable for the construction of dwelling pits. More recently, Arnold has considered the site to be an amalgamation of several much smaller concentrations (Green 2000a, 23-4).

Jacobi (1981, 20) noticed how find spots along the coast are frequently situated on the higher ground towards the landward side of modern harbours, where freshwater sources were available and, on inspection, this is something that applies right across the Coastal Plain. As might be expected, in terms of numbers of sites this is one of the largest categories. Of those worth special mention, West Bersted, Crumpets Farm, Draglens, Latch Farm, Christchurch, Church Place Ashurst, Longdown Sandpit, Ashurst Walk, Nutsey Farm, Totton, South Wallington and Fawley all stand out (e.g. Palmer 1977). No differentiation is made here between sites adjacent to small streams or the lower reaches of the larger rivers, for there is a significant difference in the form of river valleys at such places. Much has to do with patterns of Holocene meandering, though in general, the higher upstream, the narrower the valley will be, and therefore the greater the necessity of utilising the land beyond the valley and its slopes. Evans (1992, 48) described the valley bottom as an area 'that is, has been, or may be flooded or influenced by ground water in a substantially different way from the ambient sides and valley plateau's'. Presence of water aside, the profile of the valley affords different economic advantages according to whether it is in the upper, middle or lower drainage. In the upper reaches, the valley floor may be quite narrow and could provide shelter, but not much room for other subsistence activities and under such circumstances it might be better to utilise the slopes. The middle stretches often have a wider floor as Holocene meanders have developed and cut from side to side. Here the bottom itself could be used a more profitable way. In contrast, the wide valley floors of the lower reaches allowed more extensive use of the riverside.

All of the sites in Cranborne Chase except one are considered to fall into Mellars (1976b) base camp category (Arnold et al 1988), that is, sites containing large numbers of scrapers, axes and other tools, as well as microliths. Similar sites occur on the South Downs at places like Butser, where they are noted as having a relationship to other sites in the Weald rather than with those on the Coastal Plain (Draper 1953). It is interesting to note that, although base camps in Cranborne Chase lie around the springs at the junction of the Clay-with-flints (Reading Beds) and the chalk, the largest of Arnold’s sites is located on the Greensand to the north. Similarly the sites around Basingstoke are situated around the headwaters of the River Test. Here, on the watershed between the Thames Valley and the Solent drainage system, Care (1979, 95) noted a particularly strong presence of sites containing tranchet axes. In fact, considerable numbers of these sites appear to be multi-

33

Some 47 square kms of the Upper Meon Valley fieldwalked by Scofield revealed a low-key scatter of Mesolithic material, but with a greater number of cores recovered from the Lower than the Upper Chalk (Schofield 1991, 165). This could be taken as implying greater occupation of the lower ground. At Bowmans Farm, Romsey Extra, excavations along the valley floor of the River Blackwater revealed a late Mesolithic flint assemblage evidently associated with structures (Green 1996, 120).

Seven sites, formerly in riverine locations, lie in what are now estuaries, Bestwall Quarry, Wareham (Ladle 1996; 1997), Southampton Harbour (Shore and Elwas 1889: Shore 1905), Rainbow Bar (Draper 1951) Crouch Hill, Christchurch (Palmer 1972), and Hengistbury Head (Barton 1992: Palmer 1972). There are also sites in Langstone Harbour (Allen and Gardiner 2000), formerly perhaps alongside the Chichester river, along with other sites around, for example, Portsmouth and Chichester Harbours (Draper 1951; 1968: Cartwright 1984: Hooper1969). Just a little upstream of the present river mouth, Pitts' excavations at North Bersted above the lower course of the Aldingbourne Rife, recovered a small amount of flint material evidently of Mesolithic date from the lower levels of a small hollow or pit cut into the underlying brickearth. (Pitts 1980, 160). Closer to Southampton, a small assemblage from Nursling, inclusive of 13 small scrapers and an obliquely blunted point, was situated in a similar position on the slopes above the River Test is mentioned by Palmer (1977, 104). While a second site nearby, at Nutsey Farm Gravel Pit, Totton, located on the gravels of the River Test is equally enigmatic, but evidently produced a bone point (ibid 104). Further east, material was found eroding from the bank of the River Wallington at South Wallington (Draper 1968).

J J Stonborough identified a number of sites located close to streams on the Chalk around Corfe Mullen that Rankine (1962, 96) naturally enough referred to as the Corfe Mullen Group. Among these, Crumpets Farm is located hard by a small stream; Draglens North and South on a bluff above a stream leading to the River Stour; Plainfield Farm, Broadstone, a site discovered during redevelopment (Rankine 1962) and now a housing estate, lies on the lower slopes; while Boarman's Lodge, Beaulieu, is also located on a spur of gravel on the bluffs above the Beaulieu River (Trowbridge 1936: Rankine 1938; 1940). The latter is a rather obscure site, where 48 circular vegetation patches were originally thought to represent a Mesolithic village. When investigated, during redevelopment, however, there was nothing to link them to the flintwork.

Microliths and core-tools were found in two concentrations around two clay floors on Whitcombe Hill, Winfrith Heath, Dorset (Palmer 1973, 75). This location, however, is on the lower slopes of the hill, beside a tributary of the River Frome. Palmer also records scatters of material from Church Place Inclosure, Ashurst, by a small brook leading to the Beaulieu River, and nearby at Longdown Sandpit and Ashurst Walk, by the upper reaches of the Beaulieu River, but other than mentioning that the artefacts were made on small pebbles, provides no further details.

Springs At least eight sites are located adjacent to springs. Chief of these is perhaps Broom Hill, near Romsey, Hampshire (Fig 3:2), but even Wakefords Copse, Hampshire, though a high level site is in fact located immediately adjacent to a spring (Bradley 1978). The five sites at Down Farm, all cluster around the springline (Green 2000a, 27 fig 16), while those on Handley Common cluster around the site of an ancient stream bed (Green 2000a, 25 fig 11 and 13) and sites on Cranborne Chase appear to conform to this pattern.

Rankine (1962, 99) believed that the Avon corridor demonstrated significant potential for Mesolithic occupation, citing the presence of sites in its headwaters as far downstream as Fordingbridge. Equally, the bluffs along the lower reaches of the Avon were inspected by Barton, who reported considerable numbers of finds of flint material between Christchurch and Fordingbridge that bore Mesolithic traits (Barton 1992, 247). In contrast, however, while investigating the middle reaches of the valley around Fordingbridge, the Middle Avon Valley Survey (Light et al 1995) found little evidence of Mesolithic detritus, though it is quite conceivable that material lay beneath the alluvium/colluvium and was not detectable on the surface. Castle Meadow, Downton, excavated by Philip Rhatz and Eric Higgs 1956 and 1957 (Higgs 1959) and situated on the gravel terrace little more than 7m above the river has already been mentioned. Like Broom Hill, Neolithic pottery was recovered from nearby, an indication that the location was seen as favourable by more than one group of people.

As its name suggests, Culver Well on the Isle of Portland is situated close to a spring, this time at the base of a south-facing ridge (Palmer 1968), but the concentration of material in two fields at Portland site 1, is also close to a, now underground, spring. The spring at Blashenwell, Dorset (Mansell-Pleydell 1886: Reid 1896: Rankine 1962) lies at the foot of a steep Purbeck limestone scarp, where a now intermittent flow forms a small brook that flows northward towards Corfe. At Ulwell, Dorset, the spring is located at the base of the southern scarp of a chalk ridge and adjacent to an important gap through it (Calkin 1953). Beaucroft Field, Dorset, is located close to a spring feeding north into the River Stour, while Rankine (1962) noted blades being recovered close to the source of the River Jordon, at Bincombe, Dorset.

34

Fieldwalking and excavation around the site of a formerly recorded shell midden at Lee-on-Solent, Hampshire (Kemp and Rogers 1984), revealed a small quantity of Mesolithic material that included 10 microliths (ibid 32). Now little over 1km from the coastline, the site here is, in fact, located close to a series of springs that fed small tributaries of the River Alver, and which subsequently discharged into the sea.

hazel, in particular, could have regenerated in areas previously cleared; the hazelnut becoming such an important component of the Mesolithic site inventory. The deliberate or natural introduction of fire may also have had considerable effect. Reynier pointed out that during the Horsham stage of the Mesolithic, a stage restricted to the south of the country, sites for the first time are found on the interfluves in addition to river valley corridors (Reynier lecture to Palaeolithic /Mesolithic day meeting Sept 2001 British Museum). The warm sandy soil of what now comprises the southern heathlands, coupled with the warmer climate of central southern England, is likely to have provided ideal conditions for the spread of fire, as it still does, and this might lead to the early establishment of settlement on interfluves here. Over-use of fire in this manner and the concentrated grazing that it produced, may have led to the early podsolisation recorded by Dimbleby (1962).

Hilltops No principal sites are recorded on the main interfluves, although small flint scatters and a number of isolated tranchet axes have been found in such positions. Equally sites that occupy hilltop locations, as distinct from high positions OD, are quite unusual. Warren Hill on Hengistbury Head and Fort Wallington, Portsdown, might come into this category. Wakefords Copse might be considered unusual in its prominent upland siting, being situated on the upper slopes adjacent to a re-entrant with views over the Coastal Plain. Mesolithic artefacts were found on the southern slopes of a prominent ridge above Swyre Head, Dorset during excavation of an Iron Age/Romano-British shale working site (Palmer 1977, 143: Toms 1968). It may be that the lack of such sites is more apparent than real.

Aside from the river corridors, these may be the areas favoured by mammals which, given the variety of rich pickings, may tend to congregate and herd rather than lead a solitary existence in the closed pinewood. This is not to suggest that these processes were not at work on other soils, but that they were perhaps more widespread and advanced here. The degree to which management of the vegetation may have taken place, subsequently leading to focussed patterns of grazing, may have been relatively widespread. The only extensive cover left for game by the end of the 5th millennium may have been on the clays or the chalk. If there was some increase in the population by the end of that time, pressure on established hunting grounds could easily be at a premium, and movement onto even these lands of increased importance.

Making it all go round With effect from the decline of tundra conditions immediately post-glacial, the very nature of interaction between both animal and human populations and the vegetation, must have had a significant influence on the development of the natural environment. After several millennia of such influence by ungulates, patterns of movement and browse might be thought to have been well-established. Yet such intervention is rarely if ever catalogued as a potential influence on vegetation change until the fourth or third millennium, when it is considered as an indicator of the onset of agricultural farming. Clearance has been noted at Stonehenge early in the postglacial period, though the manner in which humans operated in, utilised and in turn affected the countryside as late as the fifth millennium is far from clear. Sites and chance finds occur on all the major geological formations and as Jacobi (1981, 23) pointed out for Hampshire, this would leave no part of the region unaffected and crucially, leave little scope for agriculture without it having a serious impact on the existing settlement pattern.

The soils of most excavated sites in central southern England have proved too acidic for the preservation of plant or animal material and, given the topography, Jacobi was left to assume that even at coastal sites, the primary method of subsistence must have focussed on hunting cattle, red deer and pig (Jacobi 1978, 81; 1981, 10). This certainly appears to be the case at Blashenwell, though like Portland Bill, marine shells occur. Sites on Portland Bill, or indeed Hengistbury Head, were quite isolated from many resources and as Evans (1975) pointed out there was no easy access to hunting grounds and this encourages the view that they were visited for specific purposes (c.f. Palmer 1999). There is a tendency for material to cluster in certain locations on the Higher Chalk (Jacobi 1981), for example, around Butser Hill, or Salt Hill, East Meon (Draper 1968: and noted by Jacobi 1981, 13), or Dummer, near Basingstoke (Rankine 1954, 39: Hants Museum Service: Willis Collection). The correlation with Clay-with-flints deposits at most, though not all, high level sites, (Jacobi (1978, 77: Care 1979) has been noted above (Arnold et al 1988, White 1971: Summers 1941:

Available literature on present day climax forests indicates that there is, in fact, rarely an intact primeval forest. Although often undetectable to the modern western eye the forest is in fact a patchwork of phases of activity and re-growth, of regenerated clearings and old gardens; of areas coppiced at a time beyond memory. It may be that the Boreal forest was like this. The areas of

35

Rankine 1962: Draper 1951a; 1953; 1964-8: Cunliffe 1973: Upton Collection: Upton pers comm). Presence of the sandy Reading Beds is important, and it is this that has influenced the composition of the overlying Claywith-flints here. Patches of similar deposits, Blackheath Beds, Netley Sands, and Thanet Sands all overlying the chalk, have been observed to support flint scatters on the North Downs in Surrey (Field et al 1990), in contrast to the heavy surrounding Clay-with-flints (sensu stricto), and the deposits might be compared to those at the base of the chalk escarpment, where the mix of alkaline and acidic soils provide some of the most productive ground for cultivation puroses (Wooldridge and Linton 1933). Such locations might be good places for flint procurement, for good quality flint, protected from glacial fracture and extremely good for knapping, erodes from the base of the deposit at the junction with the chalk (Green pers comm). Barber et al (1999) suggested that differential weathering rates of the Clay-with-flints and chalk respectively might emphasise the junction between the two deposits and in doing so highlight desirable flint seams. Most of the Sussex flint mine sites lie at the junction of Clay-with-flints and chalk, and the extraction pits at Martin's Clump, Hampshire, have an early C14 date for one of the pits and may have an origin even earlier in the 5th millennium.

chines, and thus might be seen as part of a riverine subsistence package. On reflection this might seem particularly sensible for those sites located along the coast: where salt water has its limitations in terms of sustenance for all mammals, but the pattern continues inland incorporating sites such as Downton, as far as the river source. It seems likely that few freshwater resources would have remained unvisited, unoccupied or unutilised in some way. Whether such places were contested is unknown, but features beneath 4th millennium monuments indicate that some such locations had been marked earlier. Barton drew attention to the natural use of rivers for travelling to places in the interior, whether to special hunting sites or for other reasons. The importance of drainage features in providing reference points in the landscape was acknowledged, and significantly, he observed that watersheds were often important territorial markers in anthropological literature (references in Barton et al 1995, 110) mentioning as an example, in particular, the definition of fishing rights along the northwest coast of America. Given the changes to marine conditions in the southern part of the North Sea (Lambeck 1995), the 5th millennium may have been a time of considerable upheaval, as the economy of many whose subsistence was based on the shoreline, even if it was of a seasonal nature, will have been considerably affected. Such changes at one point might have repercussions elsewhere, and dependency on certain vegetable foods, hazelnuts, for example, might be placed at crisis point. Consequently, there may have been considerable stress on the land as well as the people within it. Before the end of the millennium new technology is present in a fully developed form, that of ground axe and ceramic production. Whether this was driven by cultural need, or in response to these natural events is not clear, but the signature left behind allows us to catalogue an interest in certain locations in the countryside in a rather different way.

Draper (1968, 110) saw the sites in Hampshire as being related to the topography, with most sites lying along the axis of the geological formations and linked to each other by the major north-south river valleys. The key appears to be the Tertiary Junction, where a series of important sites, Downton, Broom Hill, Wakefords Copse etc., are located. These utilise the variable but well-drained Reading Beds and the ribbons of geologies and soils immediately adjacent. As Draper suggested, the river valleys link these sites with the springlines of the interior. The springs in some areas, however, might have provided a markedly different environment to that witnessed today. At the head of the River Allen, for example, a small natural lake surrounded a series of island-like natural mounds or naleds. At least one of these excavated by M Green was used as a vantage point by one group of people (Green 2000a, 27-8) and disturbance of the gravel here may have been to provide potboilers. Similar clusters of sites around an ancient high level lake in Waun Fignen Felen, south Wales, have been interpreted as repeated visits to a good hunting site, the lake becoming a 'preferred place' (Barton et al 1995). Rankine determined that sites in the Weald often appeared to be related to the river system. Of 21 sites investigated in West Surrey (1939b), ten were river bluff sites, eight located on the valley floors and only three on the higher ground. Similar use of the valleys might have developed in the Solent drainage as well. As noted above, most sites are, or were, situated alongside freshwater, either in the form of major rivers or smaller rifes and

36

CHAPTER 4 CARVING OUT A NICHE AND GETTING ALONG WITH OTHERS: THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM 4000-3000BC

al 1999, 58). The C14 date comes from one of those situated close to the summit of the down and if extraction proceeded in an uphill direction as it appears to have done at other mine sites, genesis could have been even earlier in the 5th millennium. Thus a pattern of procurement of raw materials and exploitation of flint sources throughout the region (Appendix 4:1), together with use of ground axes and ceramics was likely to be well established by the turn of the millennium. A mature ‘Neolithic package’ appears to have been in place by the middle of the fourth millennium, when the full range of artefacts is consistently incorporated into the ditches of causewayed enclosures across the area at, for example, Hambledon Hill, Dorset, Windmill Hill, Wiltshire, or the Trundle, West Sussex.

Introduction The butt of a ground flint axe found along with a sherd of Plain Bowl pottery in the Fir Tree Field shaft, Down Farm, Dorset (Fig 4:1: Green pers comm: Green 2000a), is the first indication of the crystallisation of new ideas. The artefacts appear as fully developed types, here dated to 4250-3980 cal BC, and imply that either continental influence had penetrated deeply into the interior and reached the Higher Chalk by that date, or that a long developmental process lies unrecognised in the archaeological record. A little further east at Conybury Hill, near Amesbury, a second ground axe, this time coupled with leaf arrowhead and South Western style carinated pottery was found in a pit and at 3980-3708 cal BC (Richards 1990), just a little later in date, provides support. The technological change appears to have been taken up swiftly, and there seems to be an abrupt alteration in the 'special' component of the tool kit around 4000 cal BC, with, on the one hand, sites containing microlithic rods, micro-rhomboids and lunates, dating up to around that time, and on the other, the new types mentioned here. Other than in the Down Farm shaft, where there is a clear chronological separation, no rods appear on Neolithic sites. Nor does typically Neolithic material appear in Mesolithic contexts. Twelve C14 dates from the shaft in Firtree Field, Down Farm, (Green 2000a, 5-6; pers comm) span the traditional Neolithic-Mesolithic transition. The shaft had filled with rubble between 4400 and 4160 cal BC leaving a hollow within which the debris from intermittent human activity was trapped. A series of seven microliths, five of them rods, were dated to 4340-4040 cal BC (Green and Allen 1997, 121-132: Green 2000a), which in turn was sealed by a deposit containing Plain Bowl pottery dated to 4240-3980 cal BC and subsequently a hearth with two C14 dates to 40503790 cal BC.

Figure 4:1 The butt of a ground flint axe found in a shaft at Down Farm, Sixpenny handley, Dorset. This is the earliest ground stone axe to be recovered from a Neolithic context in Britain (drawing by Joanna Richards, by permission of Martin Green)

As observed in the previous chapter, the natural vegetation may have been considerably modified by human agency by the turn of the fifth-fourth millennium BC. Cores taken at Winnall Moors, near Winchester, Hampshire, indicated clearance of woodland in association with a rise in herbs and the presence of cereals within the river valley as early as 4545-4485 cal BC (Waton 1982, 77), while recent work on Cranborne Chase has emphasised that the area was more open throughout the Holocene than previously considered (French et al 2003). Clearance of forest is also attested at 4350-4000 cal BC at the shaft in Firtree Field, Down Farm, Sixpenny Handley, Dorset, while mollusc profiles indicate that open downland was certainly present early in the Neolithic within the Stonehenge area (Allen, Entwistle and Richards in Richards 1990: Gale in Richards 1990, 252: M Allen in Cleal et al 1995) and further north around the South Street long barrow.

The process of breaking into the earth was also well established, for early long barrows enter the record at about the turn of the millennium (Schulting 2000), while on the Higher Chalk of Hampshire, just beyond the high ground around Figsbury and a stone’s throw from the Fussells Lodge long barrow site, Wiltshire, lay the flint mines of Martins Clump. Whichever range is correct, a single C14 date of 4330-4190 or 4150-3780 cal BC (Barber et al 1999) indicates that flint seams were being exploited at about the same time that features beneath the nearby long barrow site were being utilised. The extraction site is complex, covering some 8ha and incorporating up to 1000 small pits and shafts (Barber et

37

Change was apparently variable, the decline in elm, for example, taking place over a considerable time frame from 4080-3770 cal BC (HAR 3919) at Gatcombe Withy Bed on the Isle of Wight, to 3640-3340 cal BC (HAR 3920) at Rimsmoor, near Bere Regis, Dorset (Scaife 1988). At Gatcombe, however, cereal pollen occurred within an open woodland environment prior to the Elm Decline (Scaife 1987; 1988, 31), while at Morden A, Dorset, there are low levels of cereals both before and after the Elm Decline (Haskins 1978).

at Stonehenge Bottom, Easton Down, Wiltshire, and the higher parts of the River Allen valley in Dorset, for example, are more likely to have held water during this period. There was a considerable increase in sea-level height of about 3m just before the turn of the 5th to 4th millennium. Precise configuration of the coastline remains unclear and in any case will have changed from one century to the next. Portland may have been a more substantial landmass, while Warren Hill on Hengistbury Head at Christchurch, flanking the River Avon, would still have been some way inland and have signposted the route through the estuary. A little upstream of the Avon/Stour confluence, the great monumental mound at Holdenhurst, one of the earliest of monument types recognisable, was constructed. The location of this and distribution of similar examples, provides a useful indication of the extent of land-use at this time.

There is other evidence of vegetal change to accompany the decline in elm trees. Five sites around Poole Harbour, for example, have produced Plantago lanceolata, as at Morden B associated with the decline in Ulmus (Haskins 1978: Message 1987), while at Rimsmoor there was a temporary increase in cereal and grasses coupled with tree loss (Waton and Barber (1987). Similarly, the introduction of cereal type pollen at Pannel Bridge, Brede Valley, in Sussex, occurs in conjunction with the Elm Decline (Waller 1993, 366).

Connections with the land On the Coastal Plain, wide areas of open woodland remained, particularly on the sandy areas and along the coast, but at some sites such as Rimsmoor, near Bere Regis, pockets of closed forest remained through to the end of the 4th millennium (Waton and Barber 1987). As now, the New Forest may have been a mosaic of vegetation types all reflecting previous activity, but a decline in Ulmus and Tilia along with a corresponding increase in grasses cannot be observed there until the 3rd millennium (Barber and Clarke 1987). Geology was clearly an important ingredient in the development of soil types and here it is generally considered that podsolisation, natural or otherwise, had begun by or before the Neolithic period and that in certain instances anthropogenic factors may have been responsible (Dimbleby 1962: Limbrey 1975). The occurrence of charcoal in Atlantic Age peat at Morden B, Godlington A and B, and Luscombe, Dorset (Chapter 2 above) indicates that fire was involved (Haskins 1978), though it remains unclear whether this was caused by natural or human agency (Moore 1997), and Haskins (1978) comments that not all vegetal interference in the Poole Basin can with certainty be put down to human influence.

The great monument at Holdenhurst, a long mound of turf and earth, was constructed on the gravel terraces of the River Stour close to the confluence with the Avon, not far from the modern village of Holdenhurst (Piggott 1937). It was situated between the 10 and 15m contours on the southern bank of the river, a little over 1km from the present stream channel and sheltered by the gently rising ground of Haddon Hill immediately to its south (Fig 4:2). The riverine landscape is extremely important here and provides the main focal point in all directions but the south; a corridor of visibility along both the Stour Valley and particularly along the tributary valley of the Moors River immediately north. Views of the present coastline might just be possible (this is impossible to check with precision because of modern development), though given a lower sea-level and a coast-line further south during the Earlier Neolithic this was almost certainly not a factor in the siting of the mound. Moving the barrow a little south onto the higher ground of Haddon Hill would have automatically provided wider views including of the sea should that have been required. Evidently the position on the slope was of greater importance than such views. Equally, the situation of the mound infinitely bound it to the lower ground alongside the river. Just 2.5km to the northeast a gap between Blackwater Hill and an unnamed hill to the north of it, both part of the range alongside the River Avon, provided a notch through which an early glimpse of the midsummer sunrise might be obtained. However, the mound was oriented to the south-southeast and any solar significance is not supported by its alignment.

In addition, there appears to have been considerable change in climatic conditions during the early centuries of the 4th millennium, resulting in the need for construction of trackways on the Somerset Levels (Hillam et al 1990). If manifested as increased precipitation, there may have been interesting effects on the Higher Chalk of Hampshire and Wiltshire. Winterbournes may have revived or, where already present, may have issued from higher up their valleys. The valley at Fussell's Lodge, near Salisbury, the combes

38

0

1km

Figure 4:2 The location of Holdenhurst long barrow, broadly aligned along the contour, on a gravel terrace of the Rover Stour. Inset: the location today, now Barrow Close, is completely levelled and developed for housing.Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

also be that such change in the surface cover was a preparation for cultivation.

Nothing but two patches of charcoal and a pit containing burnt flints were found on the old land surface. The latter was thought to be for 'ritual' purposes. To the side of it lay a small oval mound constructed of turf, with the long axis aligned to the southeast. A massive rectangular enclosure of turf, not precisely respecting the orientation of the earlier structure, was constructed around it. This reached a length of some 76m and 12m in width, and within and over it spoil from side ditches was placed. The construction of the enclosure and covering mound were seen as near contemporary events (Piggott 1937, 6). The length of the final mound is unclear, but it must have been at least 80m placing it amongst the longer mounds in Wessex. It is by no means a unique example of this kind of construction, for a mound of turf of over 100m in length was constructed at Raunds, in Northamptonshire before c 3800 cal BC (Healy and Harding 2003, 4). Like that, the presence of turf at Holdenhurst implies a considerable area of local grazing land and removal of such a large area of grass implies something else too. Unless managed, weeds would rapidly colonise the area and create a second monument, one of rank vegetation. This may of course have been intentional, but it might

At least one piece of finer pottery recovered from the primary ditch silt bears traces of a carinated shoulder. Piggott commented on this as it stood out from the rest of the assemblage, noting that it was an unusual piece for southern Britain (Piggott 1937, 9) and described it as similar to a sherd from Hembury. It might now be considered to be Grimston Ware and dateable to the Early Neolithic (Herne 1988). With the absence of C14 dates from the site, this provides an indication of an early element amongst an inventory of predominantly Windmill Hill wares. Twenty km inland, upstream along the River Avon and a little to the south-east of Salisbury, the long barrow at Fussell's Lodge lies firmly at the heart of the Solent drainage. The site is particularly useful as, aside from its sequence of deposits, it has provided a C14 date of 43303700 cal BC (BM 134) (new dates are being recalculated pers comm A Whittle and A Bayliss), which makes it the earliest long barrow site in the country (Schulting 2000). First recognised from the air by Crawford and confirmed

39

on the ground by Keiller (Crawford and Keiller 1928) it was said to have been almost levelled by cultivation at the time of excavation (Ashbee 1966). It lies alone, within and towards the head of, a small, 3 km long reentrant of the Avon (Fig 4:3). The course of the valley varies slightly from east-northeast close to the river, but curves to a north-northeast axis towards the head. The highest ground around the head and sides of the valley rises to over 137 m and, limits of vegetation aside, these points command extensive views across the chalk downs and towards the coast. Situated close to the head of a valley, the long mound is nevertheless almost hidden from view and lies some 31 m below its surrounding high ground. As a monumental mound, it would have been visible from the slopes and high ground of the valley itself and, if one approached from along the valley floor (again assuming open vegetation), it would have come into view as one rounded the curve for the final 1.5km or so. From beyond the valley, however, both mound and its environs would not be visible, being obscured from view by the high points of the valley sides. The impression of the contemporary Fussell's Lodge environment is almost of a hidden and private valley, as indeed it currently is. The mound certainly marks the valley, but not as a

signpost, there is no obvious thoroughfare. While it provides a secure reference point for those occupying the area, it is something to be sought out by travellers rather than providing direction or information for them. One could easily pass the valley by and the mound too, without being aware of the presence of either. Like other long barrows, its purpose remains obscure, and this obscurity is only increased by the complexity of the excavated site. The excavator envisaged the trapezoidal palisade enclosure trench as the salient feature (Ashbee 1966, 30), with a ridged mortuary house constructed at the wider end of it supported by three wooden uprights. One of these cut through the enclosure entrance, effectively appearing to block access to both mortuary house and enclosure (Fig 4:4). The flint cairn that covers the burials is not mentioned in this reconstruction and one is left to assume that when the cairn was constructed over the mortuary house, the roof must have immediately caved in. However, little certain evidence for a mortuary house was recovered. A small tip of burnt material, reduced chalk, burnt flint, a burnt sarsen boulder fragment and some pieces of carbonised wood was recovered from within the cairn at the proximal end and

0

1km

Contours at 7.6m intervals

Figure 4:3 The landform at Clarendon Park, Salisbury, showing the location of the Fussell's Lodge long barrow. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

40

this had partially covered one of three pits that underlay the cairn. While a pile of bones that partially lay over one pit was interpreted as leaning against an upright, a similar pile of bones lay completely across a second of the pits ensuring that it, at least, could not have held a timber that supported a chamber roof.

65, 71-2, 83, 86, 91, 102, 107, 117), Wor Barrow (PittRivers 1898, 66) and Moody's Down NW (Grimes 1960, 248-9). At Thickthorn Down, Dorset (Drew and Piggott 1936, 81) pits containing pine charcoal were found beneath an unbroken turf line and therefore considered to be of considerably earlier date than the barrow. Elsewhere, both of the long mounds at Giants' Hills, Skendleby, Lincolnshire, covered such features. At Skendleby 1, a pit appeared to be surrounded by traces of hurdling and it may be that a construction around or over the pit was present (Phillips 1936). Beneath the adjacent mound, Skendleby 2, two oval pits with post casts were discovered side by side and positioned at 90% to their later covering mound (Evans and Simpson 1991). Burial material was placed between them in a similar manner to those at Fussell's Lodge. So far the pits themselves have not produced dating evidence. Most authorities have considered them as part of a mortuary structure and to be only marginally earlier than the covering mound, but where a sequence of C14 dates has been obtained, as at Giants' Hills 2, it is clear that a time span of several centuries could be represented (Evans and Simpson 1991, 42) and the deposition of the bones could have simply been the final act in this early phase of activity. Along with several vertebrae of Bos primigenius, on the original turf line that sealed the pits at Thickthorn Down, lay a single microlith, although the pine charcoal recovered from this level indicates that the features may be of, or at least disturbed activity of, an earlier date. A similar small pit of early fourth millennium (3980-3708BC) date on the summit of Coneybury Hill, Amesbury (Richards 1990, 42) is worth bearing in mind in this context and although not covered by a mound, it nevertheless attracted later activity and may therefore have been marked in some way on the surface.

There can, however, be other scenarios that account for the observed features. All three of the axial pits at the base of the sequence must be earlier than the barrow construction and indeed could be earlier than the C14 date (which dates what is described as the 'mortuary house' collapse (Ashbee 1966, 27)). They are larger in size than the largest of posts in the trapezoidal trench at the proximal end and there is no indication within them of post pipes or packing material. Along with the post sockets of the proposed porch, which the excavator acknowledged could be earlier, these features may represent pre-barrow and pre-burial activity. The empty pits found at Holdenhurst and at the base of long barrows

0

10m

Figure 4:4 Fussells Lodge long barrow with cairn apparently underlying the palisade ditch (based on Ashbee 1966)

While the date of most of these features is unclear, their nature and purpose is problematic. It evidently involved freestanding posts or stones, and hurdle structures, and perhaps involved the deposition of selected human bones, while at Giants Hills the horn-shaped palisade may have been associated. Other than this it is difficult to be certain of any contemporary arrangement. The structures generally appear to have been dismantled before the mounding of stone or earth began, and although there is some respect for their position, the mounding process effectively marks a change in the way that the place was formerly understood (e.g. Petersen 1973). The real break with the past comes when construction of the cairn that sealed the human bones put them beyond reach of the community (ibid). No longer was it possible to add others or to demonstrate lineage. It could be that such tradition was manifested in the monument itself, for we might expect the architecture to reflect the beliefs and values of the builders in some way (O'Brien 2002). The change is accompanied by the presence of animal bones, importantly bos at Fussell's Lodge, both on top of the cairn and in the ditch of the long barrow that covered it. That is, immediately before and after the mound

elsewhere on Salisbury Plain (McOmish et al 2002) are called to mind. Thorpe (1984, 51) recognised that the presence of pits beneath long barrows was widespread, both within Wessex and further afield, and felt that while some could have represented uprights for mortuary houses, the evidence in general weighed against it and that instead they may have contained burials. Alternatively, as has been suggested for Knook long barrow (McOmish et al 2002), it may be that the pits once supported megaliths similar to that recorded in the Arn Hill long barrow (Hoare 1910), free-standing menhir-like features that represent an important phase of activity in its own right. Similar structures are known where there is no covering barrow at all (Thorpe 1984) and the impression is of a repertoire of architectural features that co-occur on different sites. Within central southern England, examples of such pits underlying long barrows can be found at Boyton 1, Heytesbury 4, Knook 2 and 5, Stockton 1, Tilshead 2, Arn Hill, Warminster, Winterbourne Stoke (Hoare 1810,

41

construction. It is as though animals had become as important, or more so, than human ancestors.

0

Similarly the flint cairn has parallels amongst the suite of barrows on Salisbury Plain. Ashbee observed the axial tailing off of the cairn. Whether deliberate or unintentional this preserved the orientation of the underlying pits and emphasised the importance of the existing east-northeast axis. He also acknowledged as 'curious' the two 'tails' of flints behind the palisade. These, of course, also marked at right angles the position of the easternmost of the axial pits, while a similar though shorter projection occurred to one side of the westernmost axial pit. If deliberately contrived, it is as though the cairn were zoomorphic in design, with the bulk of the cairn representing the body, and the head (or tongue as Ashbee coincidentally put it) extending forward of the (?later) palisade trench (Fig 4:5). Articulated remains of three ox feet found together were recovered from the top of the flint cairn and Grigson has tentatively suggested that together with the skull found at the enclosure 'entrance', these may have formed a hide burial (Grigson in Ashbee 1966). The greater part of an ox carcass appears to have been deposited in the ditch, though was presumably a later event. The spinal column and ribs almost articulated, together with mandible several teeth and a tibia were recovered from a primary context. The animal minus its pelvis and limbs appears to have been deposited in a semi-decomposed state, the sinews still strong enough to hold it together.

1m

Bos skull

? ?

Figure 4:5 Cairn overylying burials and posts at Fussell's Lodge long barrow (based on plan in Ashbee 1966).

Equally, like the earlier features, the mound here was more than a mere marker. For that, a wooden signpost and a few ribbons on a tree are all that is required. Instead it was a monumental construction that may have involved a wide part of the community and incorporated a change in how they perceived the area (Bradley 1993, 17-20). For practical purposes, size here appears to have mattered, and like most monuments it must have ultimately been built to impress someone, human or otherwise, or to mark a particularly unusual and meaningful event. The process of placing earth onto a heap was clearly of greater importance than merely covering a few bones. At Giants Hills 2 the process appears to have been so important that the butt end of the ditch was backfilled and the mound extended to allow the process to continue. The surface of the mound itself could have been used as a platform, but it is more likely to have been the very essence of the material that was important. Where construction was on chalk (in most surviving cases) it might be possible to explain this as something to do with colour as much as texture. The striking whiteness - anyone digging in wet chalk will appreciate its paintlike qualities - white, pure, clean, bright, an interest in colour has been demonstrated elsewhere - in quartz, in places as far distant as New Grange, Ireland O'Kelly 1984), St Just, Brittany (Briard 1991), and Clava, Scotland (Bradley 2000b). The process of digging the flanking ditches was also of considerable significance, carried out in an extremely neat fashion equidistant from the mound under construction and more than a mere quarry for material. It provided a barrier that prevented access, not only to humans and animals, but also supernatural elements. The digging and shifting of soil in a neat and tidy way indicates an increasing affinity with that kind of activity. The earthwork builders were comfortable with digging the soil and must have had some practice at it. This, above all, marked a change.

Ashbee believed that the palisade enclosure predated the cairn and burials. One reason for this is the fact that flints from the cairn had accumulated behind the proximal palisade trench and spread across it at the 'entrance'. However it is also possible to argue the opposite, that the trench was cut into the edge of a collapsed cairn occasioning further collapse. Unfortunately the report does not allow interrogation in this respect. The trapezoidal shape of the enclosure is perhaps also significant. This is not a shape needed or used by pastoralists for corralling or controlling animals, but one influenced by linear processes and activities, digging or construction with logs. While it may be an easy matter to construct a curvilinear enclosure of hurdles or brushwood it is more difficult to dig in a circle than a straight line. The trapezoidal plan form of some enclosures such as this has been likened to the plan form of ancestral LBK houses in central Europe (Kinnes 1981, 85; 1992), essentially an indicator of some kind of movement - of ideas or memory (Bradley 1998) - if not people. Recent support for this idea might be found in the analyses of Y chromosomes among the European gene pool, with indigenous populations contributing less than 30% and which indicate that migrants may have played a more significant role in Neolithic movement than recently thought (Chikhi et al 2002).

Just as Neolithic monuments informed Bronze Age and later practices (Bradley 1993: Barrett 1999: O'Brien 2002) we might expect Neolithic practices to respond to

42

earlier landscape activity and reflect meanings, a mythologised interpretation of the past. Within the valley the wider world is excluded. The feature was placed almost centrally in the upper reaches and the site commands sweeping views of the floor and hillsides. Closed off in this way, inhabitants could have lived in their own (almost henge-like) world with boundaries immediately recognised, understood and defined by the high horizon. This perceived world would provide comfort in familiarity, shelter from the elements, while potential dangers, for example wild and dangerous animals, could easily be observed, controlled and managed. The post-alignment and stacked ancestral bone deposit could have provided authority and spiritual protection should anyone come calling.

collection of enough nodules to construct the cairn and this might imply some form of local ground clearance for cultivation. Like the turf mound at Holdenhurst, removing nodules from the ground would have immediate effect and encourage growth of new vegetation. Either the nodules derive from the surface of an already cultivated plot, or could have been cleared from an area in preparation for tillage. This link between monument and ground clearance may be tenuous, but there is evidence for it at an increasing number of sites. As noted above, a considerable number of long mounds cover cairns, at least nine on Salisbury Plain, while, aside from Fussell's Lodge, modern excavations at South Street, Avebury (Ashbee et al 1979) and further north at Skendleby 2, Lincolnshire (Evans and Simpson 1991), provide evidence for some kind of broken ground or clearance nearby. There was considerable affinity and investment in this piece of earth, an attachment to the patch of ground and the valley, and it expresses continuity of interest in the place over a considerable period of time.

Fussell's Lodge has been considered at length as the intermittent sequence of events, one after another on the same spot, emphasises the significance of the place, but the site is inextricably linked to its environment, here a visually well-defined space. There is no C14 date for the beginning of the sequence, though given the single date already obtained it may be that the process can be placed at some point in the late 5th or early 4th millennium, implying that both place and the space or land around it were important as a linked unit from an early stage.

When considered on a broader scale, it might be possible to obtain a glimpse of the relationship between parcels of land marked out by such monuments. Inevitably most of these are on the Higher Chalk and reflect an interest in locations close to watercourses. Where reasonable numbers survive, for example along the River Wylye (Fig 4:6: and Eagles and Field 2004) spatial separation can be seen to be in the order of c 2km apart, and serves to emphasise the importance of landholdings based on access to river frontage. Whether such patterns can be applied further downstream is unclear, but the position of the Holdenhurst long barrow coupled with occasional

It is by no means clear from where the flint nodules for the cairn at Fussell's Lodge were obtained. The quarry ditch did not appear to encounter flint seams, but as the parent here is Upper Chalk, nodules need have come from little distance and were perhaps collected from the surface of broken ground. However, a sizeable area would need to be clear of vegetation to allow easy

?

?

?

Figure 4:6 The distribution of long barrows along the River Wylye, Wiltshire with hypothetical land-units (adapted from original drawn by Deborah Cunliffe in Eagles and Field 2004).Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

43

Despite the limited evidence, similar patterns can be detected closer to the coast. On Clapper Hill, on the western edge of Portsdown Ridge overlooking the River Wallington, several skeletons were discovered on the edge of a chalk quarry. They occurred in the upper levels of a layer of burnt earth, with charcoal and potboilers, and flint scrapers. Also thought to be associated, although 36m away, was a flint adze said to be Neolithic (Cooke undated, 116-7). The natural profile of the edge of the quarry was said to resemble a tumulus and it is conceivable that a mound here mirrored the two other long mounds once situated on Portsdown (RCHME 1979, 23, 72).

new finds on the lower ground at, for example, Damerham, Downton (NMR 15835-27: pers comm. M Barber), or along the coast at Rottingdean, Sussex (Bewley et al 2004, 71), suggest that they may be. All but four of 181 long barrows in the area lie on chalk right at the heart of the drainage system, the greater number of them on Salisbury Plain in south Wiltshire (Fig 4:7: Appendix 4:2). The siting of long barrows in Hampshire has been described by Smith (RCHME 1979), while those on the northern part of Salisbury Plain have recently been surveyed by McOmish et al (2002) and it would be repetitive to go into detail here. They exhibit a variety of shapes and sizes, and are located in many topographical positions including on valley floors, but certain locations recur, invariably bluff slopes overlooking rivers, or the head of valleys. It is quite rare for siting on the summit of hills, except in Cranborne Chase where some are located along the crests of ridges and where barrows are often of distinctive oval form with ditches that continue around the narrow ends. A new discovery at Lavant, Sussex, of a sub-rectangular monument c25 by 20m and defined by a ditch that continues around the narrow ends is likely to be of this class. It has been dated to 3520-3300 cal BC (Turner 1997: Kenny pers comm), but it also provided a focus for later monuments and will be discussed in the next chapter.

These examples of early fourth millennium activity indicate that, despite the distribution of known long barrows being predominantly on chalk, ideas effecting monument construction were put into effect at both ends of the Avon. The Holdenhurst long barrow lay close to the coast (wherever the contemporary coastline lay), but was almost levelled when first recognised, and it is likely that intensely cultivated areas on the Coastal Plain have obscured others. Unfortunately, as the coastal zone has seen so much arable activity during historic times, it is necessary to turn to the artefact record in order to establish a relative index of Neolithic activity.

?

?

Figure 4:7 The distribution of long barrows (ovals) and enclosures (circles – causewayed solid, others open). Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

44

thought to derive from the Sussex flint mines, was not ground. However, as referred to above, a fragment of a ground flint axe was recovered from layer 6 in the Down Farm shaft (Fig 4:1: Green pers comm) and it is interesting to note that its thin, pointed butt is similar to the early jadeites. Thin pointed butt axes are considered earlier on the Continent too. Part of a further axe was recovered from the Coneybury Anomaly (Richards 1990) although details are not published. On inspection it is not thin-butted like the Down Farm axe and the piece is of different flint to the rest of the assemblage, broadly similar to the pearl grey material thought to derive from flint mines. However, taking these together makes it clear that the introduction of ground (as opposed to pecked) axes dates from the beginning of the 4th millennium if not earlier. Judging from the means of C14 estimates at Windmill Hill, Wiltshire, they appear to have been commonplace by the second half of the 4th millennium (Ambers and Housley, 119 and Pollard 331, in Whittle et al 1999).

Artefacts One of the better indicators of early 4th millennium activity may be the presence of jadeite axes, for the association of a superb non-functional, example of thin and triangular type (Type I) found in association with the Sweet Track in Somerset, is dated by dendrochronology to 3807/3806 BC (Hillam et al 1990, 218) and while some caution is of course required, this maybe an indication that the type is an early form. Supreme amongst the examples in the Solent catchment, is that from Marsh Farm, Breamore, Hampshire (Fig 4:8). Under no stretch of the imagination can this slender and highly polished implement be considered a functional tool, unless perhaps as a mirror. Instead it would seem that the earliest ground and polished axe of non-local stone to come into the region was of a ceremonial or symbolic nature. Its precise provenance on Marsh Farm is by no means secure, but its position along the Avon Valley between the Fussell's Lodge and Holdenhurst sites is significant in emphasising the importance of valley communication. Most of the jadeite axes found within the area are plump or hachette types that may not be as early as the thin flat forms. Nevertheless a type I axe comes from Newton Peverill, Sturminster Marshall, Dorset, at a confluence of a local Winterbourne and the River Stour. Although highly polished and of slender profile and section, the axe from Droxford (Schofield 1987) is of unusual form for a jadeite. Its weight is considerably greater than the Breamore and Canterbury axes, and as mineralogical analysis has not been conducted may in fact not be made of that material and it could, instead, belong to another element of the 'jade' group (Bishop et al 1977).

Figure 4:8 Jadeite axe from Breamore in the Avon valley (Wiltshire Heritage Museum).

A total of 1175 ground axes of flint have been recorded from the region, many of them broken or in fragmentary condition. Included in that number are over 120 edgeground axes, of which 42 are of distinctive Seamer type, nine of the latter from coastal locations (Fig 4:11: Appendix 4:5). Twelve of these found on the higher Hampshire Downs are matched by eight from similar locations in Cranborne Chase. The Seamer axes then provide a common element in their distribution across the Coastal Plain and allow a link to the 'Campignian' sites on the Higher Chalk. In the north of England Seamer edge-ground axes have generally been associated with Grooved Ware (Manby 1974), but are in fact widely spread across the country. Characteristics include concave or waisted sides though this was not particularly evident in the Seamer hoard itself, and the often-straight sides taper slightly towards the butt. Healy (in Brewster 1992) distinguished two types; a) 'with splayed blades with the edge forming an angle with the tapering sides of the axe and, b) those with 'waisted sides, broad butts and rounded blades'. The form has been considered to be a result of the influence of metal types (e.g. Evans 1897, 75) though while copper axes might display expanded edges there is little evidence of waisting, and in any event waisting of flint axes is a feature that can be traced back

Other jadeites, a total of seventeen, only four of which are from the chalk, tend to cluster on the Coastal Plain (Fig 4:9: Appendix 4:3) and are often found alongside rivers. In addition those from Breamore and Sturminster Marshall, examples were recovered at Hillhead and Soberton, Hampshire, alongside the River Meon. Together they form one of the greatest concentrations of jadeite axes in the country. Contact with Brittany, the only other region with elaborate jadeite axes, is implied, and it may be no coincidence that many of the Brittany finds were made beneath monumental long mounds (Marsille 1921: Rollando 1985: Burl 1985: also see e.g. Scarre 2002, 71 for suggestions of a potential maritime link). It may be that at this time that the long enclosure at Holdenhurst and around the Fussell's Lodge cairn was constructed and filled in. Perhaps the best demonstration of a considerable Neolithic signature here, is in the general use of ground axes of all types and materials. There is, of course, a considerable longevity to these, and that must be taken into account when considering the distribution plot (Fig 4:10: Appendix 4:4). Strangely, none of the early flint mine sites has a ground axe in association with it and the flint axe found in association with the jadeite at the Sweet Track (Coles et al 1974: Hillam et al 1990), despite being

45

Key

Group IX Group X Jadeite Nephrite

Figure 4:9 Distribution of ground axes made of rocks foreign to Britain: Group IX Northern Ireland, Group X Brittany; jadeites and nephrites source in the Italian Alps. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

?

?

Figure 4:10 Distribution of ground flint axes (circles) and causewayed enclosures (squares). Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey All rights reserved

46

?

?

Figure 4:11 The distribution of edge ground flint axes (spots) and ground flint Seamer axes (squares). Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

therefore date to the end of the fourth millennium (Whittle et al 1999, 340). Over 400 pecked and or ground axes made of rocks other than flint have been recovered from the area. Of rocks grouped by the Implement Petrology Committee of the CBA, only four have evidence of archaeological activity in the 4th millennium. Axes of Group VI rock from Cumbria were found in primary levels at Windmill Hill (Pollard and Whittle, in Whittle 1999, 340) and both Group VI, and Group VII from south Wales have an early date at Llandegai (Smith 1979, 19: Lynch in lecture to Neolithic Studies Group), though axes of this material need not have been transported to southern England at that time, Group VIII from south Wales was possibly primary at Windmill Hill (Pollard and Whittle, in Whittle 1999, 340) and there are fourth millennium dates for Group XVII at Hembury, Carn Brae, Hazard Hill, and Maiden Castle (Smith 1979, 17). Potentially such rock types may have been exploited since the Mesolithic period. A pecked core-tool, for example, was recovered from a Mesolithic context at Nabs Head, South Wales (David 1991; pers comm), though whether the Group IVa fragment from Tarrant Gunville, near Bussey Stool, Hampshire (NMR No ST 91NW32), or the Group XVII axe from a coastal position at Lymington, Hants, (Hampshire Museum Service) was transported such a distance from the parent source at this early date is by no means clear. Only six axes of Group VIII rock are present, two of which came from a later context at the Wyke

to Mesolithic types (e.g. Field 1989, 5). Thin, slender and finely knapped, many Seamers display a glassy polish at the cutting edge and appear as though they would snap quite easily. They appear therefore, to be ceremonial rather than functional and could be considered to be a 'prestige item'. Axes in the Seamer hoard itself are associated with lozenge or kite shaped 'leaf' arrowheads, while in his analysis of grave group associations Kinnes (1979) suggests that edge-ground axes have associations with Mortlake Ware rather than Grooved Ware. Artefacts found in association with a secondary inhumation in a round barrow at Whitegrounds, Burythorpe in Yorkshire, with a Seamer axe, include a jet belt slider (Brewster 1992, 10-12) and a C14 date of 3500-2900 cal BC (HAR5587) supports an earlier genesis for these artefacts. Comparison of these plots with that of the distribution of leaf arrowheads (Fig 4:12) is interesting, as it appears to enhance the overall pattern and confirms an impression of occupation around the mouth of the Avon. Comparison with the plot of Mesolithic tranchet axes (Fig 3:1) also emphasises the increasing intensity of activity here. Axes made of stone types other than flint appear to derive mainly from later Neolithic contexts, though flakes of Group VI and XI material were evidently found in primary positions at causewayed enclosures and might

47

Figure 4:12 The distribution of leaf-shaped arrowheads. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

Appendix 4:6), the vast majority from the coastal area around Bournemouth and Christchurch. Small secondary clusters occur further inland around Amesbury, and on Cranborne Chase, while lesser numbers come from the sites bordering the Clay-with-flints around Basingstoke. The presence of clusters of such arrowheads is often taken to reflect the site of battles, for example, at Carn Brae (Mercer 1981) or Crickley Hill (Dixon 1988), and there are a number of recorded examples of arrow tips embedded within human bone and thus the result of violence. Given ethnographic examples of the control of production of such artefacts in North America (Topping 2004: pers comm) it may be that many such arrowheads are as much symbolic as functional and play a part in ceremonial and ritual, perhaps involving sacrifice. It is curious that where clusters of leaf arrowheads occur outside the enclosure on the southern slopes of Windmill Hill, Wiltshire, there are also clusters of later types chisel, barbed and tanged and other arrowheads (Field et al in Brown et al forthcoming). The same phenomenon was noted at Limpsfield in Surrey (Field and Cotton 1987, figs 4.3 and 4.15). As we shall see in later chapters, the location of the major clusters of leaf arrowheads within central southern England are precisely those areas where chisel and barbed and tanged arrowheads can also be found. Some of these are likely to derive from levelled burials or settlement sites, but where clusters of higher numbers exist than might reasonably be expected in such

Down henge: the others divided equally between Coastal Plain and Chalk downland locations (Fig 5:6). Again coastal positions are well represented amongst Group VI (Fig 5:6), with a focus in the Bournemouth region, but they are also present along the chalk downland spring line. The intensity of archaeological investigations on the chalk may account for many of the downland finds and without them the contrast of chance finds is likely to be greater. While not evident at early long mounds (Kinnes 1992, 108-9), the presence of leaf arrowheads in the pit at Coneybury (Richards 1990) and at the Sweet Track (Coles et al 1974) indicate an introduction of pointed one piece arrowheads in the first half of the fourth millennium. Like other diagnostic tools of the Neolithic package, these have an extended currency, being in use for a millennium or more, and caution is required in order to avoid interpreting the plot of findspots presented here as contemporaneous artefacts, but their use was evidently geographically widespread at an early date. However, the distribution is interesting and perhaps surprising, as it indicates less intense use of the Higher Chalk than the incidence of monuments might suggest. It complements the distribution of jadeites and other axes by demonstrating a significant lowland presence. Over 300 leaf arrowheads have been identified in museum storehouses and in the archaeological record (Fig 4:12:

48

cases, it is possible to look to more violent explanations. If these areas represent the site of battles then they must be specially defined zones, perhaps frontier locations, where symbolic battles, hunts or sacrifice were played out on repeated occasions.

agricultural activity within the immediate vicinity, indeed grain found at Hambledon Hill is not considered to have been grown or processed on the site (A Legge lecture to Neolithic Studies Group: F Healy lecture to Lithics Studies Society). The location of such monuments, often on the Higher Chalk, close to escarpments (e.g. Hambledon Hill, Dorset; Whitesheet Hill, Knap Hill and Rybury in Wiltshire; Barkhale and Coombe Hill in Sussex) is invariably at the limit of the drainage system and in a liminal position with respect to other landforms. Assuming the drainage pattern was of some importance as a focus for human subsistence, the position of the enclosures places them towards the edge of potential territorial units, in areas little used for domestic activities and which may reflect the presence of no-mans land or frontier zones. Inter-clan ceremonial grounds situated within wide expanses of no-mans land were used as meeting places in frontier positions between tribes in Papua New Guinea, for example, and provided venues where competitive display, dancing, feasting and mock hostility could take place (Brookfield 1970a and b).

Frontier zones The earliest causewayed enclosures contrast dramatically with the rectangular and trapezoidal enclosures found beneath long mounds. Considerably larger, none are even sub-square. Instead they are curvilinear, fluid, often almost sub-circular or oval. Invariably where data are available they appear to have been constructed within a woodland environment (Thomas 1982), though some caution is required as this is usually taken from mollusc profiles at sites adjacent to downland scarps: scarps that even today remain difficult to cultivate or to use as pasture and where wooded hangars remain. Nevertheless, the process of enclosure may have started as mere clearings in such woodland, possibly defined by coppiced or differing vegetation at the clearing edge. Interfering with the natural vegetation could be considered to be a symbolic process, since not only might trees possess supernatural powers, but clearing them effectively might be thought to remove history (Austin 2000, 77) and the possibility that such places become symbolic locations has been suggested (Brown 2000).

Constructions are of ditched circuits or part circuits, usually with corresponding banks present and with gaps or causeways that allow passage through them. Despite the fact that clusters of arrowheads at some enclosures e.g. Carn Brae (Mercer 1981) and Crickley Hill (Dixon 1988) have been interpreted as signs of attack, neither situation nor architecture appears to be defensive in any practical way. The entrance gaps could have been

The contemporary vegetation implies little domestic or

?

?

Figure 4:13 Comparison of ground axe distribution (spots) with that of long barrows (oval) and causewayed enclosures (squares) shown against geology based on BGS data. IPR/95-63c British Geology Survey ©NERC. All rights reserved.

49

blocked with hedges or pickets, though why such gaps should be left in the first place is unclear. Instead there is a tendency to think of these enclosures as having funerary, ceremonial and economic functions. Where excavated, the ditches are invariably quite shallow and were often quickly backfilled before being recut. The enclosures define an area, but the causeways allow unimpeded access to both creatures of the natural world and of the supernatural. In fact (in a similar way to North American 'dream catchers'), the ditches may even have been designed to filter out and entrap bad spirits and keep proceedings within the arena safe.

flint tools, suggests that it could be of a different nature. The various arrowhead styles present, together with at least one finer sherd, potentially Grimston Ware, indicates that the site could be the result of an accumulation of debris from a series of small-scale intermittent visits. Other assemblages come from further upstream. At Lake Farm, for example, where mixed surface material of Mesolithic-Neolithic date included a piece of Portland Chert (Poole Museum Acc PMA 141), and beneath a Deserted Medieval Village at Sturminster Marshall, where extensive spreads of similar flintwork lay alongside the river bank (Allen 1991, 170).

Although examples are increasingly recognised on the river terraces and other geologies (Oswald et al 2001), here, all known sites lie on the chalk (Fig 4:12: Appendix 4:7), but their location contrasts with the distribution of ground axes and other artefacts (Fig 4:13). Inclusive of Flagstones, Dorset, in all twelve enclosures are scattered across the downs (Oswald et al 2001) together with two further possible examples on Beacon Hill, Hants (Eagles 1991) and Scratchbury, Wilts (McOmish et al 2002).

Other river valleys, by contrast, have seen less investigation. Field walking of the central reaches of the River Avon produced a thin scatter of flint material (Light et al 1995) while excavations on the edge of a gravel quarry, revealed a series of irregular pits containing large quantities of flint knapping debris (Steptoe 1991, 29). The presence of material from along the Southampton rivers is even more patchy, but this may be as a result of the density of development in the area. A series of flint flakes and implements found at Shirley, Southampton (Dale 1898-1903, 183-5), evidently in a variety of poorly recorded contexts, included a ground axe and leaf-shaped arrowhead. Evidence from Rainbow Bar aside (Draper 1951b: Draper Collection Portsmouth Museum), a small amount of controlled investigation on the gravels inland from Lee-on Solent around the source of the River Alver, has revealed the presence of large quantities of struck pieces of mixed date, but like Bestwall Quarry, with a good early Neolithic component (Kemp and Rogers 1984).

Use of the Coastal Plain Despite extensive development of the modern shoreline and flooding of the original Neolithic water’s edge, several sites in the area provide evidence of littoral activity. In the west around the mouth of the River Piddle, the gravel terraces at Bestwell Quarry, Wareham have produced an overall thin but significant scatter of material (L Ladle pers comm). As a result of fieldwalking, test pitting and open excavation, some 14000 struck pieces of flint have been recovered from the site as a whole, a mixed assemblage, but with a large component that displays earlier Neolithic traits, as the presence of four leaf arrowheads testify.

Further east, a site on the northern shores of Portsmouth Harbour, south of Wymering, Cosham comprised struck flints that included borers, arrowheads, and a ground axe (Williams-Freeman 1920-4, 405-6). Most of these were found on the beach, but were considered to have eroded from a layer of flint gravel now covered by tidal clay. There appears to be no evidence to support the view advanced at the time that baulks of decayed wood observed in Wymering Marshes represented piles and were connected with the Neolithic material. Finds from a small island southwest of Farlington Marshes, east of Portsea (NMR No SU60 SE11) included earlier Neolithic material. Hooper (1964) visited the island and found postMesolithic material, an assemblage that significantly included 96 scrapers, a core, awl, ground axe flake, as well as a fragment of leaf arrowhead. Finds were made mostly on the south side of the island where the shoreline is being eroded by the sea. Recent work in Langstone Harbour (Allen and Gardiner 2000) has revealed evidence of both Mesolithic and Late Neolithic activity, and the discovery of Peterborough ware at Emsworth (R Bradley pers comm.) here may partially fill the gap and signal the presence of 4th millennium occupation along this part of the Coastal Plain.

Similarly, a series of mixed assemblages come from the Stour Valley as it feeds inland from Christchurch, most recovered from the surface as a result of fieldwalking. Situated in a similar location to Holdenhurst, one of these sites Moortown Airdrome, is located on a gravel terrace on the south bank of the river. Excavations here (Poole Museum Accession PM 34) revealed a scatter of Neolithic potsherds and struck flint that included leaf, but also chisel, and oblique arrowheads, serrated blades and pieces with edge gloss. Although including many fine flakes, aside from a few scrapers, the assemblage lacks either other formal tools or cores, though in part this might be explained by the nature of the raw material, which appears to have mainly, derived from local flint pebble beds. The Plain Bowl potsherds, some with lugs, represent over 20 vessels. The only feature situated close by the material was an undated 2m diameter shaft, cut 4m into the gravel. However, the nature of the site is difficult to evaluate, for while the range of pottery might argue for a domestic context, the lack of good numbers of mundane

50

Material from the surface of fields near Oving, 3km east of Chichester, appears to be typical of the Coastal Plain assemblages, of which the material in museum assemblages provides a snapshot. The area here encapsulates an essentially flat, but locally undulating, landscape. Pagham and Aldingbourne Rifes that flow southwards through it provide some relief, while the River Arun lies 9km to the east and the area is bordered by the present coastline 5km to the south. The drift here consists of undifferentiated gravel with a small patch of brickearth east of Oving village and larger areas of brickearth to the south-east (BGS 1:50 000 sheet 317). Between Tangmere and Boxgrove lies a 300m wide, 4km long strip of Marine Gravel, while the chalk itself is less than 4km to the north. M Pitts (pers comm) and a small team methodically collected material from fields for some distance around Woodhorn Farm, Oving. Investigation eventually focussed upon three fields, Leach Pond Field (NGR SU 924 038), Tote Copse (NGR: SU 923 049), and an unnamed field (NGR: SU 924 046), each situated aside the Aldingbourne Rife, a small brook discharging into the sea at Bognor Regis. The complete flint assemblage from these three fields (held by M Pitts), which totals 2720 pieces is (listed in Field 2004 Appendix 4:8, and the material is further divided by site and grid and the details of methodology provided). The assemblage as a whole is not large, too small for meaningful statistical analysis, although no less significant for that. In general the material appears to represent debris from a number of visits, although by far the greater number of pieces appears to be Neolithic. The few blades and blade fragments, for example, could represent Mesolithic background noise, but there is little diagnostic Mesolithic material to support such a date, and they could equally easily be considered to be part of the Neolithic tool-kit. Platforms are generally narrow, and flakes thin and well-knapped. Despite the presence of a number of pieces of later date there are few thick platforms, sturdy pieces, or flaked-flakes (a Palaeolithic type that recurs in the Late Neolothic/Early Bronze Age). The presence of only 99 primary flakes indicates that little in-situ nodule dressing appears to have taken place, while secondary and tertiary flakes are present in greater numbers, over 2200, suggesting that this is essentially a flake industry. The 64 cores, almost all of them for flakes, supports this.

sharp flake edge. As might be expected, scrapers reach relatively high numbers, although only one thumbnail form (Riley in Richards 1990) is diagnostic. These are joined by two ground axe fragments, which confirm Neolithic presence, although the pieces themselves relate to the re-utilisation of broken axes as raw material. Six arrowheads were also recovered, one leaf, two PTD oblique types, two barbed and tanged, and a triangular or perhaps hollow-based example. All or any of these could have been casual losses, a result of hunting rather than settlement debris, however, although few in number it might be observed that all types of arrowhead appear in close proximity. While the majority of these pieces might easily date to the 4th millennium there is clearly scope for error, for the diagnostic arrowheads alone might indicate over 1000 years of intermittent activity, and the planoconvex knife hints at the presence of activity early in the second millennium. However, most importantly, they provide just a little context within which to place the local chance finds such as the leaf-shaped arrowheads from Selsey or the mixed scatter of struck flint from Appledram (Glasspoole Collection: Chichester Museum). Relating biographies Artefacts of the period occur in great numbers right across the region, but in particular provide a signature of significant presence and intense activity in the coastal zone. When compared to artefact distributions of the previous millennia, the indication is of an overall intensification, rather than a dramatic change in patterns of activity. Although sites with marine shells are absent and there is evidently a shift away from a marine diet, displacement of people from the flooded estuary may have encouraged more efficient use of such places as well as of the interior. This in turn may have led to the greater formalisation of territories that were previously less rigidly defined. Change is certainly recognisable in the toolkit around 4000 cal BC, though this too may be more apparent than real. It is the introduction of new arrow-tips and the grinding of axes that is novel, while the bulk of mundane everyday tools - scrapers, fabricators, knives, and micro-denticulates - remained unchanged. In the case of ground axes, some at least were arriving from distant places and finding their way along the river corridors to the interior.

The greater amount of the raw material appears to have come directly from sources other than the chalk. Much has the distinctive battered cortex of river or beach pebbles, and many pieces are stained to various degrees by minerals, in a good number of cases they are positively ochreous, while a few pieces of dense black flint or chert may derive from the Reading Beds. Utilised flakes are by far the most common tools, although few of them received formal retouch, and in most cases it is merely nibbling, or pressure detachments on one or more edges that indicates use. The use of sturdy pieces, or of platforms, is rare, and the utilised portion is usually the

Unfortunately, the Holdenhurst and Portsdown long barrows aside, there is little survival of extant 4th millennium monuments on the Coastal Plain. In contrast the almost regular spatial positioning of long mounds within the hinterland suggests some kind of territoriality based on access to river frontage (e.g. Fig 4:6). In this respect, long barrows not only mark the position of good pasture or agricultural land (e.g. Renfrew 1973: Chapman 1981), but given the original pits and post settings beneath some of them, indicate the presence of land-units with a considerable cultural history. Bradley (1993, 22)

51

has pointed out that monuments are frequently positioned in places that had formerly achieved some importance and, as such, the long barrows and their underlying structures tell us something about land-use during an earlier millennium. It would appear that land-use was based as much on economically desirable topographical positions - the river valleys and re-entrants - as it was during the 5th millennium.

the area. It would seem at present that Pistle Down Barrow, Verwood (NMR No SU 01 SE 30), is the only candidate, the mound of which, when excavated in 1828 by Dr Wake-Smart, was found to be largely composed of gravel and nothing but four lozenge shaped flint arrowheads recovered (Warne 1866, 16). It may be, however, that mound construction coincided with a period when agricultural or pastoral use of the sands had already resulted in exhausted, podsolised soils, in which case an absence of monuments might equate to the lack of 4th millennium agricultural opportunity.

In addition to the examples illustrated, a little north of Fussell's Lodge, long barrows are situated at similar distances apart along the Avon at Durrington Walls, Bulford, Netheravon and Figheldean (McOmish et al 2002), while in Cranborne Chase they are situated on ridges that divide the watersheds (Barrett et al 1991). Whether these examples are the survivors of a once extensive arrangement across the region is less easily demonstrated. The extant examples occur mainly on marginal ground and their survival can be put down to use of the land as sheep walks throughout historic times. The problem occurs on the sandy heaths where, although often marginal, there is currently little evidence of monument construction. If long barrows were distributed evenly across central southern England, one might expect some examples in the New Forest or other heathlands of

One of the intriguing features of many of these early structures are the cairns and mounds that underlie the long mounds. Descriptions suggest that some at least were circular (McOmish et al 2002: Eagles and Field forthcoming) and this is something that can be detected beneath megalithic structures as well. Sites such as Dyffryn Ardudwy in Wales (Lynch 1969, figs 45 and 51), long cairns such as Ty Isaf (Corcoran 1969, fig 22), Mid Glenirin I and II (Scott 1969, fig 53), or Camster Long (Masters 1983, 107) all contain circular components at their heart and it is this tradition that appears to have persisted and flourished into the following millennium.

52

CHAPTER 5 DESCRIBING DITCHES: SACRED AND MUNDANE IN THE THIRD MILLENNIUM BC.

Introduction Although of uncertain origin, the importance of circular figures in belief patterns appears to have taken shape with effect from at least the second half of the 4th millennium BC. William Cunnington recorded the presence of domed structures constructed of turf or stone beneath long mounds on Salisbury Plain during the early years of the 19th century at, for example, Heytesbury North Field and Old Ditch, Tilshead, (Cunnington mss: Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Library, Devizes: McOmish et al 2002, 30). Whether these structures derived from simple piles of material formed in an unintentional manner, or whether there was an overall aim to the design is not clear. A simple mound of turf was present at Raunds, its construction materials mirroring those of the nearby long mound (Windell et al 1990: Healy and Harding 2003), while the inner circular circuit at the West Cotton henge may either represent an earlier barrow, or the two features may have been contemporary, perhaps marking a Duggleby Howe-like monument (R Bradley pers comm). In the north of England circular mounds were also being constructed at that time (Kinnes 1979: Brewster 1992) and indeed some of the larger round mounds of central southern England e.g. Compton, Westbury (Westbury 7), or Tilshead (Silver Barrow), all in Wiltshire, excavated by Colt Hoare (McOmish et al 2002: Hoare 1810), might be of that date as well. Kinnes (1979, 48) pointed out that circular mound construction is an economical and obvious method of creating a visual impact. Beyond that, the domed mounds may have had spiritual significance in terms of earth breakage, for example, as offerings for disturbing the ground, or may have been more symbolic, representing the dome of the perceived world (Bradley 1998). The idea of digging pits and trenches into the ground was resolving into a preference for circular arrangements too. Some of the generally oval circuits of interrupted ditches at causewayed enclosures, at for example, Briar Hill, in Northamptonshire; Whitehawk Camp and the Trundle, in Sussex; Gt Wilbraham, in Cambridgeshire and Roughton, in Norfolk, approached a circular plan (Oswald et al 58, 77), while around the turn of the 4th to 3rd millennium enclosures at Flagstones (c3380-2910 cal BC) and Stonehenge (c 3020-2910 cal BC) were circular.

Circles and pits The perfect circle described in the excavation of a sunken platform at Monkton Up Wimborne, Dorset, (Green 2000a, 77-82) is almost a piece of earth sculpture. All most carefully executed, the sides were sunk vertically

53

into the chalk for 1.5m to meet the 10m-diameter, almost perfectly level and shiny - as though polished - floor. Set into the angle of the floor and wall, was a small cavity within which four skeletons were squeezed, the burials being backfilled so neatly that the vertical wall appeared almost undisturbed. A C14 date of 3500-3100 cal BC (Ox A8035)(Green 2000a, 154) on human bone indicates that the cavity was cut into the wall in the second half of the 4th millennium. Set asymmetrically on the floor was a circular shaft, sunk to a depth of 7m, with a lump of carved chalk close to its base. The reason for the original excavation is mystifying. If a monument, it is not one that would be conspicuous and far from providing an interface with potential celestial spirits, it rather does the opposite. In a sense it plays aesthetics with the experience of the flint mine quarry, though here no flint seam was encountered. Conceivably the shiny surface assisted in water retention for a short time, but not long enough for practicable purposes and in any case the vertical walls excluded access for drinking purposes. The reflective properties of water may have been important and perhaps the polished chalk surface was intended to mimic that. One site above all others leads us into the 3rd millennium. Not only does it provide a complete sequence of C14 dated events commencing c3020 and continuing through to c2090 cal BC, but like Fussell's Lodge, it lies right at the heart of the Solent drainage system, on an interfluve between the River Avon and one of its tributaries, the Till. Approached today via the A303 highway and other modern proscribed channels, the visitor is met by official interpretation that emphasises the monument as the embodiment of Bronze Age achievement, as the epitome, symbol, or even logo, of prehistoric Britain. Once there, it is difficult to consider Stonehenge within a wider context, unless one takes the effort to jump the fences and circumnavigate the surrounding grassland and perhaps approach the monument along its Avenue. The earliest feature, a circular embanked enclosure, 100m in diameter, with traces of causeways, was constructed on the chamfered lip of a bluff overlooking a steep sided combe known as Stonehenge Bottom. Parts of the surrounding landscape are inevitably visible from the site, but the position is by no means the highest in the area and like the Holdenhurst long barrow, if it was built just a few hundred metres to the west, closer to the summit of the down, commanding views would have been greater as would reciprocal visibility. The point is made here for much has been made of this inter-visibility, as though monument construction was part of some grand overall design.

While the location of the enclosure is anchored to the combe, in that position often described in the literature as 'false-crested', the site is not visible from the floor of the valley until its upper reaches and in that respect the 'false cresting' has little relevance. All that can be said is that proximity to the combe appears to have been of importance. The Stonehenge ditch has been shown by excavation to contain at least three causeways, two of which correspond to gaps in the bank, while at least three further breaks in the earthen bank can be detected. Stonehenge Phase 1 enclosed a space of about 100m in diameter, along with the digging of a circle of Aubrey postholes within it, then soon afterwards in Phase 2, subsequent to some cultural interference with deliberate deposition and backfilling, the ditch was left to silt naturally for the next 500 years. A series of postholes within the interior are thought to be broadly related (Cleal et al 1995, 115). Further west, Flagstones, Dorchester, is located on the crest and upper slopes of a north facing ridge overlooking the River Frome. Here a probably circular enclosure, like Stonehenge, c100m in diameter, was composed of conjoined pits leaving at least eleven causeways in the portion excavated (Smith et al 1997). Like Stonehenge, there was an episode of deliberate backfilling. A series of C14 dates indicates a complex history with deposits being made over a lengthy time frame. Some of the pits cut into earlier pits, one of which contained southwestern style (?Grimston) bowl pottery with a date on charcoal of 3970-3540 cal BC. One child burial on the base of the ditch was dated to 3490-2930 cal BC and a red deer antler also from the base to 3380-2910 cal BC and these might be taken as the date of the digging of the feature. Comparisons with the Stonehenge enclosure are inevitable, not only in terms of size, circularity and date, for while Stonehenge is anchored to the lip of the slope overlooking Stonehenge Bottom, Flagstones, though less obviously false-crested, occupies a similar position with respect to the River Frome. Neither occupy the kind of liminal position so typical of many causewayed enclosures, nor is there concern about a northerly aspect, for like Flagstones, Stonehenge is all but obscured from the southwest. The broader picture is by no means identical, yet there are similarities. The position of Stonehenge along the Avon is a considerable distance upstream of the present coastline, within the heart of the chalkland beyond the point where most subsidiary feeders have bifurcated leaving only small winterbournes as tributaries. Although a shorter distance from the sea as the crow flies, the position of Flagstones is similar, for the Frome formed the basis of the former Solent River and considerable lower reaches have been obscured by sea-level rise during the Holocene. Circular features occur across the region, like Flagstones making their mark on those places already staked out as witnessing ancient activity. The sub-rectangular

54

causewayed ditch at Wor Barrow, Sixpenny Handley, Dorset, for example received a mate. Only metres to the southeast a small circular mound less than 1m in height and 13m diameter (Handley 26) was initially examined by Richard Colt Hoare during the early 19th century (Hoare 1810, 242) and re-excavated by Pitt Rivers in 1894. This revealed Mortlake pottery at the base of the ditch and a crouched skeleton at the centre of the mound accompanied by a jet belt slider (Pitt Rivers 1893-96, 5861, 136-42) and in terms of date might now be placed within the early 3rd millennium if not before. A second round barrow was constructed, this time to the north of Wor Barrow (Handley 27), and this too was originally investigated by both Hoare (1810, 242) and later Pitt Rivers (1893-6, 58-61, 136-42). Hoare noted the presence of human bones in the mound, commenting that the intersection of an overlying boundary ditch had disturbed them. Both mounds have been reassessed by Barrett et al (1991) and recent re-excavations at the latter revealed a sherd of Mortlake Ware in the lower ditch filling (ibid 84-7) and indicated that the feature was of some complexity. The ditch revealed three phases of activity, a circuit of 1.5m deep segments, each less than 3m in length, was succeeded by a ditch formed of a least nine segments, followed in turn by a shallow ring ditch that obscured some of these earlier elements. Various phases of the round barrow activity overlap with later phases of use of the Wor Barrow long mound (ibid) and inextricably link the three monuments in both time and place. The adoption of the tradition of causewayed ditch digging from the Wor Barrow ditch itself is clear (ibid). Like the long barrow, the round mounds were situated just above a Winterbourne spring (Fig 1:4: see e.g. Sumner 1988, fp 48) that fed the River Crane and may once have formed a lake similar to that formerly in the adjacent valley of the River Allen (Green 2000a, 59-61). Similarly, on Winnall Down, Hampshire, excavation of an interrupted ring ditch, 16.5m in diameter in 1972 revealed eight segments some of which, like Handley 27, showed signs of recutting. The site focussed on a combe, a re-entrant of the River Itchen and produced 33 sherds of Bowl pottery, one with expanded rim, but another possibly of Grimston Ware (Fasham 1982) indicating that such small segmented ring ditches may have had a genesis in the earlier Neolithic. A similar sequence may also be present at Lavant in West Sussex, where a site discovered in advance of pipelaying in 1997 was originally described as a hengiform monument, though here the elements of the construction are not separated but situated on top of each other. Located on the slopes of a now dry re-entrant overlooking the River Lavant and a little over 1km southwest of the Trundle, no earthworks were recorded but the site was revealed as a series of 'at least three near concentric ring ditches' (Fig 5:1a and b). The earliest phase appears to be a sub-rectangular ditch, c3m in width, defining a

0

500m

Figure 5:1a The topographical position of the Lavant ring ditches. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved. Archaeology based on Kenny 1993

monument c 25m in length and just over 20m wide with the long axis oriented south-southeast. The plan of the site suggests that it may have been a 'short' long barrow of Cranborne Chase (Ashbee 1970) or Radley (Bradley 1992) type, whereby the ditch, rather than merely flanking the mound, encloses one or both ends. An unexcavated central pit may be an inhumation. Three postholes were revealed in the base of the portion of the ditch that was excavated and a C14 date of 3520-3300 provided on bos (Turner 1987: Kenny pers comm). The outer ditch here is roughly oval, but it generally respects the sub-rectangular layout of the inner ditch. However, it is of different character, being quite narrow, only c 1m wide and it may have contained posts, though no clear evidence was recorded. Large numbers of red deer antlers were recovered from the base of the ditch, none of which exhibited signs of use and, like Stonehenge, it appears to have been backfilled immediately or soon afterwards. C14 determinations of 3350-3030 cal BC and 3040-2870 cal BC indicate that there is potentially considerable time lapse involved in the monument (Turner 1987: Kenny pers comm). A third ditch, this time approximately circular, c 23m diameter

55

was subsequently cut across the sub-rectangular feature retaining the central pit as its focus. Fragments of Mortlake Ware and a ground discoidal knife were found close to the base of the ditch and a C14 date of 31002890 cal BC obtained (Turner 1987: Kenny pers comm). In form, the site bears a close resemblance to the sequence of sub-circular ditches, Site XI, excavated at Dorchester on Thames, Oxfordshire (Atkinson et al 1951, 60-2: Whittle et al 1992). Here three almost concentric ditches, one sub-circular, one sub-rectangular and the other oval in plan, enclosed a circuit of pits. The primary phase was also thought to be a Cranborne Chase or Radley type of long barrow on which the later course of the cursus was aligned (Bradley and Chambers 1988). Other monuments, in particular, henges, with single or opposed entrances, appear to have developed early in the millennium through the medium of pit digging. At Monkton Up Wimborne, Dorset, a pit-circle consisting of 14 pits broken by entrance gaps in the northeast and southwest was recently excavated (Green 2000a). A kiteshaped arrowhead found in the upper silts of one pit, along with fragments of Peterborough Ware, perhaps

allow the site to be placed into Kinnes' (1979) Stage D. The pits focus upon the unusual circular excavation and shaft already mentioned above, containing the latter within them, though the chronological relationship remains unclear.

0

25m

Figure 5:1b Lavant ring ditches (based on original drawing by J Kenny).

The digging of conjoined or causewayed pits in circular or pennanular arrangements continued and at Wyke Down, Sixpenny Handley, Dorset, a series of partially conjoined pits in a sub-circular arrangement with an entrance to south-southeast was revealed during excavations in 1996 (Green 2000a: pers comm). The site lay a mere 40m south of a second much smaller, 12m diameter, 'henge' discovered in 1983-4. This time of Class II, with entrances aligned on the entrance of the former site. C14 dates of 2870-2570 cal BC and 2870-2490 cal BC both on charcoal, indicate a date in the earlier 3rd millennium (Barrett et al 1991: Cleal 1991). Close by were two further buildings associated with pits and a fence line. Each building consisted of a four-post structure and a porch facing towards the southeast. Daub with wattle impressions and plaster found in the postholes presumably reflected the building construction. The fourpost arrangement may have defined a square inner 'sacred space' (Green 2000a). An arc of smaller post or stake holes at the circumference of each building suggests that the central arrangement was surrounded by a circular structure most of which had disappeared. Charred material hinted that both buildings might have burnt down. Similar accumulations of circular monuments with a lengthy history are present north of Amesbury in

56

Wiltshire. The earliest identifiable element at Durrington, is the small long barrow noted from parch marks by RCHME (Fig 5:2). Nearby, Plain Bowl sherds were revealed beneath the Durrington Walls henge bank (Wainwright and Longworth 1971, 14) and on the old land surface at Woodhenge (Pollard 1995, 139), while a multitude of undated pits identified as parch marks lie between the long barrow and Woodhenge. A series of ring ditches lie alongside Woodhenge on the lip of the bluff overlooking the River Avon, at least one of which contained a Beaker burial that could have been contemporary with the later use of the site (Cunnington 1929). Antler and animal bone from the ditch at Woodhenge (Evans and Wainwright 1979) produced dates of 2460-2140 cal BC and 2290-2040 cal BC respectively indicating that development of the site may have been contemporary with the construction of timber circles within Durrington Walls henge and may have been the catalyst for the layout of the ring ditch/barrows. The precise sequence is a little unclear but Pollard (1995) makes the point that the construction of Woodhenge was probably designed around important pre-existing features and like the Sanctuary it may have comprised a sequence of post replacement (Pitts 2001). Of the ring ditches on the lip of the bluff alongside Woodhenge, ring ditch I consisted of a burial in a central pit with Beaker and perforated stone axe. Five postholes lay in a straight line alongside the grave pit and three more almost at right angles (Cunnington 1929, 42-5). Ring ditch II appeared to partially cut an earlier structure and enclosed seven pits, two containing Grooved Ware and animal bone. A series of post holes comprising four posts were set in a square, two others formed an entrance porch to the southeast and the arrangement was surrounded by stakeholes forming part of a subrectangular structure (Cunnington 1929, 45-47) similar to those at Wyke Down, Down Farm (Green 2000). This was offset within the barrow and evidently had been cut by the ring ditch. Ring ditch III had Grooved Ware in a primary position in the ditch, but nothing internally apart from a single pit set close to the lip of the ditch (Cunnington 1929, 47). The massive Durrington henge itself and internal timber circles have broad date ranges that span the period 28701980 cal BC (Garwood 1999, 175), though there is just a hint that the internal components may be fractionally later than the henge. The important point from a land-use point of view, however, is the position of the henge, immediately adjacent to the River Avon but encompassing much of a small combe or re-entrant (Fig 5:3). The henge earthworks are situated on the east facing valley slope, where if not for the combe, there would be a sharp bluff or river cliff. The siting ensures that Stonehenge is not intervisible and indeed the entrance opens directly onto the riverside emphasising where importance lay. Whether this coombe was of peri-glacial origin is unclear, but the likelihood of a former small

bourne hole existing here from where winter springs once issued, must be high. Like the earthen monument at Durrington Walls, the timber enclosure at Greyhound Yard, Dorchester, estimated to be in the region of 380m in diameter, partially encloses a small combe or re-entrant immediately situated alongside a river, in this case the Frome. A series of seven C14 dates place the monument between 2920-2340 cal BC with the likely construction date thought to be about 2700 BC (Woodward et al 1993, 351). When considered in plan, difficulties occur in determining the difference between henges, hengiform monuments and ring ditches. The problem has been encountered before. Harding (1987, 23) thought that despite an acknowledged overlap with henges, the variety

of sites present at Dorchester on Thames; pit circles, segmented and ring ditches and others; should be treated as completely different site types. He also acknowledged potential difficulties of distinguishing between henges and levelled causeway ditched barrows, the presence or absence of a mound being the distinguishing criteria (Harding 1987, 26) and he cited Handley 27 as an example where a funerary function could be determined by the presence of a mound. As we have seen however, Handley 27 metamorphosed through at least three phases of ditch cutting (Barrett et al 1991), not all of which will have utilised a central mound and as noted in Chapter 4 (above) in the context of long mounds, or as Peterson (1973) observed elsewhere, creation of a mound was not the raison d'etre of the monument - it simply concluded or sealed a process. Indeed at Handley 27, it was hardly a

Figure 5:2 Parch marks surveyed at Woodhenge by the RCHME during the exceptionally hot summers of 1989 and 1990. Long barrow ditches are present at bottom left amongst a group of World War I military trenches. Bottom right, the string of round barrows to the south of Woodhenge display signs of associated pits and burials, while a little to their left lies the Durrington Egg enclosure, itself linked to fields and a trackway. A series of at least four square barrows and large numbers of pits are also visible.

57

0

1km

Figure 5:3 Durrington environs: the location of long barrows – one certain, the other recorded as parch marks – is shown, each respecting the contours; the henge deamatically encloses a small combe, while a series of contemporary and Early Bronze Age monuments are located along the bluff overlooking the river Avon. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

mound at all. A little more than 0.85m in height, it may have merely been the most convenient place to tip spoil from the latest cutting of the ditch. Such rigid typologies do not allow for chronological differences and variation in function, or changing perceptions of the feature over time. In part interpretations rest on preconceived ideas of mounds as receptacles of funerary material, rather than on ditches or pits as features defining areas. Thus the mound or lack of it becomes the focus of attention while, except as a sump for the collection of archaeological debris, the ditch is all but ignored. The repeated recutting of pits or ditches, in the same position and of the construction of similar devices on the same site is a feature first noted in the deliberately extended long barrow ditch at Holdenhurst. It is behaviour that is also recorded in a large number of causewayed enclosures, both in terms of re-digging old ditches and of creating new ones on the same site. The only difference is in the tendency to increasingly dig these features in the form of a circle, or near circular arrangement, for rarely is there great precision. The idea of digging into the earth can also be observed to have taken place in a less formal manner. Often this could be as individual pits occurring either singly or in clusters. On the Coastal Plain, a pit containing Grooved Ware

58

sherds at Barford Farm, Dorset (Howard 1991) was dated by C14 to 2930-2500 cal BC. Another, cut into alluvial deposits at the confluence of the Rivers Stour and Avon at Christchurch, also contained Grooved Ware and was found to be cut by an undated ring ditch (Jarvis 1983, 134). In fact, both of these pits were subsequently incorporated within later ring ditches, themselves sited at little distance from later Beaker and Bronze Age material. Inland on the chalk, at Down Farm on Cranborne Chase, a series of 16 pits in two groups, many of which contained certain placed deposits, is at face value thought unlikely to represent everyday domestic activity. A pig mandible was found in in Pit 3; a boar’s tusk and unusual banded flint pebble in Pit 5; a mandible of pig with Grooved Ware in Pit 6; a boars tusk in Pit 7; a scallop shell in Pit 8; an ox skull, bear ulna, deer antler, and boar’s tusk all dated to 2880-2570 in Pit 11a; an oblique petit-tranchet derivative arrowhead in Pit 24; a chisel arrowhead in Pit 25; and red deer antlers, cattle bones and boar’s tusk all dated to 2670-2490 cal BC in Pit 32 (Green 2000a and pers comm: Barrett et al 1991: Cleal 1991). All were carefully and neatly placed rather than being incorporated with discarded domestic debris. Nearby in Chalkpit Field were further pits. In one, F6, a dog skull with a flint ball; in a second, F18, two pig jaws;

in four others single cattle horns (Green 2000a). Such apparently non-utilitarian pits are found elsewhere in the hinterland. At Amesbury, Wiltshire, a pit containing a chalk plaque, cattle, sheep/goat, pig, and red deer remains was dated to 3030-2670 cal BC and 2880-2600 cal BC (Harding 1988: Radiocarbon 31, 805-16; Cleal et al 1994), while not far away a similar pit at Ratfyn containing selected cattle, pig, and red deer remains, and like Pit 11a at Down Farm, brown bear, was dated to the other end of the millennium, 2190-1900 cal BC (Stone 1935, 60-1; Radiocarbon 31; Cleal et al 1994). In Hampshire, 20 such pits were excavated at Bridgits Farm, overlooking the River Itchen northeast of Winchester (Fasham 1979: Fasham and Whinney 1991, 143-7) with possible recuts in five of them. Unfortunately most remained undated and by no means all were Neolithic, though one had a C14 date of 2460-2030 cal BC (Jordan et al 1994, 103). No pottery was recovered, but there was a small amount of struck flint and animal bone. North of Winchester, along the Itchen Valley a pit containing Mortlake Ware was found within a later, but undated, ring-ditch on Easton Down near Winchester, while other pits lay close by, one of which contained a Beaker with associated fragments of sheep bones and baked clay (Fasham 1982, 24). In the east of the region, a series of seven pits were uncovered at the Lavant Reservoir Site (Kenny 1993). One contained a smashed nodule, a second Ebbsfleet Ware fragments, a third contained an extremely rare 'Folkton' style chalk drum, though without carvings, together with pieces of antler, waste flakes and a possible Grooved Ware sherd (Chichester Museum: Kenny pers comm). A further pit some 3m diameter by 3m deep was taken by the excavator to be an aborted flint mine shaft (Kenny 1993), though given its proximity to the other pits it may have more in common with the sunken feature at Monkton Up Wimborne described above. The apparently non-utilitarian nature of many such pits, may have been why some attracted later activity. Certainly traces of such pits must still have been detectable on the surface when later ring ditches were constructed at, for example, Barford Farm, Dorset (Howard 1991) or Bargate, Christchurch (Jarvis 1983, 134).

recovered from the Westhampnett excavations, one from a pit at the southern extent of Area 4 was evidently residual, but nine other sherds of undiagnostic pottery were found in the same area and, along with the struck flint component, were felt by the excavator to represent debris from a nearby domestic site (Fitzpatrick 1992, 50: Fitzpatrick et al 2001, 132-6). Other sherds have been recovered from Selsey and Oving nearby (White 1934: Drewett 1978), Long Island (Bradley and Hooper 1973), the Lavant ring ditch site, Wakefords Copse, Ryde, Chale, Arreton, Niton and Whitwell on the Isle of Wight, Portsdown, Pagham, Eartham, and a number of sites around Christchurch and Bournemouth, and all serve to demonstrate that activity of this period may have been more intensive on the Coastal Plain than was formerly imagined. At Downton, immediately alongside the floodplain of the River Avon, excavations revealed a pit originally about 1.2m deep containing struck flints and sherds of two vessels of Peterborough Ware. A series of depressions, some quite deep, were found nearby containing cultural material, though these were thought by the excavator to represent natural hollows into which material had collected. Almost 300 Peterborough Ware sherds of Ebbsfleet and Mortlake types were recovered, though never in direct association, and where juxtaposed, both lay beneath Beaker material (Rahtz 1963). The proximity of the Mesolithic site mentioned in Chapter 3 and a Beaker site mentioned below, introduced an element of uncertainty into analysis of the flintwork, though a Group VIII axe, and leaf arrowheads might be associated with the earlier ceramic type. Despite this widespread distribution, incidence of Peterborough wares is not great, each find consisting of several fragments at most. Debris does not appear to have been left lying around and it is often difficult to determine whether sites were domestic or ceremonial. Once thought to be Later Neolithic in date, recent C14 dating programmes have made it clear that Peterborough Ware pottery styles have a currency spanning the Middle Neolithic, from about 3400BC through to 2500BC (Gibson and Kinnes 1997), with Ebbsflleet styles all but confined to the latter half of the 4th millennium concurrent with the earlier parts of the Mortlake range. As the popularity of Peterborough Wares declined, Beaker styles were on the increase and these carried through to the end of the 3rd millennium and beyond.

Pottery Mortlake Ware appears to have been distributed quite widely across the region, both along the Coastal Plain and within the interior (Appendix 5:1). There is a tendency for it to be placed as secondary deposits in earlier ritual, burial or ceremonial features e.g. at Holdenhurst long barrow and this has resulted in a prominence of chalkland finds, where many such monuments have been excavated. However two sherds of Peterborough Ware were

59

A second pottery style, Grooved Ware, is often found on sites allocated a ceremonial or ritual function and appears to overlap at either end of the 3rd millennium with Peterborough and Beaker styles respectively (Garwood 1999). Earlier third millennium dates for Grooved Ware are present across the region, both at henge sites and from individual pits such as Barford Farm, Dorset 2930-2500 cal BC (Howard 1991) and Christchurch 2920-2500 cal BC (Jarvis 1983, 134: Garwood 1999, 165).

Figure 5:4 Distribution of Grooved ware (solid circles) and Seamer ground flint axes (open coircles), compared with major henges (squares). Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

There is a considerable and immediately noticeable incidence of this ceramic around Hengistbury Head at the mouth of the River Avon (Fig 5:4: finds listed in Longworth and Cleal 1999), where it comes from Latch Farm and from a mound on Crouch Hill, Stanpit Marsh. Sherds discovered nearby in a pit at the Nursery site on the Avon side of Hengistbury Head were interpreted as representing an occupation site (Chadburn and Gardiner 1985). The material from these sites has been addressed in some detail (Gardiner 1984: 1987b and c) and so is not considered here. Evidently distribution extended right along the Coastal Plain, forty sherds being recovered from a site at Wallington, Fareham (Hughes 1977, 79) close to the sites of worked flint discovered by Draper and others, while further east two small shallow pits at Westhampnett produced 93 sherds of Grooved Ware between them, while a dozen other sherds of similar fabric derived from gulleys in the southern zone of Area 4. Potsherds in one pit associated with struck flakes, burnt flint and a large quantity of charcoal , appeared to have been carefully deposited in a similar manner to that in the pits described above (Fitzpatrick et al 2001, 133-4). In Yorkshire, Grooved Ware is associated with a suite of other artefacts refered to by Manby (1974) as the ‘Macehead Complex’ Seamer edge-ground axes, discoidal knives and

60

maceheads – and these have been plotted in Figs 5:4 and 5:5. Apart from the slight cluster around Christchurch, activity is mainly riverine, while finds on the chalk are more than counterbalanced by those on the Coastal Plain. Flint Flint scatters are ubiquitous across the area. Around the major monument complexes, e.g. Stonehenge (Richards 1990) and Cranborne Chase (Barrett et al 1991) they have been studied in greater detail, but there are also important groups of material from elsewhere on the higher ground, in particular the upper reaches of the River Test (Willis Collection: Hampshire Museum Service). While the parent chalk can be expected to contain vast quantities of knapping sites, the lower ground is by no means devoid of such material and it can appear in quite significant quantities. Flint scatters can be traced right along the coastal fringe, but perhaps the most intriguing point is that like other materials, such scatters often appear to lie close to freshwater channels, rivers or streams. One scatter at Fawley, said to include borers and cores and other struck flints with Neolithic traits (NAR SU40SW34), was recovered from adjacent to a now culverted stream. Similarly a series of flints, mostly said to be flakes from pebble cores and described as Neolithic

Figure 5:5 Ditribution of other material of the Macehead Complex, often associated with Grooved Ware: ground edge knives (stars), ground discoidal knives (open circles), maceheads (filled circles), and major henges (squares). Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

were found on the surface at Millbrook, Southampton in 1948 (NMR SU 31 SE2) but can no longer be traced. Most of the implements collected from Rainbow Bar, Lee-on-Solent by Draper (NAR 50SW7) were Mesolithic or Palaeolithic in date, though several hundred, including a Y-shaped implement and scraper (Draper Coll, Portsmouth Museum), might now be considered typically Neolithic (Gardiner 1987a). A little inland, a midden was revealed 1.2m below the surface and revealed in the face of a gravel pit at Fareham, about a km from the present Lee-on-Solent coastline and adjacent to the River Alver (Cooke 1923). It contained a layer of oyster and winkle shells up to 3m thick associated with flint flakes and implements including several scrapers, while scrapers and potboilers were recovered from a number of adjacent hearths. Further flintwork, again including cores and scrapers, was recovered from the overlying loam. According to Kemp and Rogers (1984) the site was originally discovered by Capt Civil in 1935-8, when amongst the artefacts a diagnostic chisel arrowhead recovered. However, a fragment of pottery from the midden was described by S Piggott as probably of Iron Age date indicating that the artefacts themselves may be residual to the midden and the site therefore invites some caution. There has been

61

extensive gravel working along this stretch of the River Alver, but no records of further finds. Fieldwalking here at Shoot Lane West (Kemp and Rogers 1984, 27-3) recovered a mixed flint assemblage which included scrapers, a waisted tool, cores and flakes, and a barbed and tanged arrowhead. Nearby at Sandhills Lane West a further mixed assemblage, comprising cores, flakes and burnt flint, 30 shells, hammerstones, 19 fabricators, 14 knives, 5 sickle sections, blades, 3 arrowheads, a saw, an enormous quantity of 326 scrapers, 71 borers, microliths, 5 microlith cores, and 2 axes was recovered, of which a considerable component is likely to be Neolithic. A number of sites were located around Fareham itself, at the mouth of the Wallington River (Draper Coll: Portsmouth Museum). A scatter of worked flints, cores and flakes were recovered from a narrow gravel beach merging with mudflats in Cams Bay (NAR SU50NE9), while potboilers and shell midden 'debris' was recorded on the west side of Horsea Island facing Portchester. Heaps of oyster and winkle shells along with burnt flints were encountered when a torpedo range was constructed in 1886 and in 1925 potboilers were found along the shore in great quantity, invariably below the tidal silt (Williams-Freeman 1920-4, 407), though again there was no certain evidence of date. Groups of finds occur further

east around the mudflats and islands of Langstone Harbour (Allen and Gardiner 2000), the recent survey adding support to earlier finds. Much of this material is undiagnostic but there is an impression of a thin scatter of early domestic debris from Long Island, Bakers Island and South Binness Island (Draper Collection, Portsmouth Museum: Draper 1958; 1968: Bradley and Hooper 1975, 23). Further east, excavations on the line of the Westhampnett by-pass revealed an assemblage of almost 800 pieces of struck flint of late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age character. Much of this is tool preparation debris, though a scraper was recovered from a pit containing Grooved Ware. Most of the material was thought to be from nodules taken from local Combe deposits or river gravels (Boismer in Fitzpatrick et al 2001, 144-9) and significantly none from the chalk itself. A crouched inhumation within an oval scoop in Area 3 was dated to 2900-2620 cal BC. It was found with a fragment of unidentified prehistoric pottery and flint flake and demonstrated that Neolithic burial was taking place here alongside domestic activity.

a

Neolithic flint was found scattered across fields in the Oving area to the south of Westhampnett during the programme of fieldwalking by M Pitts, but resolved into three clusters alongside the Aldingbourne Rife, a small brook discharging into the sea at Bognor Regis. As noted above, most of this appears to be earlier Neolithic in date, but there is a middle and later Neolithic component as revealed by the presence of two PTD oblique arrowheads, while a plano-convex knife hints at the presence of activity early in the second millennium. Evidence from these sites can be supplemented by the more general spread of chance finds. Most of them arediagnostic tools, ground flint and stone axes, edgeground flint axes, petit-tranchet derivative arrowheads, discoidal knives etc.; they are potentially of more use than scatters of flakes. Plots of these (Figs 5:5 and 5:6: Appendices 5:2 to 5:7), demonstrate a series of clusters on the Coastal Plain, particularly centred around the mouth of the River Avon, from where significant numbers can be traced inland along the river systems onto the higher downland. The impression is of an intensification of activity at this point and in coastal areas generally, while Gardiner (1984, 36-7) has suggested that the prestigious nature of much of the material around Christchurch might indicate that a high status site is located there.

62

b

c

Figure 5:6 Ground stone axes: a) rocks originating in the southwest peninsular - rock group I (squares); Group III (stars); Group VI (open circles); and Group XVI (spots): b) rocks originating in Cumbra – rock Group VI; and c) rocks originating in Wales - rock Group VII (squares); Group VIII (open circles); and Group XIII (spots). Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

While single piece crescentic sickles possess similar knapping techniques to flint daggers, and were thus compared to early bronze examples by Curwen (1930, 183), there are indications of an earlier currency. Early and Middle Neolithic associations occur at Grovehurst, Kent, Bishopstone, Sussex and Fengate, Cambridgeshire (Healy 1982, 214-5). Few others come from secure contexts. A sickle from East Knoyle, Wiltshire, was found in a pit in the face of a quarry along with a plain undecorated flat-based pot that crumbled to pieces. Close by, and thought to be in association, were two ground axes and a nodule of chert (Smallcombe 1937, 158-9). Like flint daggers, these sickles are very fragile. Indeed, it is surprising that some of the larger examples have survived in one piece. The perhaps unfinished example from Shedfield (Portsmouth Museum) is 31cms long and may have served a ceremonial purpose. It may be that in such circumstances survival derives from placement in pits or other similar deposits. National distribution is similar to that of daggers, central southern England being shown as completely devoid of examples (Clark 1932, 75). However, seven, possibly eight, examples from the area reside in museum stores, three of which – Shirley, Fareham and Slindon - are from coastal locations (Fig 5:7). A possible fragment was recovered from the henge at Durrington Walls. These are listed in Appendix 5:8.

d

e

Above Figure 5:6 Ground stone axes: d) rocks originating in the north east – rock Group XVIII (open circles) and the midlands – rock Group XIV (filled circles); and e) rocks from uncertain or unknown sources. Below Figure 5:7 Distribution of single piece flint sickles. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

63

In addition to demonstrating the incidence of material around several coastal areas, the plots also emphasise certain areas of importance in the interior. Clusters of material in Cranborne Chase and around Stonehenge might be expected given the density of monuments in those areas. More surprising are the noticeable clusters in

comparable locations in Hampshire, on the Clay-withflints areas around the headwaters of the River Test, many of which were recorded by Willis in the 1930's and 1940's (Willis Collection, Hampshire Museum Service). Although diagnostic artefacts are plotted, they are only part of a much broader array of artefacts and waste material from these sites. The material comprises rough, crudely struck flakes and scrapers, Y-shaped and waisted pieces and fabricators, occasional tranchet and bluntededge forms, some utilising natural pieces or thermal fractures in order to provide a functional tool with little effort, rather than neat and aesthetic pieces. Broken ground axes are invariably present, often reworked into Y-shaped pieces or used as cores. This is the type of material, mentioned briefly in Chapter 3, formerly known as Campignian, or Secondary Neolithic (Piggott 1954: Wood 1952) and now considered as firmly diagnostic of the Neolithic (Gardiner 1984). In fact, it is found right across the chalklands of Dorset (Pitt Rivers Coll, Salisbury Museum: Green pers comm), Wiltshire (collections in Salisbury, Devizes and Avebury Museums), Hampshire (Hants Museum Service), Surrey (Wood 1952: Field and Cotton 1987), Sussex (Upton Coll: collections in Chichester, Lewes, Brighton Museum: Gardiner 1984) and north of the Thames in Bedfordshire (collections in Luton Museum) and Norfolk (collections in Norwich Museum). Within central southern England, the most studied is that on the western chalk on Cranborne Chase, where 14% of the tools are roughly made axes and picks (Green 2000, 65). The proportions are quite typical of these sites and simply the larger the site, the greater the number of axes and picks. In some instances they seem to grade through chisels into that understudied form the fabricator. Gardiner (1987, 64-5) lists tool kits for both the Mesolithic and Neolithic but fabricators appear in both. A number of such factors provide uncertainty about precise dating, but Martin Green illustrates a small tranchet tool and a sharpening flake from secure Neolithic levels at the Monkton Up Wimborne site, in Dorset (Green 2000, 66). Like the material from Cranborne Chase, the Willis Collection from the Clay-with-flints around Basingstoke is quite typical, where sites might comprise, for example, around 20 ground axeheads, usually broken or fragmentary, together with two or three times as many flaked axes and picks and twice as many fabricators. In Sussex, extensive collection on the chalk around Slindon has resulted in similar massive collections of crude material (Upton Coll private and Chichester Museum). While the `Campignian' assemblages bear a Neolithic date, as noted above their genesis is unclear. Such crude assemblages are noticeably absent away from the flintbearing chalk and the whole range of tool types, picks, scrapers, adzes etc are less common on other lithologies. The remarkable difference in knapping technique between assemblages from the Chalk and Greensand respectively has long been acknowledged and the same is

64

true of those from the Coastal Plain. In general, assemblages from the latter two areas are neater and finer in every way. Even at little distance from the Upper Chalk, at Windmill Hill in Wiltshire, for example, long considered a Neolithic type site, the struck flint is smaller and neater, comparable to that from the Tertiaries and Greensand rather than the sites nearby on the Upper Chalk. It may be the sheer ubiquity of surface flint on the Chalk and Clay-with-flints that encouraged the widespread use of such crude tools: less care being taken in the preparation of tools, for example, and the technology reflecting what was expedient.

The gleam of new materials Soon after 2500 BC a new material, yellow metal, was introduced into the area. Initially this may have entered the area as gifts and been perceived as highly symbolic, perhaps even sacred. The earliest evidence here, the tanged copper knife with bone pommel from Shrewton round barrow 5k, is dated to this time and associated with it are All Over Cord, European Bell Beaker and Developed Northern British Beakers. Three dates from human bone provide date ranges between 2500 and 2280 cal BC (Needham 1996, 128: Green and Rollo Smith 1984) setting it firmly within Needham's Period 1, which he dates to between 2500 and 2300 (Needham 1996) and which significantly also encapsulates the construction of sarsen settings at nearby Stonehenge. Shrewton 5k is one of 18 barrows that cluster around the northern slopes at the head of a combe that leads down to the River Till and that overlook the probable site of a former spring. The ground to the east rises in height towards Robin Hoods Ball and set just metres in that direction would have ensured greater intervisibility, in particular with Stonehenge, should that have been important. All this is swiftly followed by Needham's Phase 2, 23002050BC, during which various Bluestones were set in place at Stonehenge and Beakers increasingly occur as the only pottery accompanying burial material (Needham 1996). Gold is now present in the form of basket earrings at Chilbolton, Hampshire, alongside the tanged copper knife and other pieces (Russel 1990) and at Amesbury (Fitzpatrick 2002). Human bone at the former site provided a date range of 2455-2420 or 2405-1950 cal BC and was accompanied by a Wessex/Middle Rhine Beaker. The burial lay at the centre of a small henge-like ringditch on upper valley slopes above the River Test, near Leckford, Hants. Flat bronze axes are quite rare from the area, the greater numbers concentrating in the east of the country, in Yorkshire, East Anglia, and the Middle and Lower Thames. Their absence from Wiltshire was commented upon (Megaw and Hardy 1938, 280) at a time when Piggott was developing ideas about a Wessex Culture.

However, a thin coastal distribution can be perceived in the south (Fig 5:8: Appendix 5.9). One was found close to barrow 10 on Hengistbury Head in 1953 (Gardiner 1987, 52: see also Needham 1978, 274), another at Selsey (Curwen 1937, 160). Others from Dorset coastal sites, including Preston and Wyke Regis, are mentioned by Piggott (1938) who was a little uncomfortable at this distribution and all but dismissed it as the result of maritime trade (1938, 58). One broad-butted example was recovered from a barrow on the Dorset Ridgeway (Britton 1963), while a flanged example was found in the ditch terminal at Mount Pleasant (Britton in Wainwright 1979).

Figure 5:8 The distribution of flat copper and bronze axes. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

Calkin listed 25 Beakers from the Christchurch area, of which he considered 15 to be funerary on account of a greater degree of vessel completeness (Calkin 1952, 60), though any or all of these may have been ritual deposits (Woodward 2002). None of them came from barrows and while examples from Boscombe Cemetery, Talbot Woods, and Whitepits, Southbourne (Christchurch Museum), lie on fairly high ground, others from Sheepwash, Iford, Furzy and Lower Close at Latch Farm, lie immediately above the present flood plain along the 5m contour. Those Beakers that Calkin considered to represent domestic sites – from Wick Farm gravel pit; Lower Close, Latch Farm, and Rowbury, Southbourne, at the base of Hengistbury Head – all occupied similar riverside areas. In addition, domestic Beaker came from seven other riverine locations that focus on the area around the Stour/Avon confluence. Three fields here, Furzy, Lower Close and Mill Plain, covering about a kilometre of river frontage, all produced finds from the later Neolithic through to the Middle Bronze Age. Grooved Ware and domestic Beaker was found during gravel digging and Druitt recorded the presence of a dark patch of soil, from which, in addition to the pottery, flint flakes and burnt flints were recovered. Two Beakers from Latch Farm, Furzy, one with a handle, are present in the collections at the Red House Museum (Christchurch FLF1 and FLF2.7.1909), while Calkin noted that twothirds of a Beaker were found in the gravel pit close to the Latch Farmhouse. A further example was found about

65

200m northwest of the house (Calkin 1952, 61), while a Beaker sherd was found along with rusticated pottery 'in a small pocket' about 18 metres from the Latch Farm barrow (Calkin 1952, 61). One at least, appears to have been found at a depth of around 1.2m in the gravel at Furzy and thus probably in a pit (Calkin 1952, 61). That the well-known Latch Farm barrow, with its Middle Bronze Age urn burials, appears to overlie plough furrows (Bradley 1978) encourages the view that these finds might represent a domestic complex. Elsewhere in the Bournemouth area, a Beaker from Broadway, Kinson Rd, Kinson, Bournemouth was found during Gas Water Pipe laying in 1935 close to the springs of a bourne that leads towards the coast (Poole PMA 325 sketch) indicating that the chines were considered of importance. All these are supplemented by recent finds at the mouth of the River Piddle from Bestwall Quarry and from the lower reaches of the Stour at Knighton Farm, to the north of Poole, where many have Southern and Wessex/ Middle Rhine features. At least a dozen Beakers, including a handled type, along with flints and potboilers, were excavated by D Watkins in 1989 from a series of pits and other features on the Stour gravels at Knighton Farm (Appendix 5:109) (Poole PM 88). Precise details of the excavations are unpublished, but context 10 incorporated the base of a Beaker, an arrowhead (type unknown as it was missing from its bag at the time of inspection, though probably barbed and tanged), fragments of a second Beaker, 18 flakes and 2 small scrapers (only one of them a thumbnail type). Handled Beakers are thought to be relatively late in the period (Case 1977, 83) and an important group seems to occur at the coast between Latch Farm, and the Poole area. Similarly three Beaker bowls come from the Bournemouth, of only 17 (inclusive of an example from Down Farm further inland) from the country as a whole. A flint assemblage containing small Beaker type scrapers comes from White's Pit, Poole (Poole PM39), while a similar flint assemblage with Bronze Age admixture and with undiagnostic potsherds come from Strawberry Field, Poole (Poole PM 1970). Excavations on the gravel terraces of the River Frome at Bestwall Quarry, Wareham (Ladle 1997: pers comm) revealed two adjacent pits each containing large fragments of Beaker pottery, one a bowl, evidently carefully deposited with decorated side downwards. Carbonised grain, along with burnt flint and heathstone, were also present in one pit. A further pit, with a deposit of charcoal on one side, contained fragments of decorated Beaker throughout its fill, while a large fragment of domestic Beaker came from a nearby ditch. Pottery wasters and a dump of clay suggested pottery production might have been taking place. A barbed and tanged arrowhead come from an otherwise undated scoop (Ladle nd; pers comm). The potential for similar finds further east along the Coastal Plain is demonstrated by the discovery of Beakers at Westhampnett (Fitzpatrick et al 2001, 136) and in a brickpit at Selsey (Musson 1954, 108).

Figure 5:9 The intensification of land-use at East Winterslow, Wiltshire, with Easton Down at upper right. The earliest evidence is the group of flint mines (grey spots), unusually set within a re-entrant. Some of the pits may relate to the adjacent Beaker settlements (dotted lines), part of which was excavated by J F S Stone in the 1930's. Two large bell barrows flank the western part of the valley, while a third, smaller bell, the Winterslow hut barrow, a little to the south-east of them covered a cist in which a skeleton was accompanied by a Wessex/Middle Rhine Beaker. Similar pottery was found in the settlement on Easton Down. The latter site was subsequently also used for burial, as a barrow was constructed amongst the settlement debris. Probably contemoporary with it was a long cairn of flints (star), which covered several Collared Urn cremations. At the same time the barrow cemetery expanded, mostly to the south of the two large bell barrows. Whether the embryo fields on Easton Down relate to the Beaker or Collared Urn activity is not clear. They are extremly shallow earthworks, partially oriented north to south and partially southwest to to northeast and may focus on a sub-rectangular enclosure. They represent entrprenuerial cultivation of the Higher Downs. In contrast, the 'Celtic' field system in the southwest (Palmer & RCHME 1984) is well defined, and although covering a small area, it is composed of larger fields. Although aligned to the northeast, it is not a co-axial system and probably represents an individual homestead. Finally, formal division of the area by a system of linear ditches occurs, probably at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. In at least two cases, these are aligned on barrows. The ditches on Easton Down betray the existence of features that must have been visible at the time of layout. The north to south linear makes an angled curve to avoid an unknown feature, while the west to east linear curves slightly to the north to avoid the area of the embryo fields. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

There are also funereal sites on the Coastal Plain. A series of dispersed tumuli situated around and above springs of the Crockford and Hatchett Pond streams on Beaulieu Heath, Hampshire, cluster around what appears at first sight to be a flat plain, or broad interfluve between the two streams (Piggott 1943). On investigation, however, the area is dissected by a series of re-entrants and most of the barrows appear to be related to these. At least 18 tumuli decorate the area, though before the wartime

66

construction of an airfield there were more and it was this that led to C M Piggott's emergency recording of ten of these barrows (Piggott 1943). The area is some 5km from the coast. The sea itself is not visible from there, but the hills on the Isle of Wight form a very prominent component of the vista. The semi-natural New Forest vegetation for a considerable zone along the coast and adjacent Lymington and Beaulieu rivers, has now effectively been destroyed by the creation of enclosures,

mainly to create improved pasture, leaving the gravels and sands of Beaulieu Heath isolated. But there are hints of ancient land-use with elements of an earlier, perhaps 'Celtic', field system creeping further upslope than its historic counterparts. The implications of barrow groups appearing so close to the coast will be discussed in the next chapter, but it appears that the upper valleys around spring lines of small streams were being used for funereal purposes. Whether these monuments were sited at a distance from the nearest settlements is not clear, though the fact that the barrows cluster around springs may indicate that the valley floors themselves, now unfortunately covered with peat, were of importance in this respect. The barrows excavated by Piggott proved mostly of second millennium date, but two, numbers II and IX, revealed curious square features at the centre, considered by analogy with Dutch examples to be of Beaker date. Within Barrow II were adjacent square and D-shaped pits. The square pit, some 0.7m in depth and almost 2m square, had stake holes set around the sides at the base. Barrow IX revealed a square central feature of similar dimensions comprising beam slots set around a shallow central pit. Both were considered to represent mortuary houses, but given that no trace of burials was encountered, the Dutch interpretation of a shrine or temple-like structure referred to by Piggott, might seem more acceptable or, given the recent discoveries of tree trunks at the centre of circles in north Norfolk (Brennand and Taylor 2003), perhaps something less architectural might be entertained. At least they are unlikely to be domestic. It may be that this piece of land was considered differently, whether inhabited by ancestral spirits or those of the land, and it could be that similar places were considered in this manner too. Further inland, close to the Tertiary junction, excavations just above the floodplain of the Avon at Downton, (Rahtz 1963), revealed a shallow scoop containing burnt flints at one end and a large dense deposit of charcoal at the other. Beaker sherds came from both the filling and gravel lining and the feature was interpreted as a hearth, even though there was no further evidence of burning. Three other depressions and a shallow ditch-like feature nearby had Beaker sherds within their upper filling, while a series of at least a dozen small postholes lay in no discernible order and as the excavators recognised, formed no obvious structure. The whole area was strewn with small fragments of Beaker pottery and flint flakes. Evidence of activity associated with Beaker pottery was recorded even further upstream on the Higher Chalk at Easton Down, East Winterslow, Wiltshire. The surface was said to be (and to an extent still is) "thickly strewn with flint flakes, broken celts and other implements" (Stone 1931a, 350), largely derived from the site of earlier flint mining. During the early 1930's, J F S Stone worked extensively at the site recording an area of some 100 acres

67

set around a combe re-entrant that contained surface evidence for Neolithic mining, Beaker settlement or both (Fig 5:9: Appendix 5:11). He excavated two pits that he thought were dwellings (Stone 1931b, 369), though the wedge-shaped cross-section depicted in the published drawings is of an unlikely house profile and the presence of `habitation' material containing Beaker potsherds in the filling is not in a primary position. On the floor of the re-entrant some of the excavated flint mineshafts were quite shallow. One circular depression, 3.3m in diameter and just 0.9m in depth (Stone's B82 on an unpublished plan in Salisbury Museum) might instead be considered to be domestic. An unpublished section drawing (Salisbury Museum) depicts one of Stone's `habitation' layers at the base of the pit, though the depth in fact is little different from some of the other mineshafts excavated (e.g. Stone's B45). Stone noted that on this part of the site Beaker settlement extended over some of the mineshafts and that "it is only by digging that one can distinguish between mine shafts and pit dwellings.." (Stone 1931a, 351). To the west of the flintmines, Stone stripped a considerable area, 18m by 15m, down to the chalk and revealed a series of stakeholes, pits and amorphous depressions overlain by 'habitation' debris that included Beaker potsherds (Fig 5:10). Nine depressions, each surrounded by stakeholes and often quite irregular in plan, were thought to be huts, though the irregularity of some of these suggests that, if not tree holes, they could have been used for other activities. In no case was a hearth encountered in, or near by, the depressions (Simpson 1971, 136-7). While some of the stakeholes do indeed appear to encircle depressions, others do not. Some form small circular or oval units, while others form two alignments and traces of linear arrangements occur that could mark the edge of a cultivated area or paddock. It should be emphasized, however, that in no instance is a stakehole itself found in association with pottery. Both Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery was found in the vicinity and some caution in interpretation is required. Not only did Stone's `habitation' layer seal these features, but beneath one of the depressions lay three large pits. Stakeholes partially or completely surrounded two of them and it maybe that stakeholes observed around the overlying depression in reality surrounded the underlying pit. These pits contained unusual deposits of ‘ashed bone’ with in one instance the skeleton of a dog at the bottom. A further pit surrounded by stakeholes, thought to be a dwelling pit was encountered by Stone during the excavation of a Later Bronze Age enclosure at the base of the escarpment on Boscombe Down (Stone 1938). Here it was described as an irregular and rough scoop 10m by 1.5m and averaging 0.5m in depth. Like the scoops on Easton Down, there was a 'habitation layer' that overlay the primary silt and which contained Beaker sherds and, like those on Easton Down, no hearth was present, though calcined flint was recovered, along with flint flakes

0

5m

Figure 5:10 Easton Down: the area of Beaker settlement excavated by J F S Stone, showing hollows (dark grey); pits (light grey) and stakeholes (black).Based on plan in Stone 1931b.

, pressure flaked scrapers, and the lower jaw of a dog. Similar sites are now known in Suffolk (Bradley pers comm.), while stakeholes partially sealed by barrows at Snail Down, were also discovered to form a paddock-like arrangement (Thomas 1960: McOmish et al 2002, 42). Burials also occur on the chalk at, for example, Shrewton 24, where a S4 Beaker is associated with dates of 23952385, or 2350-2030 or 1995-1985 cal BC (Kinnes 1991 et al), or Amesbury 51 with its S2 Beaker, bronze, flint and antler associations (Ashbee 1978) and dates of 24552440, or 2395-2380, or 2355-1970 cal BC. At East Winterslow, one of a series of barrows known as Winterslow Hut, was found to have a Beaker accompanied skeleton beneath it (Stevens 1938). It is not clear whether barrow construction was contemporary, but the proximity to the domestic activity on Easton Down encourages the view that there may be a link (Fig 5:9). On Stockbridge Down, a burial in a deep pit accompanied by a Beaker and a copper awl was surrounded by an interrupted ditch of five equally spaced segments containing several fragments of deer antler. However, it is not clear whether the burial and segmented ditch were contemporary. Given the presence of Collared Urn among the secondary burials, grave and ditch may have remained open for a considerable period, before finally being covered by a cairn of flints collected from the vicinity (Stone and Gray Hill 1940). The implication is that the cairn was a later construction and a quernstone found in the cairn material cannot be ascribed to Beaker agriculture, instead the cairn’s post-Collared Urn construction might be linked to the formation of 'Celtic' fields in the coombe sides and bottom immediately below the burial. A further Beaker burial nearby, situated above the same combe, had neither ditch surround or covering mound (Stone 1948) and it might be suggested that construction of covering barrows was by no means normal Beaker practice.

68

Similar problems concern the grave in Fargo Plantation west of Stonehenge, which is better known for discussion of a Food Vessel that appears to have accompanied a secondary cremation (Stone 1938). The primary burial, however, accompanied by a Beaker, lay in a pit between two small curving flanking ditches, effectively forming a miniature henge. The spoil from these had been thrown up on the outside rather than helping cover the interior. A fragment of Peterborough Ware was recovered high in one of the ditches, though whether this had simply resulted from the extensive rabbit disturbance, or was completely residual could not be determined. The enclosed area was 0.15m lower than the surrounding land surface and may indicate that it had been left open and the chalk had dissolved, or that it had been deliberately scooped out. Curving interior profiles are by no means unknown at henges, for example, both Avebury, and the Bullring, Derbyshire, appear to have had a domed appearance, partly natural but perhaps enhanced by weathering or deliberate chamfering of the lip of the ditch, while others, for example, some in the Boyne Valley, Eire, are of dished profile (G Stout pers comm and pers observation) as are Catterick, Yorkshire and other sites in southwest Wales (R Bradley pers comm.). The presence of three secondary cremations indicated that the site was left open for some time and the presence of three holes or pits potentially for posts could indicate the presence of a standing or roofed structure perhaps similar to those encountered by Mrs Piggott on Beaulieu Heath. A small barrow containing Beaker sherds within its surrounding ditch at Earls Farm Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire, covered a circle of stake holes and evidence of a burnt structure in the central area (Thomas 1956, 238). The burials, however, were placed on the periphery, almost incidental to the main function of either the structure or the subsequently constructed barrow. All this might indicate that there is some doubt concerning the nature of Beaker barrow burial. Few of Hoare's descriptions provide sufficient detail of the barrow superstructure to determine its nature or date. The Winterslow Hut archer, found in a cist cut into the chalk and accompanied by a Beaker, slate wristguard, bronze dagger, and two flint barbed and tanged arrowheads, was evidently at the heart of a bell barrow that contained at least one secondary cremation (Stevens 1938). This barrow type is usually considered to be characteristic of 'Wessex Culture' graves and such an association would be most unusual. Unfortunately, unlike Cunnington's explorations, Hutchins was more interested in the artefacts and consequently little is known of the nature of the barrow from which they came. Similarly, there is no ring ditch indicating the presence of a levelled barrow covering the recently discovered 'Amesbury Archer' (Fitzpatrick 2002, 1-2) and should one have existed it must certainly have been quite shallow. Two successive burials here contain one of the most important

assemblages from a Beaker grave (Fitzpatrick 2002: 2003), incorporating a number of exotic materials, some of which appear to derive from the continent. The burials might imply a grave left open for some time before the second insertion. Similarly, a surrounding ditch was absent at three sites at Wilsford cum Lake G 52-54, where successive burials had been placed (Smith 1991). Successive burials are also found in sites only later covered by barrows, at Amesbury G51 (four) (Anon 1963, 31), Wilsford-cum-Lake G51 (Smith 1991), and Normanton Down G1 (twelve). The Beaker association of graves under contemporary round barrows, therefore, appears to be more complex and few examples can be called in support. Where they do exist, and this might be a considerable period after the initial event and late in the currency of Beakers, mound construction may have simply been to 'close down' an event or cemetery (Petersen 1973). Beaker-associated graves certainly occur as secondary burials in long barrows at, for example, Figheldean 31, Winterbourne Stoke 35 and Wilsford 34 (Cunnington 1914), while Beaker sherds often occur high in the ditch profile of a number of monument types e.g. Holdenhurst (Piggott 1937, 11), Thickthorn Down (Drew and Piggott 1936) as well as Stonehenge (Evans 1984). The metamorphosis of monuments There is evidence through time of an intensification of activity along the coastal zone. Unfortunately much of this is in the form of chance finds or flint scatters, though increasingly large-scale excavations and fieldwork programs allow them to be placed in some context. If taken as a small sample of gravel terrace activity, modern excavation at Bestwall Quarry, Wareham, and Westhampnett, Chichester, is encouraging, for it confirms the presence indicated by the chance finds and suggests that both domestic and ceremonial/funeral activity was taking place quite widely. Chadburn and Gardiner (1985), for example, suggest that Grooved Ware domestic activity on Hengistbury Head preceeded what subsequently became a Bronze Age funerary area. Whether the magnet here was the river, or the sea, is difficult to determine. To an extent it was probably both, but it is the rivers and streams that stand out as landforms of importance. Even along the coastal fringe sites cluster around the freshwater sources. Further inland there is evidence of repeated domestic activity at places such as Downton alongside the Avon, but there are ceremonial complexes too, such as those at Mount Pleasant, Knowlton, and Durrington, while on the Higher Chalk small circular monuments cluster around the headwaters and springlines. The pottery and other finds link these places with sites and activities back on the Coastal Plain and the impression increases of a well-occupied and utilised land.

69

While extant monuments cluster in Cranborne Chase and on Salisbury Plain, the distribution plots identify patterns across a wider area. Concentrations of finds around the monuments might be expected, but the great numbers of artfactual finds from Christchurch confirms and enhances the results of Gardiner (1984), while scatters of different types of finds consistently appearing in the upper reaches of the River Test is unexpected. In a sense, these surface finds complement the archaeological data from around Stonehenge and Cranborne Chase. Inspection of aerial photographs for the Andover-Basingstoke area indicates the presence of few ring ditches to restore the balance. Although there is a lack of monuments here, there are just as many, if not more, surface sites than in the well-known monument areas, each being of discrete form and considerable size. When considering the monuments, the theme that emerges is essentially a continuation of that recognised in the 4th millennium. The important component is of digging the earth and then replacing it. Repeatedly pits or causewayed ditches are backfilled soon after being dug, only to be re-excavated, often in the same position, or nearly so. Sometimes artefactual or burial deposits are made as part of this process and on other occasions not. Like the earlier processes at long barrows and causewayed enclosures, the bulk of activity is in fact decidedly non-monumental. Equally there can be little distinction between barrows, ring ditches, pit circles and henges, and it appears to be more a case of where one temporarily places the spoil. As others have noted, common architectural elements are used in different combinations not just in different regions, but often on the same site. Pits are conjoined to produce segmented ditches then replaced by ring ditches, monuments metamorphosing through a variety of combinations and end results (Bradley 1998). All of these sites reveal a fascination with the ground rather than the sky. During the latter half of the millennium other sites take on monumental proportions. The manipulation of large boulders may have taken place since the 4th millennium but modification and shaping (as opposed to any painting) of their surface was a new departure, though one that perhaps reflected what had been done to trees for centuries. To an extent the artefactual evidence provides a counterbalance to that from monuments, though there remains a problem of how to interpret the relationship of these sites. On the face of it the sheer quantity of sites at monument complexes around Amesbury, Dorchester and Cranborne Chase, encourages one to treat these as special ritual, funereal, or ceremonial areas. The repeated construction of sites that defy categorisation as domestic, at these locations, argue that such areas might be seen as special lands, special places, homes to supernatural beings. New monuments confirm and emphasise precisely those places already marked out as significant during the 4th millennium. At Handley Down, the earth

movement merely continues the process begun at Wor Barrow and at Woodhenge and Durrington by that of the long barrow nearby. The presence however, of ring ditches at Westhampnett, or Christchurch, signals the possibility that levelled monument complexes might focus around monuments such as Holdenhurst, and lie right across parts of the Coastal Plain too. The theme of repeated use encountered amongst these sites, be it Flagstones or Woodhenge (Bradley 1993), applied across a large area and time-frame. We see it in the phasing of the ditches at the Lavant, and in the successive Beaker burials at, for example, Wilsford cum Lake G 51, 52, and 54 (Smith 1991), themselves situated on a site that produced middle Neolithic pottery. We see it too, in the surface flint scatters, many, if not most of which are multi-period sites. While each of these places will no doubt have been used and perceived in a rather different manner as time passes, it all implies a degree of stability within the land. Places or land marks that were important for earlier generations continued to be of importance. The land was fully used, space for both animals and people diminishing and the incidence of circular monument construction on the increase.

70

CHAPTER 6 THE CONSOLIDATION OF LAND DIVISION: SECOND MILLENNIUM

increased and they became ubiquitous. The variety of form increased too, with new and elaborate types, bell barrows, discs, saucers, pond barrows (Appendices 6:1 to 6:4) and others appearing. This was the period of the classic Wessex Culture, known almost entirely from rich ornaments, gold, jet, and amber, of grape cups and Collared Urns that accompanied burials, and of Bush Barrow. The stone circles at Stonehenge may have been in decline, but the Y and Z holes were current if they were not immediately backfilled. It was a period neatly curtailed by a widespread event, when around the middle of the millennium a major change in land-use occured (e.g. Bradley 1984, 90). Large parts of the land, particularly though not exclusively on the chalk, were laid out with co-axial 'Celtic' fields (Bowen 1978: McOmish et al 2002). Although there is considerable evidence of continued respect for Early Bronze Age ceremonial monuments and indeed some cemeteries remained in use with new barrows being built, these new arrangements effectively restrained existing economic or social regimes and herald a new approach. It is not the intention here to catalogue this new regime, simply to indicate that it provides a convenient horizon, beyond which, use of the land took on a different character.

Introduction For the first time a monument type is present in such numbers, spatially located across enormous tracts of the terrain, that it might be possible to use them to make inferences about land-use in quite small areas. Over 5000 round barrows are, or were, present across the region and they provide an ideal tool with which to investigate the way in which the topography was used, particularly as there is a problem in identifying traces of mundane activity of this period. The artefactual material is problematic as, aside from a few diagnostic types such as barbed and tanged arrowheads, slug knives, flint daggers and perhaps thumbnail scrapers, the ubiquitous flint scatters cannot with any great certainty be assigned to any particular phase within the second millennium. The thumbnail scraper is a minor part of these assemblages and other scrapers are notoriously difficult to place regarding date. Although Case (1995) has argued that Beakers are essentially for domestic use, most pottery appears to derive from burial contexts, as indeed does much of the other artefactual material, metal, amber, gold etc. Some of the Beaker sites thought to be domestic mentioned in the previous chapter, for example, Downton, or Easton Down in Wiltshire, or Balksbury (Wainwright 1970) and Winchester (Schadla-Hall and Fasham 1981, 31) in Hampshire, may, in fact, belong here as Beakers certainly appear to have a considerable life-span. As Richard Bradley (1984) has suggested, pottery originally considered prestigious enough for burial and ceremony may over time change its perceived status and value and by the 2nd millennium BC may have been used in a domestic context, although Boast (1995) suggests that certain finely decorated Beakers may have been especially made for burial. Fieldwalking along the lower reaches of the River Stour and around Poole and Wareham, Dorset, has produced many spreads of 'Bronze Age' flintwork (various collections Poole Museum: Ladle pers comm), and although in terms of providing chronology this is mostly undiagnostic, these collections hint that activity during this millennium was widespread. In contrast, fieldwalking along the Avon Valley either side of Fordingbridge, revealed smaller groups of Bronze Age material. Sherds of Deverel Rimbury pottery were found close to the river in two places (Light et al 1994, 72) where it was considered representative of a number of small sites situated along the valley. It may be that here and alongside other rivers much is covered by alluvial deposits.

Most of the archaeological evidence derives from studies of monuments and artefacts that have taken place on the chalklands of Wessex, of the Marlborough Downs (Gingell 1992), Salisbury Plain (Piggott 1973: Bradley et al 1994: McOmish et al 2002), Cranborne Chase (Barrett et al 1991) and the Hampshire and Sussex Downs (Grinsell 1934b; 1938; 1939; 1940; 1959) and it is not clear how far similar patterns extend outside those areas. However, recent studies indicate that important densities of monument construction can indeed be found in other parts of southern England, on the sands and particularly gravels of river terraces, especially when the evidence from aerial photography is taken into account. Ringditches thought to represent levelled round barrows are scattered liberally along the terraces of, for example, the River Ouse (Woodward 1978) and the density of such sites in Thanet by the Thames Estuary almost reaches that of the Stonehenge area (RCHME Kent 1989: Field 1998). Neither are 'Celtic' fields restricted to the chalk, as they have been demonstrated to be present on widely differing lithologies across the south (Yates 2001). For the early Bronze Age there is little evidence of settlement. No huts or villages are known although scatters of Bronze Age flint are widespread, but the activity represented by this is by no means clear. Brück (1999) suggests that our concept of modern domestic activity centred about a building may not have been applicable and that the presence of certain artefacts such

In terms of monuments, the beginning of the second millennium saw a continuation and increase in the infatuation with circularity. In fact it reached its peak. The number of round barrows placed in the land

71

as flint scrapers need not indicate whether the site is domestic or not. On the grand scale, however, on the assumption that they relate somehow to settlement or movement patterns, the distribution of burial monuments may help. At Raunds some 20 barrows are situated on the valley floor, while large flint scatters nearby represent some kind of activity on the better drained valley slopes (Healy and Harding 2003, 4-7). The opposite appears to apply further along the River Ouse where flint scatters indicated that such activity took place next to the river (Woodward 1978, 50) and in the upper Thames at Yarnton, Oxfordshire, where barrows occupied the second gravel terrace while flint scatters were recorded on the floodplain itself (Anon 2001).

associated grave goods, but a subsequent excavation into the mound by Bushe-Fox in 1911-12 (Bushe Fox 191314; 1915) revealed that it was constructed of local material, gravel and sand, and contained a cremation in an inverted Collared Urn. Importantly, however, with this were found three amber beads, two cones of gold sheet and a halberd pendant with bronze blade set in an amber handle, together with an incense cup. Grinsell (1953, 149) felt that these important finds represented overseas contacts and emphasised the 'material prosperity of those connected with the trade'. Like earlier monuments within the vicinity, however, it provides a remarkable link with the hinterland, in particular as others have noted, with well-known representatives of the Wessex Culture - the barrows 50km up the River Avon, near Amesbury (e.g. Corney et al 1969: Gardiner 1987, 54).

In contrast to the evidence of monuments, the artefactual data is of two kinds. As might be expected, objects revealed in excavated barrows support and reinforce the importance of the monument distribution, but in contrast, chance finds from the surface or found during redevelopment are more widespread, and indicate that there may have been activity across a wider part of the countryside. As was the case for third millennium materials, the emphasis of pottery, flint and metal distribution continues to focus on the Coastal Plain (e.g. Clarke 1970: Gardiner 1984: Rowlands 1976) providing a counterbalance to the burial evidence so prominent in the literature. It may be that the pattern has formerly been biased by the survival and investigation of extant monuments on the Wessex chalk at the expense of other areas.

The halberd pendant is almost unique in Britain. Just two similar examples are known, one from a bell barrow, Wilsford G8 (amber haft with 4 bands of gold) near Stonehenge, the other from a bowl barrow at Manton, near Marlborough, Wiltshire (haft completely encased in gold) and these are thought to represent contact with the Elbe-Saale region of Germany (Piggott 1938, 84) and perhaps with Ireland. The gold cones appear to be exaggerated button covers, again similar to those from Wilsford G8 (Hoare 1810, 201) and others from Upton Lovell G2e (Golden Barrow) (Hoare 1810, 201-2), a barrow, like Hengistbury, located close to the waters edge. Gardiner (1987, 54) was cautious about the function of these objects and, like Ashbee (in Corney et al 1969, 30), preferred to regard them as gold bosses from a macehead like that from Clandon, Dorset (Drew 1936). The difference may simply be in the prominence of the cone. Piggott (1936, 23) indicated that the Clandon bosses fitted over conical shale buttons or discs set into the sides of the macehead and were 'precisely paralleled at Hengistbury', subsequently describing them as exaggerated button covers (Piggott 1973, 368). Other examples come from near Puddletown, Dorset (Grinsell 1959, 161) and from a coastal position at Portsdown, Portsmouth (Corney et al 1969). In fact, with Manton as a northern outlier, the distribution of exaggerated gold button covers, Clandon, Puddletown, Hengistbury, Portsdown, Upton Lovell and Wilsford, is as much coastal as chalk based (Fig 6:3).

Round barrows and ring ditches Situated on a low isthmus beyond the western limit of high ground at Hengistbury Head, a large bowl barrow, one of a group of at least three, is located at the foot of the slope of Warren Hill. While the coastal rim will have changed markedly here during four millennia, its position at the northern end of the isthmus ensures that, while the sea is visible to the south, the focus is distinctly on the estuary of the River Avon immediately north (Fig 6:1and 6:2). In more detail it lies adjacent to the head of a shallow valley, now close to the limit of a tidal inlet (Cunliffe 1987), although the nature of this during the 2nd millennium BC is uncertain and it could have been formed by freshwater. In itself the barrow appears unremarkable, although cultivation around the base may have obscured its true form. When surveyed by Norman Quinnell for the Archaeological Division of the Ordnance Survey in 1965 it measured 23.5m in diameter and was just 2m in height, though it had evidently been reduced by cultivation as it was formerly recorded as being rather larger (Gardiner 1987, 48). It appears to have been excavated in the 18th century, as Sir Frances Grose noted in a letter to Archaeologia that it 'was opened some few years ago, when an urn and some human bones were found in it' (Grose 1777, 238). There was no mention of

Of these examples, only that from Wilsford G8, one of the Normanton group of barrows situated on a declining ridge not far from Bush Barrow, accompanied a primary cremation in a bell barrow (Hoare 1810, 201). Hengistbury, Clandon (Drew 1936), Manton and probably Upton Lovell (Hoare 1810, 98-100) were in bowl barrows, while Hengistbury, Clandon and Upton Lovell were secondary deposits, in the case of Clandon inserted after the mound had been constructed. No barrow was present at Portsdown (Corney 1969, 20), though Grinsell noted the former presence of a bell barrow nearby.

72

wire'. A small cup (Fig 6:4), described as of oak, decorated with incised lines, lay at one end of the coffin. Warne (1866) and subsequently Newall (1928) thought that this might have been shale, and its form is reminiscent of shale cups with a turned and rounded base (e.g. Newall 1928, 111-17) as well as of the amber cup of similar date from a barrow further along the coast at Hove. Towards the east of the region, on the false crest of the ridge overlooking the Coastal Plain at Portsmouth, a cremation found in a circular pit contained 16 amber and 107 discoidal shale beads (described by Ashbee as lignite). With these were an incense cup and the conical gold covered shale button mentioned above as similar to that from the barrow on Hengistbury Head (Corney et al 1969, 21, 29-30). A Food Vessel was found nearby in 1948 and more recently excavations there revealed a skeleton accompanied by two Early Bronze Age pottery vessels (Rudkin 1989).

Figure 6:1 Map of Hengistbury Head showing the location of the 'Tumulus' excavated by Sir Francis Grose (from Grose 1777).

Other burials of similar affinity have been revealed in the coastal zone. To the south west of Wareham, King Barrow at Stoborough, a bowl barrow, now situated in a domestic garden, lies just a few metres above and less than 0.5km from the floodplain of the River Frome. When first recorded in 1767 it was 30m in diameter by 3.5m in height and evidently constructed, at least in part, with layers of turf (Salisbury Journal 9th March 1767; Hutchins 1767, 53-4; 1774, 100: Gough 1806: Warne 1866). Within a massive hollowed oak tree trunk coffin, a primary inhumation, less its skull, appears to have been wrapped in deer hide. On the inside of the wrapping, presumably against the body, was a small piece of ‘gold lace' c.0.09m by 0.04m containing 'bits of

Recent excavations in advance of construction of the A27 Chichester by pass a little further along the coast at Westhampnett, West Sussex, revealed evidence of two levelled circular burial monuments (Fitzpatrick et al 2001; Fitzpatrick 1992), that evidently marked the beginning of use of the area for intermittent burial right through to the Roman period. The first penannular ditch, little more than 13m across, was situated at the base of a low hill close to a former watercourse. Charcoal from a

cremation placed within Figure 6:2 Hengistbury Head: barrow (right) excavated by Sir Francis Grose with the higher ground of Warren Hill beyond.

73

scatter across the Hampshire chalk provides a little

Figure 6:3 Distribution of conical gold bosses or button covers. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

one of the ditch terminals produced a date of 2270-1770 cal BC, while the ditch enclosed a sub circular pit, 1m in diameter with cremated bone and five small fragments of (?Kimmeridge) shale or possibly mudstone at its base. No other grave goods were present (Fitzpatrick et al 1992), but charcoal provided a date of 1870-1520 cal BC. Above this, and presumably later in date, was a further interment within an inverted Collared Urn. A second ring-ditch, this time on the summit of the same eminence, produced neither grave nor date, though is presumed to have been Bronze Age. At Shopwyke, just 1.5 km to the west, a group of three Bronze Age urned cremation burials were recovered during a watching brief, although 'no sign of ring ditch or mound was noted' (Kenny 1992). The extent to which this marks an overall trend is unclear. The excavator of a pennanular ditch on Selsey Bill felt that it once surrounded a burial mound and that middle Bronze Age pottery found adjacent may have been from secondary cremation burials (Kenny 1988, 33). The location of ring-ditches considered to be barrows and registered in the National Monuments Record (Appendix 6:5) largely echoes the known barrow distribution and reinforces existing views. The ring-ditches make additions to the inventory of barrows in the Stonehenge area and to those in Cranborne Chase, while the loose

infilling along the upper reaches of the Test Valley at similar latitude to the Stonehenge clusters. A few isolated examples have been noted alongside the rivers Avon and Wylye. A search of the available oblique air photographs available in the National Monuments Record confirmed the picture (Fig 6:5), but served to highlight a problem with the data. Aside from those taken in built up areas of dockyards and known historical sites etc., there is a scarcity of photographic coverage of a large part of central southern England, in particular, the area to the south of the chalk (Fig 6:6). Perhaps this is inevitable given the nature of much of the coastal zone, sandy areas are not particularly responsive to crop marks, while large areas of modern development obscure much of the ground surface.

Figure 6:4 Shale cup from Stoborough (from Hutchins 1767).

74

updated, and incorporating assessments, reinvestigations and interpretations as well as additions to the inventory since Grinsell's major work, the National Archaeological Record, however, provides the most complete source. Here (Fig 6:7 and 6:8) barrows are plotted without amendment; i.e. degrees of uncertainty expressed over some by the Field Investigators of the Ordnance Survey, or the possibility that some are of periods other than Bronze Age. Such an error factor, however, is likely to be extremely small and lost in the scale of the plot where barrows in cemeteries are invariably plotted on top of one another.

To some degree, however, it reflects continued infatuation with the chalk. The flight patterns confirm that the chalk, renowned for good archaeological returns, has simply encouraged greater aerial reconnaissance. In contrast, there has been almost nil coverage of the adjacent Coastal Plain. However, when areas of lower ground such as the Avon valley between Fordingbridge and Ringwood are targeted, ring ditches soon come to light. A single sortee along the Avon gravels, carried out by Damian Grady (English Heritage) produced evidence of eight previously unrecorded ring ditches in two cemeteries, with a further group of eight at Alderbury, a little further north, all hinting at the unrealised potential resource. One ring ditch in such a location which was discovered in advance of a new gravel pit and excavated by the Trust for Wessex Archaeology in 1983, lay at the confluence of the Avon and Hucklesbrook, a small tributary near Ringwood (Davies and Graham 1984).

Blank areas occur around the middle stretches of most rivers where the floodplain narrows and there are densities of one or two per 10km square over much of the Coastal Plain, increasing slightly along the Avon and Stour tributaries. Numbers begin to increase in Purbeck. The most noticeable concentration on the lower ground, however, is around Christchurch and Bournemouth, largely corresponding with the distribution of barbed and tanged arrowheads (Fig 6:12).

The round barrows in most counties have been listed and described by Grinsell (1934; 1938; 1939; 1940; 1941; 1957; 1959; 1982) and the increasing inventory was constantly kept under review by the Archaeological Division of the Ordnance Survey. In addition barrows in Dorset and parts of Wiltshire were investigated by the RCHME (RCHME: McOmish et al 2002). Frequently

There is a general scatter across the chalk, with roughly equal numbers per 10 km grid square. Locally, small clusters occur and, as expected, by far the greater

Figure 6:5 Map depicting the area for which oblique aerial photographs were inspected. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

75

Above Figure 6:6 Plot of the distribution of oblique photographs held in the National Monument Record showing the extensive coverage on the chalk. Blank areas on the chalk are forested or military areas. Elsewhere there is a little coverage around the coast, particularly of built up areas such as Bournmouth and Southampton Docks (Based on RCHME Annual Review 1984-5 fig 3). Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

Below Figure 6:7 The distribution of round barrows compared to relief. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

76

number of extant barrows can be located in the area around Stonehenge. Unlike Wiltshire and Dorset, there has been no tradition of antiquarian activity in north Hampshire (Schadla-Hall and Fasham 1981, 30) and it may be that cultivation in the 19th and 20th centuries levelled large numbers that went unrecorded. For example, a ring ditch containing 37 burials was excavated in advance of construction of the M3 extension at Winchester (Wessex Archaeol 1992, 12-17) and another overlooking a re-entrant of the Itchen Valley on Twyford Down, where some 38 buried individuals were recorded (Walker and Farwell 2000).

quite sparse. In the New Forest, barrow concentrations are thought to reflect the distribution of surviving undisturbed heath (Gerrard 1993, 16), examples formerly on gravel spreads having been levelled. Clustering does occur, however, alongside rivers and streams, where the barrows are often set back from the watercourse by as much as a kilometre. Those on Beaulieu Heath, for example, appear to focus on the Beaulieu River, while a further group can be observed alongside the Lymington River. In each case distribution appears to thin out as it meets the extensively cultivated ground towards the coast.

Figure 6:6 The distribution of round barrows compared to relief.

On the heath to the south of the River Frome, there is a concentration of cemeteries in the west close to the geological junction with the clay. These lie below the end of the ridgeway. There are fewer barrows on the ridgeway here, the groups thinning out and instead examples spread onto the heath in a similar way to those in West Sussex. Similar, though less definitive distribution occurs alongside the River Frome itself. A particularly large group occurs at the confluence of the Piddle and Frome, where riverside territory might be expected to be at a premium.

Figure 6:8 The distribution of round barrows compared to geology based on BGS data. IPR/95-63c Britsh Geological Survey©NERC. All rights reserved.

Even on the chalk, the numbers become fewer towards Sussex, where the Higher Downs do not seem to have provided the focus that Cranborne Chase did in the west. Instead, and in marked contrast to the ridgeway accumulation yet further east (beyond the limit of the map but see Chapter 9), the barrows are distributed more widely across the available land. In the west a large cluster occurs on the ridgeway south of Dorchester and this has been comprehensively reviewed by Woodward (1991). A linear group stretches thinly along the Purbeck Hills, its density increasing towards the east, apparently reflecting the corresponding narrowing of present day heath.

This riverine attraction also occurs alongside the River Stour, where barrows – sometimes singly, others in groups, are each set back c 1kilometre from the floodplain. Significant clusters accompany these rivers as their tributaries cut through heathland, in particular, a string of cemeteries alongside the Moors River includes among its number the excavated 'Wessex' Bell Barrow at

In some places, density on the heathland matches that of the chalk, although there are other areas within which it is

77

Edmondsham (Proudfoot 1963). The river can be traced northwards beyond Verwood where it changes name to the River Crane and can be traced past further barrow groups to its sources around Oakley Down and Pentridge. Similarly, other barrow groups around the springline on Cranborne Chase might be seen as a continuation further inland of this riverine pattern. Groups of recently discovered ring-ditches, for example, occur along the major tributary the River Allen, between Wimborne St Giles and Wimborne Minster, incorporating the Knowlton complex, or the Allen River at Damerham, Hampshire (Fig 6:9). Despite recent cultivation, good numbers still exist along the River Wylye near Warminster. Hoare compared barrows here with those on the Downs around Stonehenge and noted that nowhere were they so 'numerous, or large, as in the Vale of Wily, between Boreham and Upton Lovell'. The process of levelling already appears to have been taking place by the beginning of the 19th century, as Hoare fails to mention many of the groups alongside the Avon, or that once stood alongside the Golden Barrow at Upton Lovell and now only visible as crop marks (Fig 6:10), although does mention the group in the Chitterne valley near Codford that were subsequently levelled.

Figure 6:10 Site of a cemetery of round barrows that included the 'Golden' barrow, destroyed by the construction of a system of water meadows alongside the River Wylye at Upton Lovell, Wiltshire.

In Hampshire a thin scatter occurs alongside the River Itchen, but numbers increase once ring-ditches such as those discovered along the Winchester stretches (e.g. Fasham 1982) are added to the inventory. There is a thin spread too alongside the River Test, with increasing but

Figure 6:9 Part of a cemetery of nearly 40 ring ditches alongside a former watercourse at Damerham (NMR 20271-05).©Crown copyright NMR

78

widely scattered numbers in the higher reaches towards the springline around Basingstoke and open cemeteries such as Kimpton (Dacre and Ellison 1981) there as well.

strands of activity here, an everyday use of flint, contrasting with prestigious pieces, perhaps made under controlled conditions by permitted individuals guided by ritual (Topping 2004).

Artefacts

Within Britain as a whole, the focus of flint dagger (Grimes 1928-31) distribution is across the east of the country, predominately around the fens of East Anglia and in the Thames Valley, and this pattern is mirrored by that of other artefact types too e.g. battle-axes and shafthole adzes (Roe 1979, 27,37). Like later, metal types (Rowlands 1976), the pattern incorporates thin but significant scatters of earlier 2nd millennium material along the southern coast, in particular, a noticeable increment around the Christchurch area. Aside from a small cluster at the mouth of the Avon, Green's (1980, 124) distribution map of barbed and tanged arrowheads does not portray the kind of numbers found in other parts of the country, nor does it depict the expected clusters around the burial monuments of Stonehenge.

While it may be the most ubiquitous of materials, Bronze Age flintwork is particularly difficult to interpret and assign function or date. At face value, much is extremely crude when compared to the knapping of previous millennia, though on greater inspection this appears to be deliberate policy. Whereas metal may now provide the chief methods of piercing and cutting, flint is used for other functions, for applying pressure, resulting in thick, chisel-like pieces with 60° edges, gravers, a return to 'flaked flakes' a type with a sturdy notched working edge formerly used in the Palaeolithic (Ashton et al 1991). Mundane flintwork occurs across the region, often as background noise, although in places as more specific clusters. Although it contains a Neolithic component, much of the flint from the Stour Valley Gravels Survey, and other exercises and interventions at, for example, Arrowsmith Road; Ower; Canford Magna Golf Course (Poole Museum Collections PM47; 49; OWR78: Hearne and Birkbeck 1997) is of this period, and similar material can be traced across the Coastal Plain through Langstone Harbour (Allen and Gardiner 2000) to Oving (Pitts Collection: pers comm). However, this contrasts dramatically with the neat flint daggers, knives and barbed and tanged arrowheads, where flint knapping reaches its peak of achievement. There appear to be two

Flint daggers might be considered a ceremonial type and perhaps represent the location of burials. Grimes shows three on his map, two in the Amesbury area and one north of Portsmouth (Grimes 1931). Numbers within the area increased as result of museum inspection to 15, four are present from the Bournemouth area increasing the emphasis on that area as a focal point (Fig 6:6: Appendix 6:2). Figure 6:11 Distribution of flint daggers (filled circles) and battleaxes (open circles). Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

79

towards the end of Needham's period 4, i.e. c1500 BC. Overall, distribution is generally quite thin, rarely more than one per 10km grid-square, if that. Nevertheless there is a marked clustering along the coast, particularly around the Stour/Avon estuary, over 200 in total being recovered from the area predominantly west of the Avon (Fig 6:12: Appendix 6:8), where they reach a density of 50 in one 10km grid square (Calkin 1952). Against the background distribution of the region as a whole this group stands out as being of considerable significance. Situated at the mouth of one of the main arteries, it provides a focal point and further encouragement to consider the Christchurch area as being of more than local importance. On the face of it there is no reason why other estuaries should not have similar clusters of material and, while there are small numbers around the Test, the Arun, Wareham (Ladle pers comm), and an increasing count from around Poole (Poole Museum PM 34 and 39), the clustering there stands out.

Plano-convex and slug knives also have an uncertain date and, while some may derive from 3rd millennium contexts, in view of their presence in Collared Urn and Food Vessel associated burials (e.g. Clark 1966, 184) they are listed here (Appendix 6:7). Sub-divided into plano-convex, slug and bifacial forms, of 74 planoconvex, 46, or two-thirds have a coastal distribution, from Poole in the west to Slindon in the east, incorporating Bakers Island and Fareham en route. The greatest concentration, however, is at the Avon/Stour estuary where an enormous 39, over half of the total, were recorded. Inland a significant group of ten finds comes from the sands of the Dinton area just to the west of Salisbury Plain. Slug knives are present from Dinton too, three of the total of seven, with two of the remainder being coastal finds. Finally of 15 bifacial examples, six come from Dinton, a total of 19 knives from that area. A few of this latter type are coastal, examples come from Wareham, Poole and Wakefords Copse, Hampshire, and it is the only group where a significant percentage, 33%, come from the chalk.

In contrast, great numbers are all but absent from the chalk. A few cluster around the Stonehenge area, but with the amount of excavation given over to that area it occasions no surprise. Even so, there are no more than thirty-one from twelve excavated sites – seven of them from Woodhenge, while the small number around Cranborne Chase has been commented on by Barrett et al (1991, 111). Only slightly greater numbers concentrate on

In terms of date, barbed and tanged arrowheads have considerable longevity (Green 1980), but there are associations with a Wessex Culture grave group at Figheldean and they appear in post-Beaker contexts at Mount Pleasant (Green 1980, 131), though, like Beaker pottery, use of flint-tipped arrows appears to decline

Figure 6:12 The distribution of barbed and tanged arrowheads. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

80

the Clay-with-flints around the upper reaches and headwaters of the River Test, the result of the collecting of G Willis. If anything, this is grossly under-represented. Some 459 'arrowheads', not seen by the present writer were recorded by Ordnance Survey Archaeological Division Investigators as being amongst the Willis material, recorded from locations around the headwaters of the River Test, places such as Kempshott, Dummer, Battledown, Deane, Farleigh Wallop, Ellisfield, Bradley, Maple Durwell, Old Basing, South Ham, Wootton St Lawrence, Upton Grey and Bidden Water (Appendix 6:9). Many of these have poor provenances and cannot be placed or traced, but assuming a significant proportion of these are barbed and tanged, numbers will be of similar proportions to those around Christchurch.

types, it is of interest that the expected cluster from excavated barrows around Stonehenge does not materialise and unduly weight the evidence. Examples of Roe's Type I from Bulford barrow G27 and Type II from barrow G54 at Wilsford may relate to activities of the previous millennium, but examples of Type III, thought to be contemporary with the 'Wessex' period, have been recovered from barrows G2a at Upton Lovell, and G4 at Codford St Peter, Type IV from barrow G1 at Kilmington, Type V from barrow G27 at Shrewton and an unknown barrow near Stonehenge. However, apart from a single example from Shirley, near Southampton, battleaxes of grouped rock types are found exclusively on the Wiltshire chalk, although this may be a result of the energy devoted to the petrology programme by J F S Stone, S Piggott and others within that county. Battleaxes come from rock sources at Hyssington (2), Nuneaton (2), the Whin Sill (4) and a spotted dolerite once thought to be from Prescelli, but recently discounted (Williams-Thorpe et al 2004, 373); examples from the Nuneaton source are quite rare (Roe 1979, 26).

Hard evidence for hunting within Britain is almost nonexistent, although Green (1980, 178) drew attention to an alleged find of a barbed and tanged arrowhead found in the skull of a wolf at Barrington, Cambridgshire and another found in a horse bone at Torquay. On the Thames terraces six were embedded in the dismembered but reassembled joints of an aurochs that was placed in a pit (Cotton pers comm), although this is just as likely to represent a ritual event as the process of hunting. At Durrington Walls, although a little earlier in date, flint arrow tips were found to be embedded in domestic pig bones (Albarella and Serjeantson 2002).

Axe hammers are dated by their similarity of form to battleaxes, being large and weighty implements that are related in shape to Roe's battleaxe groups I and II. Roe's distribution map (1979) depicts a single find from the region, though six in total have now been recorded (Appendix 6:12). There is a slight tendency towards a coastal distribution, with examples from Blashford, Christchurch and Chale Green, Isle of Wight, and again it is of interest that none come from the Stonehenge area. Two, examples from Ebbesbourne Wake, Wiltshire, and Ropley, Hampshire, are of rare grouped rock sources Prescelli and Nuneaton respectively.

Where associations occur, barbed and tanged arrowheads are most frequently linked to burials and occasionally appear to be the cause of death at Stonehenge (Evans 1984) and Barrow Hills (Barclay and Halpin 1999). The accumulation of barbed and tanged arrowheads in precisely the same locations as earlier arrowheads has already been mentioned.

Hoards of Arreton style bronze axes come from Bracklesham Bay, Sussex, Arreton Down and Totland, Isle of Wight, and Stoke Abbott in Dorset (Britton 1963) and are relevant here. Rowlands’ (1976) plot of Class 1 palstaves, dated to the century or so before 1500BC (Needham 1996), cluster along the south coast, and dramatically so around the Solent, and no less than eleven hoards come from the area. Whether real or influenced by collection bias, when compared with items such as barbed and tanged arrowhead distribution, there appears to be a shift in the centre of gravity from the Christchurch area, to land bordering the Solent and Southampton Water. Similarly, the clustering of Arreton hoards around Southampton is increasingly enhanced by other finds (e.g. Entwistle 2000: Kavanagh 1998), and in particular a bridge or jetty over the River Blackwater at Testwood, Netley Marsh, is likely to be of this date, while a causeway or jetty dated to the 15th or 14th centuries by C14 was found nearby at Meadow Lakes (Fitzpatrick 1998: Anon 2004).

Maceheads were plotted in Chapter 5 (Fig 5:5), as the pestle and ovoid types are known from Grooved Ware contexts, but it is worth recalling that potentially cushion types and certainly Bush Barrow types are of later date. Of the 26 examples listed (Appendix 5:3), seven are coastal, including two from the Bournemouth area. There is a general scatter across the chalk of Dorset and Hants, though interestingly only one from the Stonehenge environs. Twenty shafthole adzes, similar to cushion maceheads, though with a blade, are listed (Appendix 6:10), of which those from Bournemouth, Titchfield and Bracklesham Bay are coastal finds. Two come from the upper Test area. Again the Stonehenge area is not well represented, just a single find coming from Bulford (Beacon Hill). The latter is of rock Group I, a group with good chemical matches on the north coast of Cornwall (Nik Markham pers comm). There is a thin scatter of coastal finds of battle axes (Fig 6:11: Appendix 6:11), two from the Christchurch/Bournemouth area and others from Selsey, Tyneham, Shirley and Hamble and, as for other artefact

The main pottery types of the time, Beakers and Collared Urns, have been dealt with comprehensively by Clarke (1970) and Longworth (1984) respectively. Any new

81

finds since compilation of those corpuses will not greatly affect conclusions or distribution patterns. It is worth noting however that despite the great number of finds from burial sites on the chalk, significant groups of, for example, Wessex/Middle Rhine, Developed Southern and Final Southern Beakers (Clarke 1970, 557-566) also appear to have a coastal distribution and the material recently excavated from Bestwall, Wareham, adds support to this.

Woodward 2003). A corrugated bronze bracelet was recovered from a hearth within it, while a twisted rod bracelet was found at the base of one of the pits. All of this is thought to be indicative of domestic activity. For the first time we catch a glimpse of the layout of the mid 2nd millennium farming topography with buildings placed relatively frequently among the fields similar to those at Gwithian, Cornwall (Megaw 1976) and Blackpatch, Sussex (Drewett 1980, 381). The major problem here lies in the reorganisation of the site. The fields could not have been laid out with structures in those positions and the initial Beaker settlement may have been positioned alongside the system rather than within fields. Construction of houses within the field system effectively puts at least some parts of it out of use, although by placing a structure over a field boundary the effect is limited. The building could of course have been agricultural in nature, a field barn, similar to the enclosure barns often seen in the corner of fields in the Yorkshire Dales. Or it could represent domestic subdivision as families increased in numbers, where local pressure on land-use resulted in settlement within the marked fields.

The distribution of Collared Urns is stronger on the chalk, perhaps as a result of the great numbers of finds from 19th century barrow excavations, though it is worth bearing in mind the examples from around Christchurch and Bournemouth. Longworth (1984, 83) illustrates a significant cluster here, scattered along the Rivers Stour and Avon, as well as on the Isle of Wight and they are enhanced by recent finds at, for example, Moortown airdrome (Poole Museum PM34).

Reorganisation The second half of the second millennium appears to have witnessed a complete change in the way that land was used. The intensity of burial in barrows, both old and new, increased, but for the first time there is evidence of a domestic component amongst the excavated sites. Much of the undiagnostic flintwork attributed to the Bronze Age may belong to this stage too. Alongside it, vast areas of 'Celtic' fields were laid out across the chalk downs and elsewhere.

Away from the low ground, evidence for ancient field inclosure increases, although it can by no means always be assigned a 2nd millennium date. A search of aerial photographs revealed that to the west of Poole, fragments of fields likely to be prehistoric occur in 55 of the Ordnance Survey 1km-grid squares in that area. Most appear to be aggregate systems of probable Iron Age or Roman date. No widespread co-axial systems have been noted and no other features likely to be early Bronze Age, though some are on a north-south alignment and in view of the north-south aligned fields at Bestwall could be early Bronze Age in origin. A small system at St Adhelm's Head is co-axial, at least in part and oriented north-north-east, together with another on the same alignment on the chalk ridge east of Corfe Castle. Bronze Age fields were also recorded here during excavation to the east of the Corfe River (Cox and Hearne 1991, 225).

Cereal production may have been present at Bestwall, Wareham, from at least the Beaker period, for one of the four pits containing Beaker sherds in Field F contained carbonised grain (Ladle 1997). A series of ditches in the same area (Field E) on a north-south alignment appear to be field boundaries, part of a system that covered a considerable area. In Field P, similar ditches on a northsouth alignment each lay 125m apart. Later, in date at least three circular structures were built within the fields, or in one case straddling a field boundary, all of them in association with pits and other features containing Deveril Rimbury pottery. Site 1, in Field E, comprised a circular gulley associated with pits. Site 2, a sub circular gulley with two possible postholes was discovered 100m to the southeast of it. Further pits, post holes and a gulley were associated with large Deverel-Rimbury sherds representing at least 10 vessels. Two pits were revealed with small fragments of animal bone in one, while the base of a further pit contained an almost complete Deverel-Rimbury urn together with a shale spindle whorl. Worked and burnt flint was present in the pit fills (Ladle 1996). Nearby, lumps of raw and burnt clay, together with fragments of charcoal found in a small pit, were thought to represent pottery processing. A third structure, comprising postholes and gulleys with associated pits overlaid a north-south field boundary (Ladle and

Until recently the presence of 'Celtic' fields across the Coastal Plain has not been seen as prominent. In part this may be a result of the unresponsive nature of the soils to crop and vegetation marks, but it also reflects the lack of aerial cover of the area. Inspection of oblique aerial photographs housed in the Air Photograph Library of the National Monument Record reveals just a few areas of low banks forming rectangular arrangements typical of 'Celtic' fields on Arne Heath and New Mills Heath. These might be outliers of the more extensive systems visible on the chalk and Purbeck limestone deposits, or those formerly levelled but revealed by excavation on the gravels north east of Wareham (Ladle 1998). Recent work in the New Forest by RCHME revealed little evidence of 'Celtic' fields (Smith 1999), though three possible and partial complexes were considered: Ridley

82

Plain, Crockford, and Shepton Water, however, inspection of air photographs reveals fragments of a further almost levelled system on a north-east alignment covering an area of some 0.5km square on Beaulieu Heath.

Westhampnett produced evidence of some cultivation of cereals on an old land surface prior to the construction of a round barrow. (Fitzpatrick et al 1992). However, recent work right across the Coastal Plain by D Yates (pers comm) has added considerably to the inventory, particularly in West Sussex, and revealed evidence of fragments of field systems and other indications of Middle Bronze agriculture at Selsey, Chichester, Westhampnett, Middleton, Pagham, Littlehampton and Angmering.

A clearance episode took place at Rimsmoor, south-west of Bere Regis around 1320-1210 cal BC (interpolated between samples) with a dramatic increase in grasses and herbs alongside cereals and heathland. This was felt to represent clearance for pasture together with a little cultivation (Waton and Barber 1987). On the Isle of Wight, Scaife suggests that cultivation took place on the lighter soils of the Lower Greensand and the Tilia decline, here dated at two sites to 1605-1515 cal BC and 1130-1240cal BC is thought to represent agricultural expansion during the Middle Bronze Age (Scaife 1987, 178), while Haskins (1978) also indicated that cereals are present in greater numbers at this time and associated with a reduction in Corylus.

'Celtic' fields occur widely on the chalk, both in Dorset and Wiltshire, mostly on the dip slope (RCHM 1970: Bradley et al 1994: McOmish et al 2002), as well as across Sussex, though many have been levelled in recent times (Yates pers comm). In Cranborne Chase, they occur on the Clay-with-flints sensu lato where it is influenced by the sandier Reading Beds. In Hampshire, the incidence of 'Celtic' fields has been recorded by Moffat (1988) and their restriction to areas located away from the Clay-withflints, here sensu stricto, noted. Moffat took this absence to reflect the possibility that the acidity of such soils would be likely to result in crop failure, rather than a practical difficulty in cultivating them. Either way the Clay-with-flints appears to have been utilised in a completely different way.

Given the widespread incidence of 'Celtic' fields on the heathlands of the Netherlands (Brongers 1976) one might expect similar use of the Dorset and Hampshire heaths, though if extensive tracts did once exist they do not appear to survive. Dimbleby (1962) established that much of the heathland had been the subject of soil degradation prior to the construction of round barrows and other early earthworks (see Chapter 2) although it was never absolutely clear whether this was the result of cultivation or other anthropogenic factors. Indeed Haskins (1978) and others demonstrated that heathland vegetation was present much earlier and may have expanded as a result of woodland clearance during the Neolithic and particularly in the Middle Bronze Age. Evidence from the Wych Oil Field indicates that the most dramatic increases in podsolisation are in the Early and Middle Bronze Age (Allen and Scaife 1991, 216-218).

Mounds, rivers and settlement While Piggott (1938, 90) identified bell and disc barrows (bells, bowls, pond and saucer listed separately in Appendices 6:1 to 6:4) as being characteristic of his Wessex Culture, on closer inspection the precise role of these barrows as a special type is by no means clear, for more Wessex Culture material has been found in bowl barrows than bells. The gold cones recovered at Hengistbury Head, occur in a variety of burial locations, secondary as well as primary positions and in bowl as well as bell barrows. Ozanne (1972, 55-6) indicated that cultivation might blur the distinctive profile of a bell barrow making it more saucer, or bowl-like and thus masking its true identity. Making a similar point, Gerrard (1993, 18) observed that in the New Forest bell barrows were constructed on loamy clay soils rather than on the sands and suggested that the reason for this may be twofold; firstly that it is difficult to obtain the desired profile with precision in sand and secondly, that once constructed, such barrows are more prone to weathering, which often obscures the berm and ditch. The processes of weathering can be seen in barrow III at West Heath, Petersfield, Sussex, where material from a revetted mound had filtered through the revetment to change the overall profile (Drewett 1975). Barrett (1994) has emphasised the complex sequence of events observed within barrows generally and that the final form is simply a stage in an ongoing process. Whether and when in the process the bell barrow became an intended form remains to be established. If Latch Farm, for example, was

O G S Crawford (1953, 94) reported the presence of fields in Cranbury Park, Hursley, situated on Bagshot Beds beyond the boundaries of the New Forest, near Winchester. Unfortunately, as reported by an OS Field Investigator, these had been ploughed out by 1950 (NMR No SU42SW14). Crawford (ibid) also recorded the presence of fields at Nightingale Wood, Nursling, on Bracklesham Beds in the Test Valley where they were subsequently considered to be associated with Toothill hillfort. According to the OS Field Investigator, banks and lynchets still stood there to 1.2m in height in 1969. It might have been part of this system that was excavated at Dairy Lane, Nursling in 1993 which, along with settlement features, was dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Hughes and Smith 1994). In West Sussex, Kenny (1988, 33) thought that a shallow ditch excavated at Selsey containing Bronze Age pottery may have been a field boundary associated with nearby settlement evidence, while more recent excavations at

83

intended to be a bell barrow, as postulated by C Piggott (1938, 172), it had been denuded and was unrecognisable as such. It may be of incidental interest that while it covered a pit with an oak coffin, and a pit containing a Collared Urn, it contained no Wessex finery.

and settlements, while the Conspicuous type lie beyond. There are elements of this idea that are applicable to the wider area and we will return to this point, but the principle might even be pushed back in time to long barrows (McOmish et al 2002, 23). However, in many places, those with prominent siting are the smaller bowl barrows, whereas frequently bells, discs and bowls containing Wessex Culture material lie on the slopes or valley floor. The Hengistbury Head barrow mentioned above, Upton Lovell, the 'fancy' types excavated at Snail Down in the lee of the dramatic Sidbury Hill, the perhaps less dramatic bell barrow at Edmonsham, Dorset, situated at the foot of a slope, but on a slight rise, close to Wimborne-Cranborne Road (Proudfoot 1963), or further to the north-east the well-known Lambourne Seven Barrows that could have been situated on higher ground. Few barrows are situated on Beacon Hill, a prominent ridge in Wiltshire with views right across Salisbury Plain; instead cemeteries cluster at its foot alongside the Nine Mile River. Similarly, a cemetery of nine prominent barrows (the Seven Barrows) lies at the foot of its namesake, Beacon Hill in Hampshire. Where there was choice, 'Wessex' barrows too were invariably constructed on the lower ground.

The most aesthetically perfect monuments, however, are the disc barrows. Since Hoare's observation of the contents, they have often been considered to cover female burials, though the question remains open (Grinsell 1974, 86), but the intriguing point is that much of the area enclosed by the ditch is without burial remains and the purpose of the monument is obscure; the burial is almost an afterthought. Indeed some have no mound at all. Disc barrows, which Burgess (1980, 104) associated with Wessex II, are extremely susceptible to cultivation and in areas of greater agricultural potential might be expected to be one of the first monument types to be levelled. Both bell and disc forms therefore may once have had a wider distribution than that envisaged by Grinsell. In particular, they could once have occurred in much greater numbers along river valleys and on the better quality soils of the Coastal Plain. While noting that barrows sometimes occurred along watercourses and believing that air photography would not unduly affect the known distribution, Grinsell (1941a, 75) nevertheless, felt that their incidence was greater on the hills, referring to the examples along the Dorset Ridgeway and the Purbeck and Isle of Wight chalk ridges. Thus he set the scene for the 'typical' barrow location, high places, often on false crests, and with commanding and extensive viewsheds.

While some mounds are situated on elevations, often quite shallow, the tendency to avoid the highest points is intriguing, for given the likely spiritual nature of the burial traditions and processes, coupled with the widespread anthropological beliefs concerning hills and mountains as interfaces with the supernatural world (e.g. Barnes 1999: Humphrey 1995), one might expect some of these places to be literally covered with mounds. Perhaps these landforms were just too sacred for events involving mortality.

However, if visibility from a distance were the main criteria in siting these monuments, there are many examples of prominent hills in areas of great barrow density where mounds could have been constructed on or close to summits. Examples are Sidbury Hill and Beacon Hill to the northeast and east of Stonehenge, Battlesbury and Scratchbury Hills, near Warminster, the northern scarp of Salisbury Plain, Beacon Hill, Hampshire, and there are many others. Instead, aside from odd examples, barrows congregate around the base and lower slopes of these.

A number of barrows congregate around springs and or winterbourne streams that lead to them. Good examples come from Salisbury Plain, around the Ladywell spring at Imber, or the Snail Down cemetery, where there appears to be an earlier domestic phase (McOmish et al 2002, 42). In Cranborne Chase too, barrows often cluster round winterbournes and springs. Sumner's plan of the Oakley Down cemetery, for example (reproduced here Fig 1:3), illustrates how the barrows cluster close to the position of the spring (Sumner 1913: also Green 2000, 93), a source of the River Crane. Further afield well-known examples lie at Rockley in the Marlborough Downs and Lambourne Seven Barrows, Berkshire.

In an interesting analysis of barrows around Stonehenge and central Dorset, Peters (1999; 2000) has identified two traditions of mound construction, termed Conspicuous and Inconspicuous barrows respectively. The former which predominantly lie on higher ground, includes those 'fancy' mounds often associated with 'Wessex' graves, while the latter not only lie in less elevated positions but also tend to be smaller in size. Peters points out that the latter is a long lived type commencing with those covering Beaker interments and continuing throughout the first half of the 2nd millennium to incorporate those used as Deverel-Rimbury cemeteries. This Inconspicuous type appears to be situated alongside areas of cultivation

Within the Weald there are some indications that barrows may be associated with meres, the best example occurring at Woolmer (Tomalin 1996, 18), though despite wide tracts of heathland in southwest Dorset and parts of Hampshire, no such place presents itself here. Artificial medieval or post-medieval drainage of parts of the New Forest, however, may have changed topographical features, leaving isolated ponds and bottoms; it maybe that Stonyford Pond, for example, was formerly one such

84

area surrounded by the barrows on Beaulieu Heath that could benefit from further investigation.

Beckhampton stream, in both cases the areas that attracted the attention of earlier, Neolithic, long barrows.

The main distribution, however, appears to be based on the river system as a whole. Cemeteries and individual mounds are located at intervals alongside the River Avon, similarly along both flanks of the Stour, where the numbers increase towards the chalk of Cranborne Chase, Attendant cemeteries occur alongside the Frome, Piddle and other tributaries, often becoming particularly noticeable upstream where, closer to their source, watercourses take on the characteristics of winterbournes. Alongside the middle reaches of the Avon the distribution is thin, often on bluffs overlooking the narrow floodplain. Cleggett (1999) investigated the extant examples here in greater detail, studying their height above OD relative to the river and the nearest highest ground. Of 207 barrows studied by him between Upavon and Christchurch, the majority were placed between 17 and 24m below the available highest ground, that is, on the valley slopes rather than in the most prominent visual positions. The location thus appears to link them to the land alongside the river itself rather than the interfluve beyond.

At Stonehenge, the closest cemeteries are some 500m away and most of the major groups lie over a mile from the stone circle and in many cases are not intervisible, a point not lost on Fleming who had raised the possibility that the relationship between them had been overemphasised (ibid, 159). He stressed also that many 'Wessex' type barrows were located on the opposite side of the River Avon, away from Stonehenge, a theme later echoed by the SPTA survey that not only highlighted the distribution of barrows and ring ditches alongside the River Avon itself, but also a tributary, the Nine Mile River. Fleming astutely observed that the original location of the Stonehenge site itself, i.e. close to the lip of a combe, might also be of significance in the construction of barrows (Fleming 1971, 156). That is, the landform itself may be of as much importance as any structure that subsequently became attached to it. In contrast, following a thesis developed regarding the Dorset Ridgeway (Woodward 1991, 142), the siting of burial monuments was thought to be organised centrally. Cemeteries were considered to have been arranged in circuits and barrows situated closer to the henges at Mount Pleasant, Stonehenge and Avebury, forming a ‘cordon sanitaire’, all thought to provide greater prestige (Woodward and Woodward 1996: Exon et al 2000). However, in the case of the Stonehenge area, local riverside frontage appears to have been as important as elsewhere, indeed it may have been at a premium, for here the Rivers Till and Avon converge, and implicitly any land holdings must too. It may be this that has produced clustering of barrows, in a similar manner to the way that clustering of artefacts occurs around the Avon/Stour confluence.

In the Great Ouse Valley, Green (1975, 128-9) recorded cemeteries at spacings of c5km, a distance similar to that in the Weald, where spatial separations of 4-5km were recorded, and where the the cemeteries are situated on river bluffs, set back 0.5 –1km from the river (Field 1988, 316). Similar distances between groups can be observed on Salisbury Plain along the Avon and Nine Mile Rivers (McOmish et al 2002), while Tomalin (1993) observed a consistent positioning on the Isle of Wight. Fleming (1971) also considered the distance between most cemeteries to be in the region of 4.5km, though less in the area around Stonehenge. The great cluster of barrows around Stonehenge needs attention. Piggott (1938, 90) believed that the great numbers of barrows in South Wiltshire could only 'reflect the sanctity of Stonehenge rather than a corresponding concentration of population' and he considered that dead people might be carried considerable distances to be buried close to the sacred site. Given Stukeley's comment mentioned earlier concerning the number of barrows visible around Stonehenge, it is understandable that much energy has been spent on emphasising the number of barrows that are inter-visible with the stone circle, but little emphasis has been placed on pointing to the numbers that are not (but c.f. Watson 2001, 211). In fact, the astonishing thing is just how many are not intervisible when, placed a few metres one way or the other, there could be a perfect view. A similar problem occurs at Avebury, where a plot of barrows (Cleal, in Brown et al forthcoming) indicates that, in fact, most barrows focus on features in the landscape other than the great henge, in particular the area alongside the Kennet and the (present) Beckhampton-Devizes Road, i.e. the upper reaches of the

The important implication of the work by Peters (ibid) of the link between 'Inconspicous' barrow cemeteries and land holding, is that settlement and farmed land lay adjacent to the barrows, right at the heart of the river system, all around the Stonehenge environs. The roughly even distribution of cemeteries, increasing at points where land was placed under pressure such as confluences, argues for a system of economic units based on river frontage or winterbourne valleys and it might be the case that, as for an earlier period, we can postulate social territories based on this arrangement. The spatial arrangement of cemeteries now known to exist further up - and downstream - implies that there was considerable organisation and stability in the Early Bronze Age lifestyle and that settlements lie at what appear to be comfortable distances along watercourses, each utilising land that stretches back up the slopes and onto the interfluves. Using the spatial relationship of flint scatters and ring ditches, Woodward (1978) and others have suggested that

85

barrow mounds were often constructed at the limit of cultivated land on less productive areas. In general this can be applied here also. If we can expect cemeteries to demarcate the location of corresponding settlements, then such domestic units would appear to be based along the river valleys, as they were in later periods, each utilising the flood loams for meadow, adjacent well-drained valley slopes for cultivation, and beyond that, permanent pasture at a distance from the home unit.

of links with Amorica, Brittany, the Rhineland and the Baltic imply at least a degree of foreign travel and it would be no surprise for evidence of this to predominate in a coastal area. At a number of sites, there appears to be an underlying Beaker framework and there are certain indications at, for example, Bestwall Quarry, Wareham, or even beneath the Latch Farm barrow, that this appears to be agricultural. The spread of activity is widespread, particularly in the area around Christchurch (Calkin 1951). Rich burials to match those known from the interior may once have had greater prominence here and simply been obscured by the later material. This chronological relationship occurs at sites on the chalk too. At Easton Down, Beaker settlement appears to be followed successively by Collared Urn and then Deverel-Rimbury activity and the beginnings of 'Celtic field layout (Fig 5:9). The theme resolves itself when considered alongside the 'Inconspicous' barrow distribution, for one example lies alongside the settlement there. Such juxtapositions occur by the coast as well, not least at Bestwall, where the circular Deverel Rimbury associated structures overlie earlier field boundaries. Deverel-Rimbury pottery itself occurs in great numbers around the estuary of the Avon/Stour and the surrounding heathland, 300 urns were recovered from the Simons Ground cemetery alone, 60 from the Knighton Heath cemetery (Peterson 1981) and over 90 from Latch Farm (C Piggott 1938 and others in Redhouse and Poole Museums) and it may be that the agricultural framework emerging is only the tip of an enormous iceberg.

If the density of barrow cemeteries implies an equally compact domestic pattern, there must have been, as Woodward suggested for Dorset, considerable pressure on land. Many cemeteries, both here and elsewhere in the country, demonstrate a persistence of interest in singular locations for a considerable length of time. Essentially there must be a continuation and development of land-use patterns established during the 3rd millennium and perhaps very much earlier. Pressure for land is likely to have increased during the early centuries of the second millennium and may have encouraged greater use of small winterbournes, perhaps initially for pasture, but over time for more permanent activity. Leaving aside for the moment the barrow cemeteries, the artefact distributions help to flesh out the picture. Whether or not finds such as battle-axes might be considered to have 'prestige' value (e.g. Gardiner 1984, 32; 1987b) - and in the case of the rich finds from the Hengistbury Head barrow, for example, it is difficult to believe otherwise - the sheer quantity of finds indicate that greater activity appears to be taking place on the Coastal Plain than within the interior. New and unusual materials occur at coastal sites, and amber, gold, stone all obtained from distant sources are present. The suggestion

86

CHAPTER 7 PROBLEMS RELATING TO HOW THE LAND WAS USED

dependant on the resources of the foreshore must have collapsed.

Introduction The Solent was not a large river. It could never match the Thames or Rhine in terms of length or width, or for sheer power. There were no graceful meanders or cut-off lakes as there were in those larger rivers and it was not a barrier or boundary in the same way that those rivers could be. Nevertheless its relatively short course provided an extremely attractive focus for human activity throughout the postglacial period. In fact, as the Holocene sea-level rose and the river lost its character and metamorphosed into a greater body of water, it probably became more important to human beings than at any time during the Pleistocene.

The drama played out on the sea shore may have encouraged humans to take to the water in greater numbers in order to seek out increasingly rare marine food as much as to make contact with relatives and traditional resources that had been cut off. The dual tide resulting from the breach did, however, have advantages in terms of navigation and, once understood and mastered, could be used to advantage. Mastery of the waters would have proved increasingly important in communications further west too, as a large portion of the landmass south of the River Solent found itself surrounded by water. The resulting waters here flooded the lower reaches of the river, effectively cutting off the Isle of Wight. However, the increasingly lagoon-like lower reaches of the river also provided an ideal haven as the island provided shelter from both south westerly wind and the incoming North Atlantic Drift.

The agent of change, of course, was the melting ice sheet. While in terms of loss of landmass the changing coastline was crucial as people will have been forced to react to flooded lowlands or rapidly eroding cliffs, there were other, perhaps more subtle, but no less far reaching effects. As a narrow channel, tides along the Rhine/Thames estuary will have had a very large reach and left a landscape of mudflats, swampy estuaries and coastal lagoons that sponsored great bio-diversity across the inter-tidal zone of what is now the English Channel. Human subsistence of the kind envisaged by David Clarke (1976), based on fishing, fowling and plant use, is likely to have flourished along the shores on both sides of the estuary, leaving the land bridge itself as something of a communications highway that provided crucial access to both sides of the river.

Just as some humans turned to the water in search of continued sustenance, others will have abandoned the over-exploited coastal strip and moved inland. This was hardly pioneering, as people were already there. But it means that greater pressure would have been placed on the hinterland, perhaps ultimately leading to friction, as others increasingly exploited long established and traditional resources. The channels of any such movement will almost certainly have been the rivers; the natural arteries connecting the interior to the Coastal Plain. The role of rivers in preserving life was paramount and they were a crucial focus to which mammals of all kinds could return to daily. Their valleys not only provided shelter from winds, but also a variety of edible and useful plants not found elsewhere in the countryside.

The catalyst was the breaching and flooding of the straits of Dover by the rising water, coupled with its effect on the tidal regime. There are no data on exactly when or how the breach occurred, but once it commenced, evidently during the late sixth millennium, the process may have been quite rapid. The tidal regime, with currents from the North Sea meeting those from the English Channel, is likely to have resulted in confused waters until a new equilibrium was reached. The effect on the food chain began then, as it does now, with the plankton. Sensitive to all but the most subtle of changes, it is likely that these minute creatures would have been all but wiped out, not to return until things had settled down, and of course there would be appropriate effects on fish and fowl that ultimately depended on them. Plankton apart, one of the first casualties would have been the inter-tidal zone. With a greatly reduced reach, the environment could no longer support the enormous quantities of fowl and other species that it once did. The whole balance of marine life will have been considerably disrupted, fish, fowl and shellfish could no longer exist in anything like the same quantities, and human subsistence

Sea, ships and the zone of information Unfortunately, the rising sea-level has obscured much of the evidence of what must be an archaeologically rich area, leaving a sea-framed topography consisting of sand dunes, flooded estuaries and inlets, disappearing islands and migrating cliffs, although increased investigation of the shores and sea-bed in recent years at Langstone Harbour, Wootton Bay on the Isle of Wight (Long and Roberts 1997), and in Poole Harbour by the University of Bournemouth, holds out much hope of producing vital evidence. Despite differences in isostatic activity between the west and east of the area and uncertainty of precision, the available evidence broadly points to an abrupt rise in

87

sea-level of over 4m between about 5920-5800 cal BC and 3800-3755 cal BC after which there was a steady though intermittent rise of about 1m in each millennium, almost certainly incorporating a series of transgressions and regressions of the sea.

Only with great difficulty can a boat be rowed against the incoming tide but, by harnessing the tide, it would be possible to travel a considerable distance inland along the Avon, Stour, Itchen and Meon with little effort. Knowledge of such tidal patterns would allow considerable control over one's future actions.

The tidal range currently increases towards the east, being 2.5m at Portland, just 2m in Poole and Christchurch Harbours, but increasing to 4m in Chichester Harbour. If a similar position pertained during the 4th millennium, it follows that there may have been greater opportunities for fowling in the east than in the west, particularly around the lowland at the entrance to what are now Pagham, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, then small estuaries that met the coast some 5km further south. These locations still support extremely high numbers of species of fowl and other species and, given the low-lying topography, are likely to have done so before the encroachment of the sea.

A number of small streams, many issuing from junctions of London Clay with Reading Beds, discharge directly into the sea along the coast, their original landward course and extent now often obscured by extensive development. The chines around Poole and Bournemouth in the west were cut by such streams, while their counterpart in the east, the rifes, provided fresh water coupled with the protection from adverse weather of a locally incised valley. In most cases the eroding coastline has considerably truncated these smaller streams, but many of the known sites are situated alongside them. Towards the sea, the Langstone, Emsworth, Thorney and Chichester Channels together with the creeks in Pagham Harbour, are now visible at low tide, though they will certainly have altered course as a result of changing tidal regimes. However, they may indicate the approximate former course of these small rivers. If so, some of the small islands where archaeological material has been recovered in some quantity (Jacobi 1981, 21), Bakers Island, Long Island and North and South Binness, as well as the nearby Farlington Marshes, may mark once locally higher ground situated alongside (Allen and Gardiner 2000). Sites at Cosham (Williams-Freeman 1920-4, 4056: Hooper 1968), Portsea (Hooper 1964: Bradley and Hooper 1975), Portchester and Church Farm Caravan Holiday Camp in Pagham Harbour (Palmer 1977, 86) come into the same category. Similarly, the coastal sites at Rainbow Bar (Draper 1951: Jacobi 1981, 21), Mother Siller's Channel (Palmer 1972) at Christchurch, together with the sites discovered at depth in peat at Southampton Docks, lie at the mouth of the rivers Meon, Avon and Itchen respectively. Tufaceous material clinging to a pebble macehead found deep in the peat at Southampton Docks (Elwas 1889, 53) is an indication that the site lay adjacent to calcium rich fresh water.

Sites discovered close to the present coastline will rarely have been much more than a mile or two inland and may originally have relied at least in part on the fruits of a maritime economy. Sites on the rest of the Coastal Plain may also be dependent, but to a lesser extent, and subsistence may be increasingly less reliant on coastal resources the further north from the sea that one travels. Thus sites along the present coastline, provide some indication of former occupation levels on what must then have been the fringes of coastal activity. Prior to the 4th millennium Struck flint recovered from Langstone Harbour is thought to be indicative of low-key, though not insignificant, activity (Allen and Gardiner 2000, 129-143: Draper 1958; 1968). Set back from the contemporary coastline, the site here was located on the slightly higher ground between two silted ravines that led towards the interior and which may have held small freshwater streams. As observed by Jacobi (1981, 20), other sites in these now marshy areas are situated in positions where freshwater was available, for example, around the estuary of the River Wallington at Wicor Shore, Cams, near Fareham (Draper 1968) and it appears as though freshwater is in fact the key. Domestic settlement per se by the coast is difficult to sustain unless supported in some way by fresh water, and modern bungalows, chalets and caravans situated close to the shore at, for example, West Wittering in Sussex, all rely on piped water. The importance of such resources has influenced the siting of historic settlement too. More recent and well-known 'coastal' towns such as Bognor or Littlehampton are situated on the Aldingbourne and Arun respectively. In addition, the locations alongside rivers and streams provide a further source of fish, while both the water itself and natural flood meadows along river courses attract other mammals. The tidal stretches of the larger rivers also enhance communication opportunities.

Palmer (1977) identified 778 Mesolithic sites along the southern coast, 27 of them in West Sussex, 30 in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and 96 in Dorset, all within 4km of the present coastline. Based on a high incidence of core tools, particularly at the type-site at Portland, she suggested the presence of a 'Coastal Culture'. Many of these sites cluster on headlands, or on beaches close to cliffs, although all headlands, St Adhelms, Hengistbury, Portland Bill and Selsey Bill, will have changed configuration considerably. Sites on what is now Hengistbury Head, for example, would have overlooked the estuary of the river Avon rather than the sea, which was then several kilometres further south. Excluding small groups of material and single chance finds, 49 sites have been noted in this study in central southern England as a whole, of which 19 can be

88

considered littoral, 13 are river valley sites and 8 are located at springs. Support for this coastal pattern of distribution comes from surface collections right across the area, not least in the form of 'background noise'. For example, while much of the flint material recovered from fields alongside the Aldingbourne Rife at Oving, West Sussex displays Neolithic traits, it is set amongst a background of earlier blade-like pieces. Similarly, mixed flint assemblages from around the source and valley of the River Alver at Lee-on-Solent, contain a significant component with earlier traits (Kemp and Rogers 1984) and there are similar collections from alongside the River Stour in Dorset. Sites occur on the wider Coastal Plain around, for example, Bournemouth in the west, where the chines were evidently an attractive location (Appendix 3:3), or Oving, in West Sussex; or overlooking the zone as at Portsdown.

gravel nodules and it may be that considerable evidence of 4th millennium gravel quarrying along respective river terraces awaits discovery. Inland, the mine at Martins Clump, Hampshire, has a C14 determination indicating a date in the late 5th or early 4th millennium. On the assumption that mine working moved uphill, i.e. into the deposit, as it appears to have done at other mine sites (Barber et al 1999, 82), the date may be for one of the later shafts on site and extraction could have commenced there considerably earlier. Nearby, the Easton Down flint mine has dates for one of the shafts that begin in the second half of the 4th millennium but it too could have an earlier genesis. Both sites lie in an area where flint seams lie immediately beneath the turf and material is easily extracted by hand. It maybe that such surface quarrying was widespread in the chalk at this latitude, but subsequently obscured by later developments; the shallow quarries at Durrington, for example, were only discovered during sewage pipelaying operations (Booth and Stone 1952).

4th millennium Without adequately dated sites, it is difficult to be precise concerning the chronological position of many of the flint scatters recorded, for tranchet technology, serrated blades, blade-like flakes (e.g. Rankine 1949, 25-6: Ross Williamson 1930, 76-78), various scrapers and the domestic tool-kit generally occurs well into the Neolithic (Gardiner 1987: Green 2000a), and it is sometimes only the presence of microliths or items such as leaf-shaped arrowheads that allow concentrations of material to be broadly placed in one category or another. Unless they should be imports, and given the ubiquity of good flint in the chalk, that seems unlikely, the earliest ground flint axes in Britain, from Down Farm and Coneybury henge respectively, clearly indicate an ancestry for this technology that extends well back into the 5th millennium BC. Both sites are on the chalk where flint is ubiquitous, and it is of no surprise that flint axes from across the region appear to have been made from material taken directly from the parent rock. The distribution map of ground flint axes (Fig 4:10) is intriguing, for while the source of flint lay in the hinterland, most axes were not recovered from that area. Instead, like their tranchet counterparts, they form a general congregation on the Coastal Plain, significant numbers clustering along the coastline. The same is true of ground axes made of other kinds of rocks (Fig 5:6) as well as of leaf arrowheads (Fig 4:12). The pattern is also present further west on the Coastal Plain at Worthing in Sussex where, regardless of the presence of four major flint mine complexes on the Chalk, ground axes predominate on the lower ground (Fig 7:1).

Chert from Portland was certainly being moved about from the 6th to 5th millennium (Fig 7:2: Appendix 7), inland as well as along the coast. Although other sources of this material were available across the south and in particular from the area around Tisbury to the north of Cranborne Chase, the most accessible Portland Chert is found as pebbles on the beach and in raised beach deposits and seams within the cliff at Portland Bill (Palmer 1977: 1999). It was first used by the 7th millennium BC, with pre 4th millennium examples being found at Cherhill, Wiltshire, Broom Hill, Hampshire, Iwerne Minster, Dorset and Farnham, Surrey. Sites on the Coastal Plain at Christchurch and Bournemouth invariably contain a few pieces, and use of the material continued into the Neolithic period, though with decreasing frequency. A leaf arrowhead at Boscombe and a leaf knife from Purewell may both have arrived by coastal traffic. However, the incidence of rocks reaching the area from the southwest peninsular is notable and they are more likely to have been moved by sea. Broom Chert has been recorded at Shedfield; Devonian Slate, similar to that from Trevose Head and Start Point (Jacobi 1981) at Broom Hill and Hammerpot, West Sussex, while pebbles from the south-west peninsular occur at Broom Hill, all prior to the 4th millennium. Patterns of interchange were established that Rankine referred to as 'folk movement' (Rankine 1956, 54-58). It remains possible, though perhaps unlikely, that erratics deposited by pack ice along the south coast (Mottishead 1976, 9: Venables 1970) just might have been responsible for some of those earlier finds. However, they cannot have been responsible for the jadeite axes that were introduced in the earlier 4th millennium BC.

Despite this, much of the material from flint scatters of all periods found across the Coastal Plain was from local gravel deposits. Even where sites lay close to chalk flint, such as that at Downton, there was a reliance on local gravel. A series of quarry pits in the gravel at Bestwell Quarry have been interpreted as for the extraction of

89

Chalk

Coastal Plain

Fig. 7:1 Location of ground flint axes and extraction sites around Worthing in Sussex. Despite the fact that four major flint mine complexes (red squares) are known on the chalk, most of the finds of ground axes (red spots) have been on the Coastal Plain.

Fig 7:2 Distribution of finds of Portland Chert (open circles) and known flint extraction sites (filled circles). Geology based on BGS data. IPR/95-63c Britisdh Geological Survey ©NERC. All rights reserved.

90

The incidence of the slender triangular torpedo types of jadeite axe is of particular importance, for while the ultimate source of this material remains unknown, their template links them closely to the Carnac area of Brittany. Distribution of jadeite axes of other forms is also markedly coastal. These have clearly found their way to the southern rivers from across the Channel, and the torpedo-type, at least, provides good evidence for marine activity in the earlier part of the fourth millennium BC. The presence of two ground axes of Group X rock from Brittany, found at Moordown, Bournemouth and Shirley, Southampton, serves to confirm the connection.

sourced and many of the shallow depressions in wooded Greensand areas of the south may be prehistoric extraction locations. Despite this perception of intense activity, excavated sites remain rare and, one might expect that much lies underwater. For the moment ceremonial centres or other monuments on the coastal strip are all but unknown. However, the position of the long barrow at Holdenhurst lies in a similar topographical location to many of those that have escaped the ravages of historic agriculture or town development further inland, and though it remains to be demonstrated, there is a conviction that it is in fact just one of a series that forms part of an overall riverine pattern (McOmish et al 2002: Eagles and Field 2004). The mounds on Portsdown, although more dramatically placed, appear to stand sentinel over the coastal strip of Portsmouth and also conform. The position of these monuments provides some indication that occupancy of the coastal zone below was more than transient. As brilliant white barrows, they would also have stood out far to sea, providing a beacon or reference point for coastal and cross channel craft alike.

It is not just the presence of transferred exotic materials that implies contact, but ideas too. The process of removing and breaking up menhirs that are incorporated into tombs rooted to the same spot in Brittany, has been documented by Bradley (2002) and is reflected in a similar practice within the hinterland of central southern England. At Knook long barrow, Wiltshire, deliberately broken sarsen was evidently incorporated in a cairn (McOmish et al 2002). While it is difficult to escape the conclusion that crosschannel contact played a significant role in 4th millennium social life, there appears to have been an increase in the intensity of activity in the later 4th millennium when spreads of artefacts of Group VIII rock from South Wales and Group XVII rock from Cornwall occur along the coast. At the same time finds of ground axes made of Group VI rock focus in the Bournemouth area, and there are scatters of material further inland, especially in well excavated complexes. Large numbers of ceramic vessels made of gabbro clay identified as originating on the Lizard in Cornwall have been recovered from the causewayed enclosures at Maiden Castle, Dorset and further into the interior at Robin Hood's Ball, Wiltshire (Peacock 1969), reconfirming the contact with locations observed by Rankine as taking place millennia earlier.

3rd millennium There is some evidence of the intensification of activity along the coastal zone during the 3rd millennium. Mortlake Ware and Grooved Ware pottery have both been discovered at locations from Christchurch to Oving, but particularly around the mouth of the Avon, at Hengistbury Head, Latch Farm and Crouch Hill (Gardiner 1984; 1987a and b). Elsewhere the latter type is often recovered from ceremonial sites and whether the Christchurch concentration implies some kind of ceremonial complex is unclear. Flint edge-ground 'Seamer' axes have been recovered from nine coastal locations (Fig 4:11), as have eight of the 27 maceheads and seven of the 20 discoidal knives. Like leaf arrowheads, an enormous concentration of petit-tranchet derivative types occurs in the area around Christchurch and Bournemouth.

While large nodules of ironstone were observed at the foot of the cliff at Hengistbury Head and are a possible source of ochre (Saler in Barton 1992, 174-6) no evidence presently exists for their movement inland. Limestone, however, was being moved some distance. Hearths of Purbeck limestone, for example, were found at Crouch Hill in a Mesolithic context, while sandstone slabs were found in a pit of Mesolithic date at Ulwell in Purbeck, Dorset. Although their purpose was not clear, they had been transported a considerable distance. Sandstone is an under-researched rock type, and it is difficult to distinguish sources petrologically (Woolley pers comm). May Hill stone, from near Gloucester was used for querns during the Neolithic at Hambledon (Roe pers comm) and it may be that extraction of the sandstone at the Pen Pits on the Wiltshire/Somerset border (Hoare 1810) began as early as the Neolithic. None of the sandstone shafthole implements have been

Despite the timely caution concerning available C14 dates that do not support a clear chronological sequence of Beaker styles (Kinnes et al 1991), students of the pottery have continued to consider that some designs are earlier than others and in general there is acknowledgement that All Over Cord and European Bell Beakers are early in the process (e.g. Clarke 1970, 47). Recent C14 dates for European Beakers at Shrewton 5k and Radley Hills (Needham 1996) have supported this. The origins of Beaker movement have been sought in the Gulf of Lions, southern France/Catalona, and Portugal, with a route of dissemination along the Atlantic coast (Clarke 1970, 49-50). Others have argued for origins in the Lower Rhine Basin (Case 1977, 74). All Over Cord

91

Beakers predominate in the Rhineland, in eastern England and in Brittany, whereas Maritime Beaker distribution is coastal, particularly in central Portugal with a secondary cluster around Brittany. In fact Harrison's map (1977, 22 fig 1.2 reproduced here as Fig 7:3) is enlightening, as the distribution along the Atlantic coastal fringe incorporates Christchurch, where finds can be traced into the interior via the River Avon.

afield as Hungary, Denmark and Italy, a mechanism for the transmission of architectural ideas. The implication of all this coastal activity is striking, both in terms of movement and contact along the coast and with the continent, but also of the area around Christchurch and Bournemouth as an important and continuing focus of activity from where ideas and materials are redirected.

According to Harrison (1977, 6), possession of a knowledge of metallurgy is an integral component of the Beaker package. Gold from Maritime contexts, for example, includes a gold basket earring from Ermegeira, in Portugal (ibid, 10) similar to those known from Amesbury (Fitzpatrick 2002; 2003) or Chilbolton (Russel 1990).

2nd millennium A considerable number of monuments, extant round barrows, or where levelled - ring ditches that are considered to be barrows - are present. Most accumulate in clusters or cemeteries on the chalklands around the rim of the area. However, many examples are coming to light on the lower ground, e.g. at Westhampnett (Fitzpatrick 1992b), while new sites have been revealed by air survey along the River Avon gravels. Thus the cemeteries on Hengistbury Head, at Iford and St Catherine’s Hill at the mouth of the River Avon, might be linked to the clusters of barrows throughout the middle and upper reaches as far as its ultimate source by the Marden henge. The increasing evidence for the former presence of monuments substantiates that provided by the artefacts, of a greater degree of activity in river valleys and on the Coastal Plain.

Despite the amount of Beaker material revealed by excavation around Stonehenge, the cluster of Beakers around Christchurch is remarkable. Early Beakers include All Over Cord examples from Boscombe and Latch Farm, both at the mouth of the Avon, and European Bell Beakers at Latch Farm (2), Iford, and Rowbury (at the foot of Hengistbury Head). Further inland, this type occurs at Broom Hill, Michelmersh and there is a thin coastal distribution around Sussex and eastern coastal areas. (Clarke 1970, 558). Some of the Beaker styles, however, are thinly represented. The only example of Barbed Wire beaker from the region comes from Winchester. Similarly, the only examples of Primary Southern Beakers come from inland along the Rivers Avon and Till. Nevertheless, other styles continue the clustering around the mouth of the Avon. The incidence of contemporary axe hammers and barbed and tanged arrowheads (Appendix 6:4 and 6:9 and Fig 6:12) support this distribution pattern, the latter with enormous numbers around the mouth of the Avon, as does that of flint daggers, a type with late Beaker associations (Case 1977, 83).

The archaeological distribution of sites along the coastal strip coupled with the natural events of the 6th and 5th millennia indicate that it is likely that considerable maritime activity occurred from the Mesolithic onwards and that challenges of the sea were likely to have been overcome and mastered soon after the Greater Rhine valley was flooded. The incidence of single chance finds, as well as more extensive sites, expresses an interest in this zone not matched elsewhere in the region. Activities here might be expected to partly focus on boat construction, net making and rope making and, perhaps more by accident than design, these folk may be the first in their community to come across foreign objects obtained on perhaps longer than usual trips - stone from the south-west or elsewhere. There may be travellers with news, with tales to tell, a prehistoric Neil Armstrong, welcomed and viewed reverentially. This would be the focal point where new information and new ideas are received, discussed and passed on – it would be a zone of information.

Contrary to some preconceptions, rich burials, such as that of the Amesbury Archer (Fitzpatrick 2002; 2003) are few and arrowhead burials infrequent (Case 1977, 81). On the contrary, as Case (1977, 83) points out, burials with shale or jet buttons and belt rings are peaceful in nature. The potential associations with cultivation, for example, at Bestwall or further north at South Street long barrow (Ashbee et al 1979) imply a significant agricultural role for Beaker users. The case has been made before, but overlooked, and the warrior component may have been over-emphasised (Case 1977, 79). Towards the end of Beaker currency, Case (1977, 83) imagined fairly settled farming communities receiving new ideas and techniques as a result of continental contacts. The important factor may lie in the exchanges of technique and ideas (Case 1977, 84) rather than friction. Beakers provided a vehicle for contacts as far

92

0

Figure 7:3 Distribution of Maritime Beakers (based on Harrison 1977 fig 1:2).

93

500km

Renfrew (1973) has described the almost equally spaced long barrows on Salisbury Plain as marking territories, his spatial analysis being based on Theissen polygons around each monument. Using air photography to fill in some of the gaps, it becomes possible to suggest territories based on the spacing of long barrows along river valleys. Along the upper reaches of the River Wylye around Cunnington's home at Heytesbury, long barrows appear to be spaced almost equally every 2km or so. Many barrows here have been levelled during the last 200 years and recently air photography has revealed at least three potential long barrows that help to fill gaps in the record (Eagles and Field 2004). Although there are some that stand alone (Sherrington stands adjacent to the riverbank, while Boles Barrow stands proud at the opposite end of the height spectrum, isolated on one of the higher points of Salisbury Plain), almost all are located on the bluffs and slopes above the River Wylye and one of its re-entrant valleys.

Development The density of finds and sites of Mesolithic date suggested to Jacobi that the land and its vegetable and animal resources were being fully utilised and that any newcomers would be likely to upset the social order. He consequently suggested that regionalised artefact distributions imply the presence of social territories towards the end of the Mesolithic (Jacobi 1979). New artefact types, pottery and ground flint axes, coupled with the use of grain and domestic animals, imply that new methods of subsistence were in place by the turn of the 5th to 4th millennium at Down Farm, Dorset and Coneybury Pit, Wiltshire. Although the type has considerable longevity (Green 1980), leaf arrow tips too were found in the Coneybury Pit and associated with a date of c4000BC; thus the type could have been introduced during the 5th millennium. The concentration of these artefacts by the coast is quite interesting when compared to the lack of examples inland in, for example, excavated long barrows. The short long barrow on the sand at Pistledown contained several and they are found at causewayed enclosures such as Hambledon Hill and Robin Hoods Ball. However, while secondary clusters occur at Amesbury, Cranborne Chase, and lesser numbers border the Clay-with-flints around Basingstoke, the main distribution focuses on the Christchurch area. There was a concentration here of people with a new tool. A tool that to begin with may have been prestigious, something to show off with, something to make the youngsters stand out. Should even a significant number date to 4000, it implies that the coastal zone, the zone of information, was a recipient and user of this artefact type earlier than elsewhere.

Certainly the chalk appears to have been rapidly infilled with long barrows during the second half of the 4th millennium. But this pattern might extend along the rivers onto the Coastal Plain too. Recent air photographs indicate the presence of a possible long barrow along the middle reaches of the Avon at Breamore and a second at Damerham (Barber pers comm.). If this is so and the pattern can be extended, then Holdenhurst might be imagined as representing just one of a series of territories that extend inland along the Rivers Stour and Avon. Assuming such territories in the lower reaches continue to be based on river frontage, then the land around the confluence of the two rivers becomes a congested zone, attracting the attention of users of land units along both watercourses. The land at the confluence is attractive as it provides a larger area of water frontage than elsewhere, as well as a large area of natural meadowland. It also benefits as a central location in the communications highway. The economic and communications advantages of such positions appear to have influenced the choice of such locations elsewhere, e.g. Staines causewayed enclosure (Robertson-Mackay 1987).

It may be that such prestigious objects were the property of higher echelons in society. If so, the recovery of jadeite axes at Breamore and Sturminster Marshall indicates that centres of power lay not on the chalk, but in the land around the middle stretches of those rivers. The same could be said of the jadeite examples found along the coastal strip. At first such material could have prestige value and was perhaps used to achieve status (Barrett 1980, 80). The seafarers bringing such material had been there and in modern vernacular had worn the Tshirt. Compared to those who had stayed behind, they were sophisticated and privileged guardians of a certain kind of knowledge.

There may be similar patterns along the coast too. The pattern of spacing of two, possibly three, long barrows on Portsdown, may indicate the presence of strip-like land-units. The recently discovered long barrow close to the cliff at Rottingdean, Brighton (Bewley et al 2004, 71), serves a similar role in overlooking what once may have been the Coastal Plain, and there may once have been others since eroded by the sea.

In other respects the interior would be old fashioned/conservative/slow to adapt, although perhaps also safe and secure and cautious, where people clung on to old ideas and memories of ancestral tombs. However, the results of contact with foreign lands, new ideas and materials, eventually filtered through and the increasing construction of causewayed enclosures provided places with a role in distributing, displaying and creating desirable objects.

Similarly, the evidence for coastal contacts during the last half of the 3rd millennium is powerful. Despite the extensive excavation carried out for over 200 years around Amesbury, the Christchurch area stands out strongly in distribution maps. Gardiner emphasised the importance of the presence of a large number of prestige

94

tools from the area, particularly on Hengistbury Head, coupled with the presence of Grooved Ware and Beaker pottery (Gardiner 1984; 1987a and b). Recent finds and excavations add to the intensity.

To explain the apparent concentration of barrows on the chalk, Fleming hypothesised a pastoral economy based on seasonal, transhumant, movement to the chalk from (presumably) the Coastal Plain. In contrast to Childe's view of a Wessex based on agricultural wealth (1940, 135), he argued convincingly for the economic advantages of a pastoral economy based on the shifting around of stock (1973, 580-1) and the domination over sedentary farmers (probably on the Coastal Plain), The problem with this is the increasing number of barrows that are recognised in the middle and lower reaches of rivers on the Coastal Plain. They disrupt the pattern. In addition, the degree of order of monuments perceived in chalk valleys would scarcely allow room for itinerants. Pastoral economies might only exist where known presence of grass and water supplies can be comfortably predicted (considered below) and such an economic base can collapse as easily as an agricultural one. While such an economy might be possible in the 3rd millennium, the manner in which the landscape was being infilled with monuments, and presumably people, suggests that it would have been quite difficult in the 2nd millennium. Settlements and animals all need access to water, and with the number of groups marking out sections of riverfront for themselves, conflict must result. If the position of such cemeteries provides a key to the location of settlement, the inescapable conclusion is that the river valleys themselves were of the utmost importance. If, like long barrows, they provide some kind of indication of territory, they imply that the valleys from springline to coast were subdivided into intensively used territorial units, marking holdings based on lengths of river frontage - essentially an intensification of the arrangements already indicated for the Neolithic.

The whole notion of the idea of a 'Wessex Culture' rested on its contact with the outside world. Its very existence is owed to its position within a continental trading network and it needs to be considered within that context (Bradley 1980, 60). Many of the materials that form the objects of 'the Culture' were of course foreign to Wessex and had to be imported. At the top of the list these include gold, probably from Ireland, copper and tin, perhaps from Cornwall or the North Wales area, amber, probably from the Baltic and daggers from central Europe. The gold pins on the Bush barrow dagger, thought to be a Breton trait, indicate a continuation of the long-term contact across the English Channel, while the links formerly established with Beaker users in the Rhineland provided a means of contact with central Europe. Most of this has been explained as being the economic result of a transhumant, pastoral economy, whereby preeminent individuals are buried in round mounds during convenient parts of the transhumance cycle (Fleming 1971; 1973). Round barrow cemeteries, particularly those on lower ground, often focus around short long barrows and appear to enhance the spatial pattern of ritual monuments established on either side of c3000BC. Use of these cemeteries continued perhaps intermittently, but with renewed intensity after about 2000BC. As Fleming (1971) observed, barrows tend to appear in groups often with a mixture of barrow types and, where excavated, contain both rich and poorly furnished graves.

Thus when considering the 2nd millennium coastal distribution of bronze tools, Rowlands (1980, 34-5) suggested that dense populations might be located in lowland riverine, estuarine and coastal locations along the south coast and sought to explain the change in terms of a migration of people towards the coast from the old power centres of Wessex (Rowlands 1980, 84-5). There was, however, no need for movement, as the artefact clusters of earlier periods make it clear that they were already there. The metalwork finds are richer along the coast than inland and such concentrations of material were thought to represent considerable concentration of wealth and power. Taking into account the close links with northern France and Brittany indicated by the artefacts, Rowlands suggested that the coastal provinces on either side of the Channel formed a core area that worked a 'single regional economic system' (ibid, 37), a kind of Bronze Age EEC. Coupled with its primary position in terms of external contacts, the coastal zone may always have been more productive, adaptive and receptive to new ideas than the interior, a zone of information continually pumping new ideas into the

Fleming's study, however, took place prior to the widespread application of air photography in archaeology and the recognition of the presence of large numbers of ring-ditches across floodplains and valley slopes (e.g. Woodward 1978: McOmish et al 2002: Eagles and Field 2004). The pattern is clearest in the upper reaches, with barrow cemeteries set on the slopes or bluffs over narrow floodplains; or where the flood plain is wide enough, on the valley floor itself. Neither were these insignificant mounds. Crop marks reveal, for example, that the Upton Lovell 'Golden' barrow, located only metres from the riverbank and itself now levelled, was formerly part of a cemetery of at least six others. Whereas Piggott envisaged the subjugation of the indigenous population by a dominating group from Brittany, Clarke (1968, 233) indicated that in fact much of the grave material was composed of normal, non exotic, Collared Urn-associated material. There appeared to be some agreement of the presence of a hierarchy, either a 'ruling class' (Childe 1940, 135), Piggott's aristocracy (1938; 1973), Fleming's own pastoralists (1973, 580-1) or Renfrew's rising chiefdom (1973).

95

hinterland, some of which are accepted with relish and others rejected. In historic times, geographic locations commanding estuaries, lower reaches of rivers, especially where such estuaries provide sheltered anchorages, have thrived as centres of trade and commerce: Cadiz, Genoa, Venice, Dubrovnik; or, around Britain, London, Southampton, Bristol, Liverpool. Cunliffe (2001, 54-5) has considered that the Solent sea-route has been a crucial component of the economy of the country since at least the Late Iron Age, the area providing an important 'contact zone' with the continent where new ideas as much as artefacts might be filtered and funnelled into the interior. Scarre (2002a, 1) sees evidence of sea-borne contact between Portugal and Scandinavia in the Neolithic and the evidence of such contacts continues in later periods. Whether the Solent area was a passive receiver of goods from the outset or was more pro-active, cannot at present be determined. No materials peculiar to central southern England have been recovered on the continent or elsewhere in Britain that could not have derived from elsewhere. There is no Wessex product, or type fossil. (possibly flint - Brittany is devoid of flint - perhaps jet or shale). Case (1977, 80, 82) suggested that Beaker users were a little like the Vikings of historic times. Both had far flung contacts and moved exotic materials great distances. The accoutrements discovered with the body of the Amesbury Archer included knives of Spanish copper and Oxygen Isotope Analysis of teeth indicated that his origins were not likely to lie in the British Isles (Fitzpatrick 2003, 146152). The real point here is that throughout prehistory, it is not simply that the Solent has been the hub of seabased activity, but the configuration of the coastline, the nature of the tides and the very sea-level have actively encouraged and enabled a situation that has resulted in the well-known archaeological 'cultures' of the hinterland.

example, is noted by Gow (1995, 43) as comprising a patchwork of regenerating secondary forest formed as a result of earlier clearances, each phase recognisable by the presence of different species. In Britain, late Devensian open fauna may have continued into the Flandrian in places (Scaife and McPhail 1983). Open heath vegetation was certainly present at Winfrith Heath, Dorset, in the Mesolithic period and Newbould (1960) thought that early woodland there may have been quite open, while Dimbleby considered that natural grazing was a major factor in the destruction of forest. Around Poole, there appears to have been open savannah-like vegetation early in the Flandrian, with 'trees widely dispersed' and Haskins (1978) too, thought podsolisation of the soils here was a result of natural processes. Despite this, the creation of heathland over considerable tracts of sandy soil, particularly in the New Forest and in Dorset, is often held to be a result of human interference, perhaps in part the result of firesetting (Moore 1997). The warm sandy soils, in particular, encourage pine and birch, which in turn burn more readily than the natural vegetation native to other soils. Development of a more open mixed forest on the Wealden interfluves has been used to explain the presence of the Horsham 'Culture' on the higher ground (Reynier 1998, 182), but the principles might apply here too. Such areas may have attracted herds of ungulates, and correspondingly large groups of humans to match. There is certainly adequate evidence of human activity from early in the Holocene, a widespread collecting of hazelnuts (Jacobi 1981), and in places the soils had been degraded long before the widespread agricultural reorganisation of the mid-second millennium. Assuming that animals immediately stepped into the void left by retreating ice sheets, the question will have been how they responded to the developing vegetation, rather than assuming that they migrated into a ready-made pine wood. Bos primigenius and wild pig are generally reckoned to have been forest animals, though like their Bialowieza or North American counterparts, the aurochs will have prospered on grassy lawns, and such areas are likely to have formed a component of the overall vegetation pattern.

Whose garden was this? The accepted view of vegetation during much of the Holocene is of closed climax forest, the "wildwood" (Rackham 1980, 99-103), where human interference had not disrupted nature but left superb hunting territory. However, for large areas of the south there is little direct evidence of this and it is really a question of making the few hard facts go a long way. The isopollen maps (Huntley and Birks 1983) depict the chalk before the Elm-decline as predominantly hazel covered, with smaller quantities of Lime and Oak, but all extrapolated from extremely few pollen profiles most of which were off of the chalk. These and more recent readings, such as that from the bog at the base of the escarpment at the Caburn, Sussex (Waller and Hamilton 1998), are almost always taken from positions untypical of the chalk and provide information about the scarp itself (invariably hangar today so why not then?) rather than the plateau. Forest environments elsewhere in the world are also the result of human interaction. The Amazon Forest, for

The vegetation therefore may be as much a result of the impact of various species of herbivore, as the activities of humans. Trees were certainly being cut down for totem pole-like structures at Stonehenge by 8100-7100 cal BC, and molluscs and pollen indicate that there were local clearances in the area at this time (Allen in Cleal et al 1995). Further clearances took place in the areas around Cranes Moor, Burley, in the New Forest (Barber and Clarke 1987), while Cranborne Chase may have supported more open vegetation than previously thought (French et al 2003) and at Coneybury there was open grassland by the end of the 5th millennium (Gale in Richards 1990, 252). Interference with the environment

96

in however small a way was, therefore, something that continued from the end of the last glaciation. How humans utilised this environment is unclear and there is an underlying assumption of a nomadic lifestyle based on hunting and gathering, with family groups moving from place to place, perhaps following herds of deer or other ungulates. However, there needs to be a reason to move. Only recently we have heard accounts of how changing weather patterns have resulted in swans delaying their annual migration to the UK from Latvia as a consequence of comfortable climate and adequate food supply (BBC Radio 4 Today 3-7 November 2003). Many of the observations of modern hunter gatherer lifestyles used to infer the nomadic lifestyle have been in locations with a marginal resource base. It is quite possible, however, that a sedentary lifestyle was in operation in the Early Flandrian, especially when climate and food resources conspired to make things too comfortable to make it worthwhile moving on (Rowley-Conwy 1983: 1984), for example, in the estuarine, or riverine locations identified by Clarke (1976).

recovered from Southampton Dock (Jacobi 1981), the latter perhaps not surprising given the attractiveness of marsh grazing. On one hand, wild animals, wild pig - red and roe deer and (probably) bos primigenius - were present at Blashenwell during the 5th millennium (Barker and Mackay 1961); deer and bos primigenius at Down Farm (Green 2000, 42) but, while the assemblage at Coneybury was composed largely of wild animals, domestic cattle were present too (bos taurus), as they were across the Avon Valley at Fussells Lodge. The introduction of domestic cattle appears to have spread like wildfire sometime prior to c4000BC. Domestic pig too is present before the turn of the millennium at both Down Farm and Coneybury. Clark (1947, 129) indicated that cattle and pig, the most frequent animals to occur in Neolithic contexts, were, like aurochs and wild pig, naturally at home in woodland. He emphasised the historical connection between pigs and woods, pointing out the Domesday Book entries for the New Forest as an example. However, as argued above such areas may have been less wooded than he imagined and, as Jacobi (1981) indicated, fully utilised by humans. In contrast, sheep and goats feed almost entirely by grazing and are thought to prefer open country (Clark 1947, 130), though, given restrictions, as on Orkney, can be fed on seaweed along the coast. They remain the major milk producer throughout the world and were formerly in medieval Britain too. A principal use in post-medieval times, however, was as fertiliser on legs, at times the meat and wool almost being useful by-products. Sheep or goat was recognised in a high level deposit at the Culverwell midden (Palmer 1999, 107) but considered to be post-Mesolithic, while the 'metacarpal of a small domestic sheep' was recovered from one of the pits at Farnham, Surrey (discussion of problems in Ellaby 1987, 69). Despite these uncertainties, given the presence of sheep or goat at Fussells Lodge, there remains a possibility that the species was introduced before the 4th millennium BC.

Of course, methods of subsistence may, or probably will, have changed over 3000 years, along with the climate and impact of neighbouring groups. Jacobi (1978, 82-3) commented on the numbers of sites with evidence of gathered hazelnuts and on the basis of the amount needed to sustain one adult, he concluded that resources of the region were exploited to their capacity. Generous quantities of hazlenuts were recovered from 5th millennium levels at Blashenwell, and the process can be followed through into the 4th millennium, with for example, hazlenuts being found in pits on King Barrow Ridge, on Wilsford Down and at Robin Hoods Ball. Jacobi (1978, 82-3) indicated that potential use of hazlenuts was enormous, far exceeding estimates of subsistence based on ungulate consumption. He suggested that these might supply 25% of the diet for four winter months, in which case each adult would need to collect from c 4.4ha. Such intensive use of the vegetation must rely on selective maintenance in order to be certain of a dependable crop. Even assuming movement amongst the population such foods will have been crucial. In northern Australia, amongst 'nomadic' peoples who subsist by seasonal movement, the principal foods comprise a large amount of vegetable foods, particularly tubers, and hunting or fishing merely supplements these. Other fruits were evidently collected too; plum or cherry was found beneath the Holdenhurst and Thickthorn long barrows. By the beginning of the 5th millennium the Coastal Plain in general and the sands in particular, may have been quite intensively used. Dependence on the growth of such fruit and vegetables might lead to curation of the vegetation (Thomson 1939, 209-221).

Clark believed that like hunting, fishing could be used during appropriate seasons to supplement a farming way of life (Clark 1948, 63). Evidence of coastal fishing for both Mesolithic and Neolithic periods within Britain is limited to northern Scotland and, in one case, north Wales (Clark 1948, 84-3). A fishbone was recovered from an inland position at Down Farm, Sixpenny Handley (Green pers comm), though it was not possible to determine whether it derived from fresh water or the sea. Marine shells were recovered from a pit at Amesbury, Wiltshire (Cleal et al 1994) and there are a few potental shell middens recorded in association with flint flakes or burnt flints, for example, by the River Alver at Lee-on-Solent and close to Portchester, Hampshire, in 1886 (Cooke 1923). Similarly, Clark believed that fowling might supplement diet too. Unfortunately, there is little clear evidence for this and it is restricted to Orkney and Shetland where there are finds from burial chambers, and

There are few sites of this period with good faunal profiles. Animal bone did not survive at Broom Hill or Downton. At Culverwell, there were a few pig, sheep or goat and dog, while a split ungulate metapodial was

97

he was forced to rely on evidence from the Lake Dwellings of central Europe where, aside from herons a remarkable inventory of birds of prey are recorded (Clark 1948, 125-7). The midden at Culverwell contained a variety of marine shells, some with microliths inside (Palmer 1968: 1999), and marine molluscs were recovered from tufa at Blashenwell, to where they would have been carried several miles from the coast (Reid 1896: Rankine 1962). A pit at Ulwell also contained marine shells, so clearly there was some use of marine foods prior to the 4th millennium. Most middens along the south coast, however, appear to date to Roman or historic periods. Bradley (1978, 93) assessed the evidence and convincingly dismissed early examples as the basis of any economy, huge numbers of shellfish being required to provide the required number of calories.

population, nomadic or transhumant, based upon a pastoral economy (e.g. Thomas 1991). For such a lifestyle the presence of good pasture is of chief importance and, given limitless grazing, it would be quite possible in central southern England and could even be envisaged as developing from a Mesolithic lifestyle that potentially controlled, or at least kept an eye on, the movements of deer (Sharples 2000). This is the least stressful scenario, a lifestyle perhaps more predictable than hunting, especially if the human population had risen to the point where wild meat was at a premium. Pastoralism per se implies little stress on the land, but it can only work if there is certainty of grazing areas for next spring, or water supply for next summer. It helps to have limitless open spaces with a minimal human population. Forests, where wild animals are present and where domestic animals get lost and are difficult to find, might be avoided. All this is acceptable in the extensive landmass of Africa or Asia, but processes within southern Britain might be a little more constrained by landforms, geology and the predominating vegetation, not to mention the presence of pre-existing groups of people and animals all potentially competing for the same resources.

The nature of home The animal content of the Conybury Pit, with its beaver and seven deer, if representative of the economy as a whole, implies a degree of hunting that would sit uncomfortably with a farming lifestyle. Where fauna are present on settlement sites elsewhere, such as Runnymede, wild animals are rare and their frequency is greater on ceremonial sites (Serjeantson forthcoming: pers comm). Given the way that the Coneybury site developed very much later, attracting a henge (Richards 1990), it may be that such an explanation applied there too. Throughout the 5th to 3rd millennia, cattle provide the greatest proportion of animals in domestic contexts, although in the 3rd millennium the frequency of pig increases at some sites, before it finally declines in the early second millennium presumably as woodland diminished. Even here, however, the increase is at the expense of sheep. Though no bone was recovered at Holdenhurst, cattle certainly played an important role during the 4th millennium, e.g. the presence of skulls at long barrows, Amesbury 42, Boles Barrow, Knook, Tilshead Lodge and others, and the early presence at Coneybury, and in pits at King Barrow Ridge and Vespasian’s Ridge (Maltby, in Richards 1990, 66). Cattle predominate in pits outside Robin Hoods Ball and by 3500BC are seen as commonplace at causewayed enclosures. None of this necessarily implies that the primary role in the economy was pastoral or nomadic. Indeed as Grigson (1986) observed, evidence of mixed animal populations occurs at many sites and the complex grazing regimes required to maintain such stock almost certainly implies sedentary farming.

There are other restrictions and limitations. Accounts of nomadic, pastoral lifestyles (e.g. Stenning 1970) indicate that family and stock will be completely interdependent on each other, and the food, shelter, water, warmth, all fully shared. The success of the human family in such circumstances depends entirely on the health and fecundity of the stock and, should there be problems with either pastures or water, disease may result and the balance of the herd/flock affected. Equally, protection is important: now fox is the only predator, but then wolf and bear as well; and camp fires and enclosures might be expected to play an important role. Life focuses on milk products, the milk itself fuelling both humans and calves/lambs, the supply in turn dictated by good pasture and adequate water. Milk supply is also the result of good controlled breeding and the need to visit markets and to introduce new blood is part of this. Normally it is not possible to use the stock as meat, as the milk supply will be depleted and such use of animals will only be for rare ceremonial occasions (e.g. Stenning 1970). Climate too, will play its part, and for parts of the year the environment on the chalk downland, where today cattle are overwintered in sheds, might be considered a hostile one for some stock, forcing movement towards the Coastal Plain. Nomads in the undulating Mongolian steppes, grassland topographically similar to Salisbury Plain, are thought to need a radius of no less than 25km to subsist and, during droughts or, where animals stray, distances of up to 150km may be travelled (Humphrey 1995, 144). Such a radius will define the homeland of a group and it will be their world. Given this scenario, the chalk of Salisbury Plain, 25km west to east, by 20km north to south might support no more than a single family group. If the wider

Nomadic Whereas Renfrew's (1973) emerging chiefdom was constructed on a supposed agrarian economy, the lack of evidence for Neolithic housing in southern Britain has more recently encouraged the view of a mobile

98

Historically, nomadic farmers rarely deal with large numbers of stock, just enough to sustain themselves, though new herds/flocks might be created on marriage (Braudel 1970, 55). But the movements are prescribed, partially by the availability of pasture, water and by the climate, but also by the presence of non-pastoral people, of which there may be greater or lesser numbers. Where nomads come into contact with agriculturists there may be conflict. In the Sahara, nomads take their flocks into the desert in winter but return to the coastal zone during the summer (Braudel 1970, 63) where they mix with people of other lifestyles, fishermen, merchants, cloth makers etc. Thus nomadism is only a part of an overall economy and often a minor part. Movement from one place to another will not be without purpose and the distinction between nomad and transhumant, is quite blurred. Essentially, nomads might have a lifestyle that ensures that they permanently move, although they are interdependent on other lifestyles during part of the year. The process is not too dissimilar from that referred to by Braudel (1970, 54) as inverse transhumance, where some herdsman and shepherds in Italy spend much time in the hills, but descend to the Coastal Plain during winter, where their flocks are squeezed onto fields amongst other flocks from the local village. Whereas this intensive manuring might be welcomed, the itinerant shepherds themselves are not, being considered outcasts from society.

Solent drainage is included, just a few more. This seems to be a remarkably low figure for such an area given the numbers of long barrows present. It may emphasise the danger of employing such comparisons across large areas where factors of climate and richness of grasses, may for example, play different roles. Today grassland is carefully curated and managed, deer, rabbits and other wild animals kept at bay, and movements of stock (and people) around meadow and pasture carefully controlled. There is an implication of intensification throughout the 5th millennium, brought about by rising sea-level coupled with new ideas and equipment, and this might prompt an abandonment of any former nomadic lifestyle that existed and foster an interest in legitimisation of presence and subdivision of territory. In these circumstances, domestication of livestock may have been something that was enforced by restrictions on space. Assuming that each long barrow was the product of a different group of people, the infilling of the land to the extent implied by their spacing implies that such wandering pastoralism would be severely restricted. Whether or not they mark the presence of a local sedentary population, or a nomadic one that moves on, the grazing at these locations would be denied to others, as perhaps, albeit temporarily, would be access to water supplies. The competition for resources implied by the presence of these markers, therefore implies a denial of resources as well as a degree of social order not conducive to a nomadic lifestyle. Assuming that such a lifestyle once existed, it would be pushed to the fringes, as it has been in the UK throughout history.

The well-spaced barrow cemeteries in central southern England appear to represent many generations and the implication from the spatial distribution is that they are marking land-units, specifically dividing up the valleys. Marking such positions makes sense whatever the economy and period. An important hunter/gatherer resource is likely to be fish and the traditional collecting zone will be jealously guarded by tradition. Equally, access to freshwater is of paramount importance in terms of stock management, as are areas for grazing. It is likely that rights of access to stretches of waterfront in particular, and its fauna and flora by implication, was established at a very early point indeed and by the 2nd millennium may have been demarcated by more permanent boundaries. Unsuitable use of even a small part of the drainage pattern, over-fishing for example (by perhaps poisoning c.f. Thomson 1939), burning of scrub (ibid), or use of pasture reserved for later, will cause friction and in view of the importance of retaining harmony and thereby comfortable subsistence within the whole of the environment, it is likely that land-units along valleys were established by common consent. By the 2nd millennium they may have been firmly established in tradition and mythology. The implication arising from this, however, is that staking claim or marking out such places in this way means that they were occupied, and that access was denied to others. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to countenance countless individuals hunting, fishing, or grazing herds

The historic settlement and land-use pattern is also a reflection of the local resources available, animal, vegetable and mineral, and the major concerns in prehistory, at least in terms of subsistence, must essentially have been those of pre-industrial Britain, which focussed on the supply/presence of water. Not only was this desirable for a number of 'domestic' industrial procedures, for example, tanning, but crucial for human consumption too. Perhaps the most important factor, however, were stock. Cattle, in particular need huge quantities, each taking at least 10 gallons of water daily to remain in reasonable health (T Harris, West Nolands Farm, Yatesbury pers comm). The huge flocks of sheep kept on marginal downland in Medieval Wiltshire were taken down to the valley each night to be watered and were folded overnight on the arable fields to deposit dung. The arable fields depended on them - the larger the flock, the greater the area that could be cultivated. The two were inextricably linked (McOmish et al 2002). Early cultivation must have involved similar processes, with many 'Celtic' fields being used as paddocks, holding stock or left in fallow and with animals being used to feed on stubble and manure the land.

99

across an area so carefully curated by another group of people.

on Salisbury Plain, though pasture anywhere would do, and not exclusively the higher ground. Marshland grasses, in particular, in the Somerset Levels, and East Fen in Lincolnshire, were all employed for summer grazing (Fox 1996a, 6). Marshland on the shoreline was also often utilised in this way. Transhumance processes operated around fishing too. Temporary structures were often established in coastal areas in response to seasonal herring fishing, and many historic coastal fishing villages developed from these transhumance settlements (Fox 1996b, 65). Like transhumance systems inland, they needed the integral involvement of farmers 'in the occupations of the shoreline….seasonal interlocking between farming tasks inland and tasks of shoreline' (Fox 1996b. 65). Braudel (1972, 111) points out that hundreds of Mediterranean fishing villages evolved out of a transhumance package simply because of the lack of agricultural or pastoral land. The process involves establishing temporary shelters on the pastures too. Sheds in Feckenham Forest in the 13th century are recorded (Fox 1996a, 8) and the practice gave rise to sheepcotes and sheep enclosures and other temporary shelters in e.g. Gloucestershire (Dyer 1996) or Wiltshire.

Transhumance In contrast to a nomadic lifestyle where the whole family moves, with transhumance there is movement from an agricultural home base, involving a seasonal migration of herds with their keepers, a process considered to have developed as a result of the stresses placed on land-use by an increasing population (RCHME 1970, 1-5). The process was widely used in Britain during the historic period (RCHME 1970, 1) and is still in operation in parts of the continental mainland and the Mediterranean. Usually, the practice involves clearing stock from the home open arable fields, where they have been feeding on stubble and manuring plots during the winter, in order that crops are not damaged during the growing season. The process is an integral part of an unenclosed mixed farming regime (Herring 1996, 39: Fox 1996a for examples and extensive bibliography). The summer pasture in such a system can be at various distances from the settlement, but sufficiently far to warrant certain members of the family stopping away from home. Invariably those travelling appear to have been young women, as men tended to be engaged in the more strenuous agrarian activities, including the harvest, at home (Fox 1996a, 8: Herring 1996, 39). Such seasonal movements had implications for families, which were split up for several months at a time, and the benefits that encrue in such a lifestyle need to outweigh the disadvantages. Some of which might come from the ability to exchange dairy produce or fattened stock at end of the summer period when they are taken back to settlements (Herring 1996, 35: Fox 1996a, 8, 15), an occasion too for celebration on return of family members.

Transhumance is therefore a specialist pastoral component in an otherwise productive agrarian economy (Braudel 1972, 54). In contrast to nomadic methods, transhumance can deal with enormous numbers of stock and is a highly organised activity and valuable part of the village economy. The whole process is highly regulated, with formal understandings, agreements and with institutions that implement the rules and regulations. Such a structure aimed to minimise conflict, not least with individuals who already worked in, or occupied, such areas: woodcutters, trappers, crofters and those with small farmsteads, as well as those encountered along the route (ibid 55). In historic times, organised upland summer pastures have always been part of land in ownership, with demarcated boundaries, and was rented out to individuals with formal agreement. Formal routes, in Italy 15m wide, were demarcated in order to avoid cultivated land used by others, and there were recognised and regulated resting pastures on the way. Otherwise, in less densely settled places, routeways into the interior tended to be along highland streams, and that is predominately where historic temporary dwellings are often located on the higher ground (RCHME 1970, 7). Such regulated systems must take a considerable period of time to evolve and there are liable to be ebbs and flows of commitment to the process (Braudel 1972, 64), but finally more efficient methods of pasture management were adopted as a result of agricultural improvements in the UK during the 18th century (RCHME 1970, 3) and, as a result, transhumance dwindled.

Thus there are two types of transhumance: greater, where long distances are covered, sometimes excessively so (Braudel 1972, 58), to a prearranged set of pastures. This typically applied to Mediterranean countries where stock were moved great distances from coastal lowlands to summer pastures in the usually inaccessible mountainous Alpine or Apennine regions. In contrast, the more usual lesser or short transhumance might be quite local (ibid) and was widely used across Europe and the Mediterranean as well as in the UK. This was essentially the type of stock management in operation in postmedieval Wiltshire or the Cotswolds, whereby sheep were taken out to summer pastures at the furthest extent of the parish during summer months. Summer pastures were often too marginal for normal settlement, but provide an attractive bite of grass in spring for animals kept on stubble and straw throughout the winter. Such summer grazing is implied by the placenames such as Summer Down, Cow Down, Sheep Down

The subject has been considered at some length here as the idea of transhumance was suggested as a means of

100

explaining the distribution of barrows on the Wessex chalk downs. Fleming (1971) concluded that many of the barrows were constructed by a transhumant population as they looked after the stock, but they were also considered to form the elite within society as a whole, whereas cereal farming was left to a less mobile peasantry. In Fleming’s model, transhumance was evidently to unrestricted open or common land, and groups constructed barrows while they were there. Lack of settlement evidence on the chalk throughout the 4th to earlier 2nd millennia might easily fit the model, small occasional enclosures being seen as transhumant centres. Given traditional interpretations of scrapers, industries dominated by such artefacts found in pits at Robin Hoods Ball might support the idea of a pastoral way of life in the 4th millennium, but microwear studies have now indicated that scrapers (at least in a Mesolithic context) were used primarily for working bone, antler and wood rather than scraping hides (Dumont 1988), and in any case a full tool-kit is needed to construct kraals and temporary huts. However, even if we apply Fleming's model to earlier millennia, the important question concerns the location and nature of the permanent settlement, the places where the transhumants came from and returned to, where the herds fed on the stubble and the major part of the population grew their cereals.

of floated water-meadows, were a final component in this method of mixed-farming, whereby the more sheep that could be kept, the greater the amount of arable that could be manured. The floated water-meadows ensured early grazing for large flocks in spring before they were sent out onto the Higher Down. Field barns, temporary shelters for tools, fleeces and stores, but also used for accommodation during lambing etc., were established at a distance from villages. 'Shepherds Garden' an enclosure on Charlton Down on Salisbury Plain is one such (McOmish et al 2002). In later years, caravans, sheds on wheels, were used. If this is so, it would be ineffective using barrows to mark grazing spots as the understanding, or tradition, especially given the numbers and close proximity of some monuments, would be open to abuse by others. Medieval style regulation might have been employed but this would imply an even greater degree of co-ordination and control. Only by occupying the adjacent environs would it be possible to benefit from the effort invested in monument construction, and such monuments or cemeteries of them, are each therefore, likely to mark the location of land-units containing permanent settlements. Most such land-units are likely to comprise a length of river frontage, meadowland for stock, the river both a channel for communication and a source of variety in diet, fish, eels, ducks etc., together with the means to more industrial activities, cloth making etc. Whether subsistence was entirely pastoral, agrarian or mixed, the land-unit could accommodate it, and the occupants could curate the whole unit for their own purposes. They had some control of their destiny.

In terms of greater transhumance, from say the coast to the chalk, the problem is one of the intensity of activity at each long barrow, or, later during the 2nd millennium, at each group of round barrows. The assumption is that if each long barrow or round barrow cemetery represents a different group of people, the implication is that a lot of stock must pass by or through the grazing areas of others en route and, with large numbers of people doing this, it would have been a recipe for conflict. Well-regulated and defined 'droveways' to ensure that crops, or the pasture of others is not despoiled, have not been recognised in the archaeological record, and it is difficult to imagine how such a route might thread a path through e.g. the Stonehenge area during the 4th, let alone the 2nd millennium. Assuming that the number of family groups on Salisbury Plain in the earlier Neolithic might amount to one per long barrow, say 53, increasing several-fold, to 100's of groups each similarly represented by a round barrow by the early 2nd millennium, then transhumance implies the passage of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of animals. Parallel tracks, marking the shortest distance from each family base on the Coastal Plain to each marked area on the chalk might be expected, but no such feature has been observed.

Sedentary All of the distribution maps emphasise the importance of water, but none more than that of the barrows. In particular, by the middle of the 2nd millennium when round barrow cemeteries were at their most complete, there must have been considerable competition for access to river frontage. However, in each case the phenomenon started much earlier. Around Christchurch the same positions are staked out by the long barrow at Holdenhurst, at Downton by the Ducks Nest long barrow, around the Avon by long barrows at Durrington and Netheravon (McOmish et al 2002) and along the Wylye at Sherrington, Borton, Corton King Barrow and elsewhere (Eagles and Field 2004). All this implies that these important locations in the land were appropriated at an early point. The more lucrative re-entrants and side valleys e.g. Fussells Lodge, were snapped up too.

The remaining possibility is that transhumance was quite local, as it was on the Cotswolds (Dyer 1996), or Salisbury Plain (McOmish et al 2002) during historic times. Permanent settlements in the chalk valleys used pastures on the chalk uplands during summer that were situated, 3-4 km from the village. Indeed the introduction

No Neolithic houses are known - something of a surprise given the amount of archaeological intervention in the chalkland. However, there has been a great reliance on the monument distribution rather than the position of flint scatters and chance finds to point to the presence of

101

domestic activity. Two circular buildings, each with a porch, were encountered at Down Farm, Sixpenny Handley (M Green 2001, pers comm), both in close proximity to two henges. It is worth some caution in case they represent ceremonial buildings, but despite this uncertainty concerning their status, they are likely to reflect contemporary domestic architecture. But there have been too few excavations of sites along the valleys and Coastal Plain. In the Thames Valley it is on the flood plain that houses were found at Runnymede (Needham 1992, 251; pers comm); at Ashford Prison, Staines, close to the River Ash, where a rectangular post and stake arrangement may be a Neolithic house (Cotton forthcoming pers comm) and further north at Lismore Fields, Buxton, Derbyshire, immediately adjacent to the River Wye (Garton 1987).

with this, is the consistent evidence for mixed stock farming. Planning a grazing regime for mixed stock would be extremely difficult without complete control over the local land. Farmers today carefully ensure that sheep strictly follow the cattle onto a pasture. A downland unit of 50 ha can with adequate water and curated pasture today support 35 cows (Tom Harris, West Nolands Farm, Yatesbury pers comm). About the same amount of pasture will suffice for a similar number of sheep, though a much larger holding would be necessary if these stock were to be run together in any way. All of this supports the observation that the presence of great numbers of barrows is likely to signal congestion in certain areas. Nomadic and or transhumance regimes, while conceivably reflecting the activities of minor parts of the population, do not appear to provide a convincing explanation for the existence of large numbers of barrow cemeteries on the chalk, nor of ring ditches off it, neither do they explain the economy of the (silent) majority of the population. The location of that population is best expressed as being settled on the Coastal Plain and alongside the rivers and streams in the region as reflected in the artefact record maps. Thus springs, streams and brooks are all important for early and continued occupation, although subdivision or even annexation of such places may occur as a result of population pressure or warfare.

However small scale the operation, the few grains at Coneybury indicate that cereals were being grown soon after the turn of the 5th to 4th millennium, and such activity appears to continue, again in small numbers, throughout the traditional Neolithic. Scaife (1987, 157) reported openings in the woodland, coupled with the presence of cereals, around Gatcombe Withy Bed on Isle of Wight early in the 3rd millennium and thought that small-scale crop rotation in landnam-type clearings may have taken place. Cereals are present throughout the 4th millennium at, for example, Hambledon Hill (Healy pers comm) along with quern stones (Healy: Roe F pers comm).

Although estuaries and maritime locations provide resources of enormous protein potential (Scarre 2002 c, 84: Cunliffe 2001), as elsewhere along the Atlantic coast there may have been a switch away from marine foods in the Neolithic (Scarre 2002 c, 84). It may be that reliance on such foods was greatest during the Mesolithic, and even fishing may have been part of a transhumance package (Baudel 1972: Fox 1996b). Tidal changes coupled with increasing population must have forced a greater focus to be placed on the management of resources available within restricted areas. However, it is easy to overstate the importance of a marine-based economy, as opposed to one reliant on the estuaries and rivers. The climate differs from north to south and east to west and it is more suitable for pastoral activities in the west and north. The coastal zone is warmer (Davis 1811, 2: Vancouver 1813) and Sutherland (1984, 182), and others comment on the lack of summer precipitation in the area. There is a longer growing season and it is there that one would expect the earliest evidence of cultivation.

It may be that turf stack barrows are involved in the process too. The turf long mound at Raunds, Northamptonshire dating to c3800BC is an early example of this, comprising turf cut from 1000 m sq (Healey and Harding 2003, 4) and implying that sizeable areas were certainly being grazed. Increasingly numbers of turf core barrows were constructed during the earlier 2nd millennium e.g. barrows on the King Barrow Ridge, Wiltshire, each taking turf from 'Celtic' field-size areas of ground. The process represents the introduction of vegetation change within the vicinity of each barrow, for, having stripped the surface, not only would former pasture be denied, but without intervention there would be immediate colonisation by a great variety of 'weeds'. Similar processes can be observed in the movement and clearance of earthfast stone. The formation of a pile, or mound of turves, may acknowledge and symbolise such change.

The lack of field evidence for such early cultivation is perhaps surprising, especially in the Higher Downs areas and must imply that there was initially no formal boundary to such cultivated areas and plots were left open. The creation of fields bounded by ditches, fences or some other demarcating feature appears to have begun during the use of Beaker pottery sometime after c2500BC. Cultivation appears to have been becoming extremely widespread during the earlier 2nd millennium, with an expansion of agriculture towards the middle of

All this points to, at the very least, the presence of gardens or some such plots and, even if managed in a shifting manner, they will be permanent for considerable parts of the year. It is difficult to leave plots completely unattended during the growing season. Moving plots from one place to another, however, does not imply movement of the domestic base, and essentially it need be little more than a variation of the crop rotation operated widely during the medieval period. Coupled

102

the millennium, marked not only by extensive ‘Celtic’ field systems, but also by a decline of Tilia at many sites (e.g. Scaife 1987; 1988). The mobility inferred by Fleming to account for the chalkland barrow distribution implied large well regulated tracts of open land, with grazing possessed by herding groups. There might be an assumption that the unlocated home base could have incorporated cereal use; after all, something needs to bind the group to its home. If coastal pasture was put under pressure by rising sea levels, or even if such a base area was completely devoted to cereal cultivation, there would be greater pressure too on the use of the hinterland. Coupled with population expansion, this would inevitably result in subdivision of traditional land holdings (see e.g. Brück 2000, 291). However, the density of barrow cemeteries from Latch Farm on the coast to Cow Down in the interior, both with extensive interments over generations, provides links with land tenure into the past: links that in certain cases at least can be coupled with evidence of cultivation and provide an indication of a well-settled, utilised and organised landholding stretching for a considerable way back in time. Whereas Brück (2000) sees the creation of fields as reflecting social fragmentation, it may in fact have bound together groups with a new confidence, purpose and common identity.

103

CHAPTER 8 SACRED GEOGRAPHIES

perceived by populations that live within it. While there are differences of detail, profound appreciation of the whole of the land is a common theme, particularly the concept of it being sacred (essays in Carmichael et al 1994: Hirsch and O'Hanlon 1995; and Ashmore and Knapp 1999: Bradley 1996; 2000). On the Mongolian steppes, for example, there are taboos concerning the balance of natural and supernatural worlds (Humphrey 1995).

Introduction Standing on the beach of the South Coast and looking towards the path of the winter sun reveals a seemingly endless expanse of water, broken only by a repetitive wave pattern masking enormous energy. This was the limit of the inhabitable world, the ultimate destination of the fresh spring water from the chalk hills, where it changed its nature so dramatically, an observation readily demonstrated on tasting. This was the ultimate liminal zone and it is easy to imagine how legends and traditions became established. Even the relatively calm sea of the flooded Solent needed explanation; the rise, fall and lateral movement of the tides. Both Cunliffe (2001, 155) and Scarre (2002, 2,72) have focussed on the zone and observed that, inspired by the dangers of the sea and the coastal scenery, the dramatic peripheral location may have encouraged fresh ideas, both practical and sacred. Not least among these ideas would be knowledge of the celestial bodies and the winds and tides and those technical innovations important for navigation.

However, there are also indications that certain places are more sacred than others, essentially those locations that might be construed as providing some kind of interface with the supernatural or spirit world. Thus springs, lakes, rivers, prominent hills, mountains and dramatic scars all manifest themselves as being of sacred significance (essays in Carmichael et al 1994: Hirsch and O'Hanlon 1995; and Ashmore and Knapp 1999: Bradley 2000). Mountains in, for example, Northern California (Theodoratus and La Pena 1994, 27-9), Montana (Reeves 1994, 265-295), Mongolia (Humphrey 1995, 137), Scandinavia (Mulk 1994, 122), China (Palmer), or in Madagascar where the 'summits of hills are….never cleared' as they form an area dwelt in by spirits (Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998, 313). As Bradley (2000) has pointed out, study of these natural places can be an important counterbalance to the archaeology of sites and monuments.

For those living by the coast, the sea limited activity and left a world where only 180° of the local environment was normally accessible. The sea provided a boundary and frame to the world. The horizon was low, level and even and provided an enormous expanse of sky. Nowhere are you more aware of the relationship of the elements. Coastal cliffs exposed the strata of the interior of the land and depending on the local geology, the seams of flint or ironstone eroded, leaving nodules scattered about for those who wished to collect them. Dramatic fissured chalk stacks and headlands betrayed a timeless antagonism between the sea and the land, and there may even have been memories of inundations when the sea had won the battle.

Some of these elements are brought together in the concept of 'mundane' and 'sacred' land (e.g. Barnes 1999, 103), or land reserved for, or dwelt in by the living and land occupied by the dead. These distinctions were effectively applied to archaeological topography by Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina (1998) with the identification of the area around Stonehenge as a 'domain of the ancestors (spirits)' and beyond it the 'domain of the living', something that will be considered further below. O'Brien (2002, 162) suggests that there is a common belief that as the sun sets in the west it is seen as dying there and that the west is considered the 'domain of the dead', while Jordan (2001) identified three components amongst the Saami, the land of the living, the land of ancestors and the land of spirits. This is a useful distinction in archaeological terms, as, in addition to the domestic component, it allows us to separate the built monuments, where the role of partially remembered ancestors may have been prominent, from important natural features where relationships may be with a completely mythological world.

Encompassed by land on all sides, the Solent provided reassurance to sea-farers, shelter from weather and currents. This was a comfortable interface with the wider ocean and its problems. Mariners will have been familiar with the friendly, sheltered inlets and those hazardous currents further out around rocky headlands where underwater monsters may have dwelt. In hugging the shore, sailors will have been familiar with myths and legends about the dangerous coastline and may have needed to appease supernatural elements in order to be certain of safe passage. In some ways, those intrepid individuals who ventured onto the sea were like those who explored underground and, in a similar manner perhaps, only progressed in their task with the tacit agreement of supernatural forces.

Rivers in particular appear to hold a special place within belief systems. And of course there will be long vanished but once extremely important focal points that have long since disappeared, such as rocks or trees. Such belief

Outside the influence of western society there are numerous ethnographic examples of how the land is

104

systems, along with their venerated places, will also have changed through time, though invariably traces will be retained in collective memory, tradition, myth and superstition, not least as place-names. It may be unwise to push these points too far, but it does mean that we need to be cautious concerning interpretations about the meaning of say, flint scatters around springs, and whether they represent domestic activity or the detritus of pilgrimages.

way in which many appear to be deposited in rivers (Bradley 1990) suggests that they may have played out a special role beyond the mere utilitarian. Such links have been made at stone quarries within the UK to explain their often liminal location in high places with difficulty of access (Bradley and Edmonds 1993, 88) and at flint mines as well (Field 1997: Barber et al 1999). Secondary deposits of flint occur quite extensively along the south coast as beach pebbles, in the river gravels and along the higher level Pleistocene terraces and raised beaches. Many of the flint scatters, from the Stour gravel sites in the west to those around Oving in the east, noted during the museum trawl were of such materials and only larger pieces, axes, were found to be of flint that appeared to derive more directly from parent rocks.

There is a further factor at work. That is, the effect of earlier human activity that might be construed as having significance in any contemporary landscape. Thus the remains of former dwellings, gardens, enclosures, even where overgrown and only visible as changes of vegetation, might be perceived as the dwellings of ancestors or spirits and perhaps avoided. Old burial places too, might attract beliefs and taboos of prohibition. Others have emphasised how a society lives within the environment created by its predecessors (e.g. Barrett 1999). Thus at risk of oversimplification, the map has three components, the land of spirits of the natural world, the land occupied by ancestral spirits and the remainder that can be used in a more uninhibited way by the living.

The obvious locations for the collection of such nodules will be those points where rivers cut through chalk deposits and, while ad hoc extraction has been suggested at Little Somborne in Hampshire (Clay 1925, 67), this might have led to more intensive and perhaps ceremonial extraction (?of ancestral bones/blood) from (?sacred) seams at places such as Durrington, with its adjacent ceremonial centre at Durrington Walls. The idea of burrowing into the earth must have presented dangers both practical and metaphysical. The interest in holes in the ground can be seen at Down Farm, where cultural material accumulated in a natural shaft as it weathered from the Mesolithic onwards, and later by the location of barrow groups around dolines and swallow holes in Somerset (Bradley 2000, 88-9) and Dorset (Woodward 2000, 125: M Green pers comm). Woodward suggested that some of the pits containing Grooved Ware found in Yorkshire may be natural features, while Bradley drew attention to the existence of natural shafts at Eaton Heath excavated by Wainwright. Other deep cultural pits were excavated beneath the Neolithic round barrows at Aldro and at Duggleby Howe, in Yorkshire, in the former case up to 4.5m deep (Mortimer 1905, 24: Barber et al 1999, 24).

The problem comes in trying to apply these ideas to prehistoric topography. Investigation of such aspects of the land within prehistory is rather difficult, for the record is inevitably silent on many points that might throw light on the matter. The nature of archaeological survival is such that the special treatment of trees or rocks will only rarely be recognised. Instead, it is necessary to concentrate on areas where there is scarring, damage, or deposition on the land. Sacred rock Discussing tool use by Australian aboriginals, Gould (1977) emphasised how small tools for everyday use were made of local materials, while axes were invariably derived from quarried material, which was perceived in a completely different way. The quarries are considered ancestral 'dreaming places' and the rock considered the 'bones' of ancestral spirits (Tilley 1994, 53). Ethnographic examples, at the Wilgie Mia ochre mine in Australia, for example (Flood 1983) involving the necessity of walking out backwards and leaving tools behind, were used to indicate that there might be taboos concerning entry and involvement in the extraction process. There are similar perceptions elsewhere concerning stone as the bones or blood of the earth. In Mexico, items made of obsidian, volcanic glass, are given special symbolic significance, being used for instruments of 'death and sacrifice' (Saunders 1994, 176) and in Madagascar, there are similar associations between stone and the supernatural (Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998, 316). Stone axes within prehistoric Europe have also been treated as symbolic artefacts with special significance being attached to them (Patton 1991: Edmonds 1995) and the

A series of shafts at Easton Down located in and around the upper reaches of a small re-entrant have been reported as for flint extraction (Stone 1931a) However, the plan of the site (Barber et al 1999) indicates that there is little coherence to the extraction process, with pits and spoil dumps being located on the re-entrant floor and around the slopes in no discernible order. This is unusual, for at most flint mines once the seam has been identified there appears to have been effort to ensure that contact is not lost and that material is extracted methodically. The shafts at Easton Down were all relatively shallow and of six excavated by J F S Stone in the 1930s only two encountered a flint seam and one of those went straight through it. It seems unlikely that they were prospecting pits and in any case the flint seam on the side of the slope must have been relatively easy to locate and follow. During wet periods the seams would impede drainage and provide a perched water table forming a local springline around the head of the combe. There is

105

even a possibility that water is, in fact, the key and that the pits aimed to locate water rather than flint.

travellers (e.g. Defoe 1724-6, 265), that boulders of similar material lay in dozens on the Marlborough Downs has to this day influenced the writings of many, who conclude that the Stonehenge rocks derive from the Marlborough Downs and were manhandled down the massive Marlborough Downs scarp, across the Vale of Pewsey (past deposits of countless similar stones at e.g. Stanton (stone-tun) St Bernard), then up the massive northern scarp of Salisbury Plain. It would be a difficult enough process to manoeuvre such boulders across level ground, let alone lever them up such a steep slope. However, transport of the eighty-odd stones for this distance is thought to have engaged between 200 and 1500 people for between two and ten years, with little rest (Atkinson 1956, 115: Richards and Whitby 1997, 251). Few of those found on the surface of the Marlborough Downs measure more than 1.5m and only rare examples reach a maximum of about 3m. None remotely match the 5m (measured above ground) of the trilithons of Stonehenge. However, the discovery of massive sarsens as large as trilithons, in a swallow hole along the course of the M40 introduces other possibilities. The Rev A C Smith found similar excessively large stones in what was evidently a swallow hole at Kennet in the 19th century (Smith 1884: Field 2005). Such stones located beneath the surface and protected from weathering would allow for dressing to take place before the surface of the stone hardened and this might just provide a clue to the origins of the Stonehenge sarsens.

While hard rock outcrops do not occur in southern England, there is a superficial deposit that has figured prominently in archaeological literature; sarsen (Bowen and Smith 1977). This once formed a sheet across much of southern England, but has broken up under periglacial conditions and drifted into valleys. Remnants occur on the higher marginal downland where historical cultivation has been at a minimum, particularly on the Marlborough Downs. The deposit, however, was formerly more widespread and boulders can still be found in the Pewsey Vale, Salisbury Plain and Cranborne Chase where some examples have recently been recovered with carvings on them (French et al 2003: M Green pers comm). Many have been broken up and removed by early agriculturalists, indeed one such example was discovered in a Late Bronze Age midden at East Chisenbury, Wiltshire (Brown et al in prep), and there is evidence for the breaking up of sarsens at Rams Hill, Berkshire, where they were used as packing to support palisade timbers (Bradley and Ellison 1975, 129). The extensive RomanoBritish sculpting of many chalkland areas will have ensured removal of others to field boundaries, a process that can be observed in operation on the Marlborough Downs. Cunnington observed that these stones lie beneath the surface in many of the valleys on Salisbury Plain (McOmish et al 2002) and indeed this applies across the chalk generally (Field 2005).

Parker-Pearson and Ramilisonina (1998, 323) were puzzled by the lack of archaeological evidence from Stonehenge Bottom, considering it most unusual in that it was a place devoid of monuments or activity at 'the centre of one of the most densely constructed ceremonial landscapes in prehistoric northern Europe'. In fact, all things being equal one might expect the combe to be littered with soliflucted sarsen, and it is intriguing that Cunnington noted the presence of sarsens below the surface in other local valleys and, in particular, mentioned the area around Stonehenge (Cunnington mss Devizes Museum). Numbers certainly lie on the surface around Robin Hoods Ball where they have been disturbed by farmers and the military (McOmish et al 2002). However, perhaps the likeliest location for swallow holes is in the Bottom, and it could even be that the first phase of the Avenue leads to the source. If the large sarsens were indeed derived from swallow holes, the link between certain monuments and such natural holes in the ground would be reinforced.

Despite this, monuments constructed of sarsen within the area are rare. This may reflect the inadequacy of the archaeological record and just as it is plain that earthen monuments have been levelled in great numbers in the coastal zone, it may be true of stone constructions too. The sarsen found on the bed of the Solent in Christchurch Bay (G Momber Southampton Oceanography Centre pers comm) might indicate the presence of a destroyed monument inundated by rising sea-level, similar to monuments in Brittany such as Er Lannic, but with the expected former ubiquity of these stones and the presence of others along the coastline (e.g. West 2004), they are just as likely to represent a natural accumulation. Given the location of sarsen-based monuments on Greensand springs at the base of the chalk escarpment around the Medway Gap, in Kent, one might almost expect similar types of monument to have occurred around Breamore, Sturminster, Wimborne, Romsey and Eastleigh. Stones at Stonehenge

Sacred artefacts The Stonehenge sarsens are unique in southern England in that unlike other megalithic sites the stones have been dressed, hundreds of chips having been found around the monument (Pitts 1982). Sarsen is remarkably durable and tough to work, but is considerably easier to 'sculpt' if it is freshly exposed (Geddes 2000). The observations of early

While ritual monuments survive well on the chalk downs around Stonehenge, tool distribution places emphasis on other places, in particular the lowland around Christchurch and the watershed around Basingstoke. The Christchurch accumulation has been assessed by Gardiner

106

(1984: 1987a and b), who emphasised the large number of prestigious pieces from the area. Given the role of carefully retouched knives and artefacts elsewhere, in, for example Central America (Saunders 1994) or Egypt, it may be that such tools are as much indicative of ceremony and ritual as social hierarchy. Some pieces, the often highly polished, slender, ground 'Seamer' axes, for example, can only have been for ceremonial use, as they would break in half if used in a more utilitarian manner. Some of the ground discoidal knives are also highly polished and it is possible that, just as sacred mirrors were made of obsidian in Mexico (Saunders 1994, 176), they were used in a similar way here (suggested by M Green). Such pieces may therefore indicate that a complete range of social practices was being played out around Christchurch and that there was no need for the population to travel inland for ceremonial events.

beneath the mounds and appear to have been treated in exactly the same way as the human bone. Few were articulated and the same burning and scattering process appears to have befallen them all. Over these remains, cairns were invariably constructed and there appears to have been a little more selective deposition. At Bolesbarrow, for example, seven cattle skulls were placed at the east end, while human remains were restricted to a platform within. At Knook, a skull of aurochs was placed on the summit of the cairn. The distinctive parabolic profile of the Knook mound, as well as those at Boles Barrow and Sherrington, both described by Cunnington as resembling ' an egg cut lengthways', might be considered to form a visual representation of the form of a prone or sleeping animal. More recent excavation at Fussells Lodge encountered similar material and it has been suggested above that the cairn there may itself have been zoomorphic. Elements of such built-in associations can be seen in the familiar horned forecourts of Severn Cotswold tombs and in the horn-shaped features beneath Giant's Hills long barrow, Lincolnshire.

Sacred animals Animals are likely to have performed new utilitarian roles within society as domestication became widespread and cultivation more important; not only as traction animals, but also as a means of providing fertiliser. The link between manure and cultivation was crucial until the development of chemical fertilisers and ultimately one of the factors underpinning transhumance. This may have introduced new ways of perceiving animals, the waste products contributing to the new growth. Ingold (2000, 75) has emphasised the importance of this transition as representing a change in relationships with animals, from one of trust to one of domination. To those subsisting by hunting, the animals were not perceived as being wild, just different (ibid 72) and relationships may have involved coming to an understanding with them, or more pragmatically, for example, firing parts of the woodland in order to provide better browse, so that they can live comfortably and in turn 'offer themselves' for human consumption (e.g. ibid 67-9). Whereas the relationship between hunters and animals is considered to be an equal one, with respect and understanding from both parties, for pastoralists the relationship is completely different with subservience on the part of the animal.

Cunnington remarked on the presence of bird bones at King Barrow, near Warminster; at Old Ditch, Tilshead, there was a 'shovel full' of such bones, while at Knook, bones of heron were recorded. Except at times of exceptionally waterlogged soils, heron is an unusual visitor to the water-free chalk and comparisons might be made with the wing of a White-tailed sea eagle deliberately deposited in the pit at Coneybury (Richards 1990). Although later in date, the skull of a phalerope, a wading bird, found in a neat arrangement with a Cornish greenstone axe and set between two antlers at the end of a gallery at Grimes Graves is also relevant (Topping 1997, 130: Barber et al 1999). These examples recall the sea eagles found in tombs on Orkney, where Jones (1998) has convincingly argued that the animals found in the tomb reflect how the location was perceived within the landscape. Thus the tomb containing eagle bones at Isbister is in a location naturally frequented by such birds. While this might work for Orkney, it is more difficult to apply in Wessex or indeed at Grimes Graves, where sea eagles and heron, or in the latter case phalerope, might be a little out of their normal habitat. However, given the find spots, all are unusual birds. As Jones (1998) points out, sea eagles fly the highest and are difficult to catch, while heron nest high in the canopy of tall trees, and it may be that it is these unusual characteristics that are important here - the birds taking on the same kind of symbolic value as stone axes - being from distant places, as well as being perceived as having supernatural powers, such as the ability to fly (ibid). In Orkney it is the easily recognisable parts of the bird - head, wings, feet - that are found in the tombs and the same applies at Coneybury and Grimes Graves, and since it was easily recognised as heron, probably at Knook too.

Animal bones, if present, were not recovered from Holdenhurst, probably as a result of the acidic soils, and only an antler is recorded from a primary position in the long barrows on Portsdown (Bradley and Lewis 1968: RCHM 1979). However, though in the hinterland a variety of animals feature in such contexts. In 1800, William Cunnington first excavated at King Barrow, near Warminster and was astonished at the number of animal bones encountered. In fact, the bones recovered were almost entirely from animals, few human bones being present. Deposition of animal bones at long barrows was something he recorded at other barrow sites too; at Knook, Sherrington and Bolesbarrow (Cunnington Mss Devizes). Many of these were encountered in burnt areas

107

204m, attracted later monuments. Most long barrows lay well below such summits and where they do lie close to hills they are positioned well below the crest. Giants Grave, for example, lies over 30m below the top of Winchester Hill; the barrows around Danebury lie over 35m below the brow, and at Martins Clump 15m or more below the summit (RCHM 1979). There are occasional exceptions. General, broad, high locations as at Boles Barrow and Ellbarrow, Wiltshire, but the locations are not particularly 'dramatic' or 'prominent', even though they have an extensive viewshed. Closer to the coast, while chalk ridges such as Corfe Ridge and Portsdown contain such monuments, prominent hills such as Warren Hill on Hengistbury Head, St Catherine's Hill, just north of Christchurch, do not. It could be that, as in Madagascar (Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998), such high places were occupied by supernatural elements, where it was considered inappropriate to build monuments.

Sacred places The highest points in the Solent drainage tend to lie at the most northerly limit of the chalkland, around the escarpment of the downs, the Sussex Downs, Salisbury Plain and the Hampshire Uplands. Butser Hill lies at 270m, Beacon Hill, Burghclere at 265m, Walbury Hill 296m and Redhorn at 212m, although these are not necessarily the most prominent places in the land. They are not dramatic by highland zone standards and prominence is more to do with what lies round about, rather than simple height. Even relatively low hills may be locally dramatic where, for example, a deeply incised valley cuts past, as at St Catherine's Hill, Winchester, or Beacon Hill, Burghclere. Early monuments are rarely located on such hills. Some long barrows are situated along the northern escarpment at, for example, Inkpen Beacon or Bratton, but these are relatively few and are presumably related to settlements to the north from where they are visible. At Wexcombe, for example, the two long barrows are positioned on the slopes to both west and east, but well below the summit of the hill. They also lie beyond the margin of the Solent drainage system and instead effectively mark the limit of land-units based on the Kennet Valley to the north (Fig 8:1).

Mesolithic sites occur at a range of springs on the Coastal Plain, but much of the former context of the springs both here and around Tertiary junctions, has been obscured by cultivation. At Broom Hill, repeated visits were evidently made at times throughout the Mesolithic period and into the Neolithic. In itself, none of this needs to be considered so unusual that the site necessitates consideration as being of supernatural importance. However, there will have been recognition of the earlier visits, both in terms of the presence of earthworks - the partially silted pits, as well as in terms of differences of vegetation coupled with scattered artefacts that litter the

Prominent hills within the central chalkland massif e.g. Pentridge Hill, Dorset, 184m, Beacon Hill, Wilts 204m, are also devoid of long barrows even though some eminences e.g. Sidbury Hill, Wilts, 224m, Old Winchester Hill, Hampshire, 197m, or Bow Hill, Sussex

Figure 8:1 Long barrows on the dramatic northern chalk scarp at Wexcombe, where their position suggests that they are related to landunits based on the RiverKennet to the north rather than the Solent drainage. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

108

surface. All perhaps perceived as activity of mythological or remembered ancestors. All will have added to the site biography and provided evidence that could be used to legitimate presence. At Broom Hill, there appears to have been care to construct new pits alongside old ones and a similar process took place at Wakefords Copse too. While there is an assumption that such sites were domestic, such careful positioning with respect to earlier pits indicates that there may be more to it, and that perhaps this represents an early symbolic interest with the spring, an acknowledgement of the ancestral activity and perhaps any tradition or mythology that went with it.

continued interest both in that place and by implication the surrounding land. At Knook long barrow, the covering cairn was constructed of 'man made' stones i.e. deliberately broken down from larger ones and the same may have been true at King Barrow, Warminster. Following the example of Arn Hill long barrow, where a monolith stood adjacent to a platform beneath the long barrow mound (Hoare 1810, 65), it may be that the empty pit beneath Knook once held a similar monolith, subsequently broken up and incorporated in the cairn. It is precisely this process of re-ascribing these places that Bradley (2002) has identified as of significance in Brittany, where stones with pictographs were broken up and reused in a different context. There is an implication that such standing stones or menhirs and perhaps their wooden equivalents, may have been amongst the earliest of monuments, as they appear to have been in Portugal or Brittany (Calado 2002: Bradley 2002) and it maybe that such menhirs or wooden (perhaps totemic) posts identified locations here as significant places from relatively early in the Holocene.

On the chalk, a series of winterbourne springs lie at high levels where the perched aquiver overflows during times of high rainfall. They form important watering places in terms of occupation of the chalk and it is around these that extant barrow groups often focus. Long barrows occur around some winterbourne springs e.g. at Tilshead, though it is predominantly round barrow cemeteries e.g. along the Nine-Mile River, Wiltshire, or on Cranborne Chase around the spring at Oakley Down, for example, that cluster in such locations. Outside the area, wellknown examples of such associations lie around the winterbourne springs at Lambourne Seven Barrows, Berkshire and Rockley Barrows, Wiltshire. This infatuation with springs might, of course, suggest that they were of more than utilitarian concern and the consistent location of barrow cemeteries in such locations could imply that the springs themselves were of enhanced symbolic importance. In Cranborne Chase the Dorset cursus is linked to such a location, isolating a whole series of springs and glacial lakes from their natural valleys. Assuming the former presence of a similar spring in Stonehenge Bottom, the cursus there would do likewise (In 1917 the military cut a trench through the cusus that allowed Farrer (1917) to observe that “a bed of gravel ….a stream ran down the valley crossed by this work”). The general distribution of round barrows alongside rivers, however, could indicate that it was the river as a whole that was important and that the accumulation around springs is only the visible manifestation of a much wider pattern.

The origins of digging into the ground to extract material can be traced to the 5th millennium as well and there is every possibility that many of the core-tools found across the region and catalogued as of the Mesolithic period may derive from the extraction pits at Martin's Clump. The construction of a long mound and subsequent round barrows at the site add to the biographical sequence and serve to emphasise the symbolic importance of the location. Like other mine sites that were used as foci for later funerary monuments (Field 1997, 66: Barber et al 1999), the proximity of a small shallow, long cairn or pavement, situated on the lip of the re-entrant overlooking the shafts at Easton Down (Stone 1933), implies that over 1000 years later the place still retained its symbolic fascination. Nearby are two small round barrows, one discovered during fieldwork for this project, the other within which Stone found a human skull with a rod of flint propped against it (Stone 1934). A sherd of Collared Urn found on the surface of the mound during recent investigation, was probably the result of rabbit disturbance, but it may well have come from beneath the mound. None of this is new, for it was recognised over twenty years ago that certain monuments appear to provide a focus for others and that certain types of site, e.g. ring ditches, henges and cursus monuments, cluster together (Bradley 1981b). Individual monuments also change, evolve and metamorphose, e.g. at the Whitehawk causewayed enclosure, where there were several phases of backfilling and re-cutting ditches and of adding new circuits, or at the Lavant by placing one on top of another.

Mundane locales, sacred spots and the development of places When investigated, most places in the countryside have been utilised in some way during the past by human beings, some by their very nature much more than others and although often slender, the threads of certain sequences of activity can be traced at a number of locations.

Land lacking monuments received repeated visits too, and many of the large flint scatters found on gravel terrace and chalk down alike appear to result from more than one visit. While nomadic peoples may have no attachment to a particular piece of ground (e.g. Stenning

Whether the pits discovered beneath long barrows at Holdenhurst, Fussells Lodge, and elsewhere formerly contained timbers or stones, their removal, allowing the site to be used in a different way, implies a changed but

109

1970: Humphrey 1995), familiar places in the land provide comfort and well being, a degree of security in the knowledge of entitlement to be there. Such comfortable places can become home.

slopes of Warren Hill at Hengistbury Head, while just 3 km to the north, along the banks of the River Avon, barrows occur at Latch Farm and around the slopes of St Catherine's Hill. It is possible to draw boundaries around each of these groups to define areas of 'ancestral domain', but a similar pattern occurs north of there around Breamore and Downton (Fig 8:2, as well as further upstream, and similar zones could extend right along the Avon.

Sacred land While the whole of the land may have been considered as sacred, the monument distribution points to the importance of water and rivers in particular, and it may be that rivers themselves were considered to possess supernatural power. Rivers are crucial to everyday existence and must therefore be shared, not only by other humans and animals, but also with supernatural elements. In general, in central southern England, it is the chalk that provides both the source of water and the higher more dramatic ground. The two are linked. Chalk escarpments provide a backdrop to activities in Purbeck and Portsmouth as well as opposite those places on the Isle of Wight, while dramatic chalk stacks and headlands occur at places along the coast. Further into the interior, streams and winterbournes cut dramatic valleys into the dip slope and here hills provide an interface with the skies. The white soil emphasises the important nature of the area. It may be a spiritual heartland.

Cleggat (1999) observed that, in general, (visible) mounds on the slopes of the valley were predominantly located on the west flank and this is true from Hengistbury Head northwards as far upstream as Durrington, beyond which there appears to be less regulation. In contrast, the only known settlement activity, that at Downton, lies on the east bank. It is possible that this is a cosmological reflection, the west sometimes being considered to be the 'domain of the dead' (O'Brien 2002, 162), though the evidence is variable and far from conclusive. North of Salisbury, where the river divides into a series of tributaries it is more difficult to apply this approach. Along the Nine-Mile River, barrows occur on either flank, as they do along the main Avon between Amesbury and Upavon, while along the River Allen in Cranborne Chase they occur on the southeast bank. While these smaller, easily forded rivers and streams may have provided a focus of domestic and ceremonial activity, the larger ones could have formed a boundary, where it was more difficult to cross and only done on certain occasions. Jordan (2001) described how the land on either side of rivers was used in different ways at certain times of the year by the Saami, and the rivers Stour, Avon, Test and Meon could all have been used in this fashion.

At the heart of this zone, Stonehenge is usually considered to be a ceremonial monument representing a focal point in 'Wessex' during the 3rd and 2nd millennia. Most recently it has been thought to be a spiritual and symbolic location, a place 'occupied by the ancestors (or spirits)' (Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998, 316). A buffer zone of round barrows surrounding the monument (Woodward and Woodward 1996) has been identified as a liminal zone that separates the 'domain of the ancestors' immediately around Stonehenge, with the mundane land beyond (Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998, 318). However, as Fleming (1973) has made clear, the extant barrow clusters, in fact, stretch for some 10 km to the north east along the Nine Mile River as far as Everleigh, while air photographs have indicated that there are substantial groups to the north alongside the River Avon. When taken into account, such a zone of ancestors would need to incorporate rather a different area. While it could take in the whole of the Nine Mile River valley, how far one pushes it to the north is another matter, for given the ring ditches that occur on air photographs around, for example, Charlton in the Pewsey Vale, it might stretch right up to Marden at the river's source. A similar problem applies to the barrows around Cranborne Chase, which can now be seen to be part of a wider riverine arrangement that can be traced further downstream along the valley of the River Allen. Given this widespread distribution of barrows, there must have been equally widespread areas devoted to ancestral domains.

Some adjustment to the model of mundane and sacred land around Stonehenge is therefore required. There is certainly both archaeological and historical land-use bias at play here, for like monuments elsewhere on the chalk, those areas close to the settlements and river valleys have long been levelled, including long and round barrows around Woodhenge; Durrington henge itself is almost obscured by lynchets, while those monuments situated closer to the later parish boundaries have survived. As noted above, the salient point must be that Stonehenge lies between the confluence of two rivers, the Avon and the Till, at a point where they lie just 8 km apart. Domestic and attendant ceremonial activities from populations set along those rivers will as a matter of course converge as they must have done at the Stour/Avon confluence at Christchurch. Here, however, there is a further difficulty. The area is bisected by a winterbourne valley that, all things being equal would carry its own early settlement activities and, like others, it carries monuments along its flanks. The importance given to winterbourne springs elsewhere may equally apply here too, and the example that almost certainly once ran

Let us take as an example the area around Christchurch. Barrows here occur around the spring and on the higher

110

0

1km

Middle Avon - Downton Figure 8:2 Part of a monument complex alongside the River Avon at Downton, Wiltshire, showing an extant long barrow, a series of ring ditches (spots) revealed by aerial photography set around coombes and along the main river valley and, at the ultimate southern end, the location of the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Beaker settlement site on the opposite bank of the river. Contours based on OS data ©Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

parallel world in the settlement of the dead, that is, the cemetery. Relatives might be visited during special occasions and feasts, but otherwise the cemetery is considered symbolically out of bounds and such places might well be avoided for fear of meeting the dead soul (Gow 1995, 54: Jordan 2001, 97). Old settlement sites might also be considered taboo for the same reason, and consequently, over time, the land may become inhabited by the dead, littered with places that cannot be visited because of the presence of the spirits of ancestors (Humphrey 1995, 153: Gow 1995, 54). In such circumstances, although a part of everyday life, burial sites might, in general, be positioned in a location not required to be passed through on a daily basis by the living. It may be that burial generally took place elsewhere, unrecognised in the archaeological record, bodies for example being placed in the cleft of trees, or in

in Stonehenge Bottom may be no exception. Like other valleys on the windswept chalk, the coombe is remarkably sheltered, particularly at the southern end towards the village of Lake where it is particularly deeply incised. Traversing the upper reaches of the valley, it is remarkable how barrow cemeteries are locked onto the upper slopes around the lip of the valley; the Lake cemeteries, Durrington Down, and other groups at Larkhill around the head of the coombe, returning through Luxenborough Plantation. Even the main part of the Normanton group situated on an elevated position between re-entrants appears to be linked to the Bottom. Indeed, Stonehenge itself follows this pattern, being positioned close to the lip of the slope above the valley. According to Jordan's (2001, 96) study of Siberian settlement, the souls of dead people continue to live in a

111

rivers. Nevertheless barrow cemeteries do contain dead bodies, or parts of them, even if they simply represent chieftains or aristocrats or perhaps powerful families and individuals such as priests or shamans, and might therefore be considered as funereal places. Of necessity, memory and traditions will be of some importance (Tilley 1994, 27) and the reasons why barrows should cluster together in cemeteries are intriguing. Each new addition not only confirms the state of the world as it is, but also acknowledges and recognises a familiar past, one legitimising the other.

Darvill (1997) proposed the existence of cosmological axes based on those of summer and winter solstices and as witnessed in the alignment of entrances at henges around Stonehenge. Where round barrow cemeteries occur in linear fashion it is generally northeast to southwest, as at the well known Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads Group or Snail Down cemeteries. The axis is important, for it is precisely that utilised in so many of the 'Celtic' field systems laid out on the chalk and elsewhere during the middle of the 2nd millennium. Around the coast, however, a different axis was utilised.

If there are sacred areas in central southern England, locations relating to the domain of the spirit world, given the anthropological evidence they are likely to be those high points that provide potential interfaces with the inaccessible sky, coupled with those places where springs arise, creating potential entry and exit points into the earth. While barrows need not have been for burial, as cultural constructions they can be taken as of ancestral significance. Such places must be 'the domain of ancestors'. Although there is restricted evidence for domestic settlement, the artefact distributions imply riverine activity and any ' domain of the living' is therefore likely to be mainly contained within the river valleys, where gardens and embryonic fields might line the lower slopes and terraces.

Around the Purbeck coast, fields appear to be predominantly aligned north-south, those at Bestwall evidently having origins in the earlier 2nd millennium (Ladle 1997: pers comm). It may be that the influence here was that of mariners and their use of stars for navigation. While a cosmological model of barrow distribution based on complementary opposition - direct or indirect sunlight, high-low, north-south, light-dark, open to prevailing wind or protected, and all resulting in differing vegetation patterns - has been entertained for southeast England (Field 1998), there appears to be little evidence in central southern England to support a barrow distribution based merely on this. There are certainly areas with more barrows than elsewhere, but the difference can be explained in economic or other terms. The northern scarp of the chalk is the one that receives less sunlight and in places it is devoid of barrows, both long and round, but elsewhere, as in Sussex, the same scarp is covered in monuments.

Dealing with Stonehenge, however briefly in this context, brings with it the dangers outlined earlier of enhancing the archaeological imbalance and reinforcing a view of the place as central to the archaeology of the 4th to 2nd millennia. However, it was taken here as one end, the visible link, in a chain of activities that stretched from the chalk hinterland southwards to the sea and we might envisage that perceptions and use of land around Stonehenge will have applied with greater or lesser degree to other similar landforms right across the area.

The cosmos was probably four dimensional, incorporating horizontal and vertical space, earth as well as sky, and including the supernatural world where exchanges with spirits of the natural world and of ancient people could be made. The perceived world would have been of considerable size. It would have been supported by half-remembered, mythological tales, but reinforced through time by the stories of sailors and the objects brought from afar. Some people were well travelled, for example the individuals who brought the jadeite axes, or the Amesbury Archer himself. Given the longevity of some of the constructional practices and undertakings, the system had the support of time. It had solid foundations.

Cosmos Although it is conceivable that slivers of ironstone were used relatively early, without compasses the observation of celestial bodies will have been the main method of assisting navigation and of laying out the north-south aligned fields at Bestwall Quarry and elsewhere. How and whether individuals envisaged a world with order, there is some indication of the development of an axis of significance. Ashbee's (1970, 28-30) analysis of the orientation of long barrows, emphasised that there was a preferred orientation broadly east, and a secondary preference, southeast, but with variants from northeast to south east. In part this might simply reflect the underlying drainage pattern and a desire to mimic the landforms, but since the observation holds across the country at large where considerable variation might be expected, the underlying observation can be considered sound.

112

CHAPTER 9 SEQUENCE AND DEVELOPMENT

Hampshire, than on the chalk further west, but where it is less evident or absent altogether in Hampshire, long barrows are often nearby (RCHME 1979). In other words, where well-drained soils are present, they support as many long barrows as do similar soils in Wiltshire or Dorset. Thus the nature of the soils appears to be of considerable significance. This link between well-drained soils and monuments has been noted elsewhere in terms of round barrow distribution. In East Anglia, for example, barrow clusters tend to occur on sandier, well-drained deposits, rather than on clay (Lawson et al 1981).

Introduction While the monuments might reflect a cosmological signature and allow construction of models of mundane and sacred zones, underpinning such schemes is a series of practical observations relating to the resources within the land. The spatial distribution of prehistoric artefacts and monuments presented here highlights a concern with certain locations in addition to the expected foci. While the traditional complexes undoubtedly retain enormous importance, it is evident that they form part of a wider pattern of land-use that has been partly masked by historic agriculture and by the nature of archaeological enquiry. These are best demonstrated by use of maps of artefact and monument distributions set against soils and geology, which add a new dimension and help demonstrate how widespread activity may have been across the whole countryside. It is possible to point to important areas of interest not only along the coast around Christchurch and Bournemouth, but also in the west around Tisbury and Dinton, on the floodplain and lower ground around Warminster, and in the northeast around Basingstoke. The predominantly downland distribution of archaeological monuments, for long recognised and studied, appears to be the result of two factors. Firstly, the accumulation lay on marginal land, little cultivated during historic times, in a zone of archaeological survival and, secondly, the record of archaeology on the chalk has been curated and enhanced by antiquary and archaeologists alike. The material excavated from the barrows of Salisbury Plain by Cunnington and Hoare has been reworked and reinvestigated by Thurnam, Piggott and others and repeatedly related to a unique Stonehenge environs. In contrast, the lower ground has had no significant tradition of antiquarian activity or archaeological investigation, and, as good agricultural land, much of it will certainly have been utilised throughout history and sites in this zone of archaeological destruction will have vanished from sight long ago.

Reference to the soil map of the region (Fig 2:4) makes it clear that the different soils have a part to play, both in terms of how these areas have been used throughout history, but also how they may have been utilised in prehistory. While the greater Pleistocene surface weathering of geologies in the west of the region resulted in soils more favourable to early cultivation, the heavier Clay-with-flints sensu-stricto laden soils of the Hampshire Uplands, may have supported heavier woodland cover than elsewhere and provided different economic opportunities. In fact, parts of the Hampshire Downs were considered so intractable that they were not even cultivated during the Napoleonic Wars when corn prices were at their peak (Jones 1960). This is not to suggest that the area was under-utilised or less populated, but that resources differed and were used in a different way; for example, perhaps timber played a greater role. The intriguing clusters of artefacts around Basingstoke and the upper reaches of the River Test on the north Hampshire chalk can be compared with the relative lack of chance finds from Salisbury Plain and around Stonehenge. These former sites are located in a corresponding position within the overall drainage system to those of Salisbury Plain and, given the intensive archaeological investigation in the Stonehenge environs, it is quite remarkable that there should be such a contrast. They are by no means insignificant sites. On the contrary, in terms of artefact recovery they must be some of the largest Neolithic sites in the country. Excluding edgeground varieties, but including broken examples, the incidence of ground flint axes alone, over 440 (Fig 9:1), including 67 from Upton Grey, 39 from Popham, 30 from Farleigh Wallop, 28 from Deane Down and 26 from Oakley, far exceeds those from any excavated causewayed enclosure. Only seven are recorded from excavations at Maiden Castle (Sharples 1991, 220 table 80), while no more than four occur as chance finds (Appendix 4:4). Eight blades, eight butts and 78 other fragments of axes including small flakes and chips come from Windmill Hill (Smith 1965, 103: Whittle et al 1999,

Patterns in the past Why notable clusters of barrows and other monuments should be present on the Wiltshire/Dorset (and further east in Sussex) chalk but not the Hampshire Downs, has never been clear and mainly put down to the influence of Stonehenge and the Dorset Cursus respectively. Equally, the apparent lack of ceremonial monuments on the Coastal Plain or elsewhere in the region has indicated that complexes such as those around Cranborne Chase, Stonehenge and Avebury are unique. In terms of surface resources clay-with-flints capping is more widespread in

113

involved considerable care and ceremony. While Neolithic artefacts are present in great numbers there is no evidence of intensification and in fact the opposite appears to occur. While barbed and tanged arrowheads are numerous, in contrast to the accumulations of material at Christchurch or Dinton, other Early Bronze Age artefacts are relatively scarce. Similarly there are not great numbers of round barrows in the area (Fig 9:2) and the reason for the presence of sites in this liminal location appears to have diminished.

330), while ground axes are rarely mentioned as a component of the intensively explored Stonehenge area (e.g. Richards1990). Exactly what the artefact accumulations around the upper reaches of the River Test represent is difficult to ascertain, and it is too easy to leap to conclusions. There is a tendency to avoid the Carstens soils over Clay-withflints, and although many of the find spots are located at the edge of the Clay-with-flints, most occupy narrow patches of Andover 1 soils directly over the chalk. Symbolism and ceremonial use aside, the great number of axes might traditionally be taken to imply clearance, although a whole range of functional uses from carpentry to tillage might be more realistic. Many of those from the Hampshire Uplands are broken, implying considerable wear and tear. The sites there not only comprise collections of prestigious tools, but the whole range of material, scrapers and fabricators and other items, usually considered to be domestic. Perhaps the most intriguing of finds from this area, however, are the arrowheads, which stand out dramatically when compared to the small numbers from around Stonehenge and within Wessex as a whole (Green 1980). Given the postulated woodland cover of the area it is possible that they are hunting losses over a period of time, but given that killing animals or people may have involved encountering the supernatural, and Topping (1997) has investigated the ritual processes that go into making such artefacts, use may have been less casual and

An important and intriguing cluster of artefacts occurs in the west around Dinton along the upper reaches of the River Nadder. The focal point lies off of the chalk, on a strip of Greensand that partially encloses a deposit of Purbeck Beds. At the base of the chalk the Gault Clay provides a springline as it does elsewhere around the lip of Salisbury Plain resulting in perfect sheltered locations for settlement. This is an important but largely uninvestigated area (but c.f. Gingell and Harding 1983), where the long-lived artefact distribution is strong and contains numerous prestigious pieces. Presence of what appears to have been a henge at Place Farm (Hoare 1810), hints at the former presence of other monuments there too. The other clusters on the chalk requiring explanation are in Cranborne Chase and in the west on the Dorset Ridgway. Detailed work in Cranborne Chase (Barrett et al 1991: Green 2000) has indicated use of the chalk

Vale of Pewsey

Thames Valley

Somerset Levels The Weald

l Va

fB eo

ck la

or mo

Fig9:1 9:Distribution 1 Distribution of ground shown against soil types. soil types see 2:4. Fig 2:4. Fig. of ground axesaxes shown against soil types. For fullFor keyfulltokey soiltotypes see Fig Soil data based on National Soil Resources Institute Soil Survey of England and Wales 1:250,000 soil map ©Cranford University and for the Controller of HMSO 1983. No part of this data may be reporoduced without the express written permission of Cranfield University. 114

Andover 1

Carstens

The reason behind the concentration of barrows on the Dorset Ridgeway is less clear. However, reference to a phenomenon noted in the distribution of round barrows in Sussex might be relevant (Field 1998: also see Garwood 2003 for recent investigative analysis and more detailed mapping). The purpose of that analysis was to explain the marked differences in distribution of barrows on the South and North Downs and for which a cosmological model was preferred. As part of this, the distribution of barrows between west and east Sussex was observed to differ markedly, the difference being relative to the changes in local geology (Fig 9:3). Generally, where Greensand was available for exploitation as it is in West Sussex, barrows were grouped in cemeteries arranged alongside water courses. To the south of this wide areas of chalk and Coastal Plain could be exploited and barrows are widely scattered across the chalk. Further east, the availability of such areas was markedly reduced. The width of the Greensand Beds diminished from c 6 or 7km to c 1km whcih severely restricted the land-use possibilities of settlements. This reduction in usable land resulted in an area where barrows were placed along a limited zone of chalk, squeezed into a linear arrangement, pushed to the ultimate boundary with neighbouring landunits to the south. Greater coastal erosion towards the east ensured that similar processes

springline area where monument construction from the 4th to 2nd millennia was focussed (see for example the distribution of round barrows in Fig 9:2), and there is fluctuating use of the Clay-with-flints areas too. Much Mesolithic flintwork has been recovered from the latter deposits and a detailed plot of Mesolithic sites on Hankley Common (Green 2000, fig 13) depicts these sites as situated astride the Clay-with flints/chalk boundary. Most of the earlier Neolithic material in Cranborne Chase, however, comes from the chalk immediately south but in the Later Neolithic, flintwork is again found on the Clay-with-flints deposits although much has also been recovered from the chalk springline particularly around Down Farm (Barrett et al 1991 figs 2.4 and 3.2). Round barrow cemeteries there invariably reflect the location of activity of the previous millennia, clustering around the springline and perhaps marking an intensification of activity. Their location situated around the River Allen and other streams, appears to relate to activities along the Stour tributary system. Some round barrows to the north of the springline, however, may reflect land units arranged along the River Ebble, the area between these marking the boundary between two catchments. Medieval land units there are still fossilised in the Dorset/Wiltshire county boundary.

Vale of Pewsey

Thames Valley

express written permission of Cranfield University.

Somerset Levels The Weald

le Va

of

o km c a Bl

or

Fig 9: 2 Distribution of round barrows plotted against soil types

Andover 1

Carstens

For complete key see Fig 2:4 Soil data based on National Soil Resources Institute Soil Survey of England and Wales 1:250,000 soil map ©Cranford University and for the

Controller 2:4 of HMSO 1983. No part of this data may be reporoduced without the express For complete key see Fig written permission of Cranfield University.

115

were at work to the south. The linear cluster then was simply a result of the restrictions on land available for subsistence. Overlooking the sea that had caused so many settlement problems, as Tilley has observed for the Chesil Beach in Dorset, it may have evolved into a metaphor for the coastline. Such underlying principles might apply along the Dorset Ridgeway where, like East Sussex, useable land along the coast was increasingly restricted by a submerging coastline coupled with widespread deposits of difficult to cultivate clays, and where the narrow coombes and valleys to the north similarly restricted opportunity.

Coastal Plain might have been a favourable location for early settlement. The soils are warm, easily worked and conducive to early cultivation and the podsolisation of the extensive heathland areas might be a product of early human activity. In contrast to the hinterland, the climate is favourable. It is a degree warmer than the Higher Downs, and today summer temperatures at Shanklin, Isle of Wight, are consistently recorded as amongst the warmest in the country. The importance of the area has long been recognised for later prehistory and the early centuries AD (Cunliffe 1987; 2001), while the presence of Neolithic flintwork in the Christchurch area has indicated an intense investment in that area (Calkin 1952b; 1962: Gardiner 1984; 1987b: Barrett et al 1991). That activity has been confirmed and supplemented. However, this can now be seen as one element in a lengthy sequence of behaviour that starts, develops and continues throughout the Holocene (c.f. Figs 3:1 and 7:3). The shell middens at Culver Well and Blashenwell, indicate that there was some, perhaps seasonal, dependence on a marine economy prior to the 4th millennium BC, but in succeeding millennia the pattern does not appear to have been enhanced at least to any significant degree. Shell middens occurred in association with flint flakes and/or potboilers at Fareham (Cooke 1923) and Horsea Island (William-Freeman 1920-4, 407), but both sites remain undated. This may have been a result of the rising sea-level and breaching of the Channel, as its effect on plankton and the food chain, loss of mudflats and the change in the tidal regime enforced economic change. The effect might be felt inland too as the rising sea-level would result in different tidal reaches along rivers that if utilised could improve navigation and communication.

Figure 9:3 The distribution of round barrows within the western Weald, with hypothetical land-units shown on the Greensand. Similar land-units could apply on the chalk. In the west there are discrete barrow clusters, but note how the linear arrangement on the chalk commences at the point where the width of the Greensand is significantly reduced and barriows on the Greensand absent.

An important group of round barrows cluster around Warminster on the western limit of the Salisbury plain chalk. Many of these lie alongside the River Wylye with the mounds once so large and numerous that Hoare (1810) was led to comment that the concentration was as great as any elsewhere on the chalk downs. Most of the cemeteries once present alongside the river have long since been levelled for water-meadows, but the groups also reflect an earlier use of land reflected in the position of long barrows (Eagles and Field 2004). Apart from the initial investigation of monuments by Cunnington and Hoare, there has been little investigation of this area and no programme of fieldwalking either by antiquarians or modern archaeologists appears to have taken place. As a result chance finds are not great. Like Tisbury, or the Basingstoke area, the location marks the gateway, leading from one landform to another, essentially from the lowlands around the Somerset Levels and the tributary valleys of the Bristol Avon, with that of the interior of Salisbury Plain.

Just as in recent times when the economic success of Britain has depended on maritime operations, the sea must have played an important role during prehistory. The rising sea-level will undoubtedly have resulted in a changed use of the coastal fringe, but the sheltered locations provided along the flooded Solent river, coupled with favourable tides, will have ensured that the area became a comfortable base for maritime expeditions as well as a receptive harbour for mariners from elsewhere. The importance of watercourses When investigated in detail, the importance of the drainage system stands out and even the monuments on the higher ground conform to its erosional patterns. The full extent of drainage across the Higher Chalk on Cranborne Chase has recently been highlighted (Green 200, fig 4) and, in addition, systems of relict water channels identified (French et al 2003). The well-known

The Coastal Plain and its hinterland While chance finds are present across all formations, aforementioned clusters aside, the maps demonstrate that as much activity took place on the Coastal Plain as elsewhere. There are other factors that imply that the

116

sites around Cranborne Chase are linked to the upland springs and former glacial lakes that form the limit of the drainage. Stonehenge and other sites on the Wiltshire chalk fall into a similar pattern. Such places may develop histories over time and monuments enhance that importance, incrementally increasing with each generation. The structures themselves may eventually take on the meaning of the natural place and become a metaphor for it. The incidence of Early Bronze Age burials in these winterbourne locations, for example, may be greater than elsewhere in the region and may relate to history rather than territorial affiliation.

Saami, sustenance is based on a river basin, with base camps alongside the river itself and with all parts of the surrounding land fully used in different ways. With effect from the 4th millennium the trails of jadeite axe distribution and that of other stones provides a link between the sites at the mouth of the Avon and the extant monuments within the hinterland, and while Gardiner (1984; 1987b and c) has noted the similarities in prestigious character between the flintwork from around Christchurch and that of the monumental complexes, the question of whether there are such monuments around Christchurch remains to be determined. It appears unlikely that the extensive development in the Bournemouth area has entirely missed the evidence, but there are locations, particularly around the Stour/Avon confluence where given appropriate conditions air photography might be fruitful. The major unknown factor, of course, will be the area alongside the former Solent River that has since been flooded.

While the springs around the chalk are clearly of importance both as symbolic locations and in terms of sustaining settlement in the region, it may be a mistake to dwell on them at the expense of the river system as a whole. There are widespread examples of riparian settlement patterns right across the country. At one end of the chronological spectrum Mesolithic sites alongside the upper stretches of the River Wey in Surrey, for example, were predominantly sited along bluffs focussing on the narrow river valley (Rankine 1939b), while at the other, the barrow distribution and monument clusters seen at Raunds, Northamptonshire, emphasises the importance of waterside locations during the 4th to 2nd millennia (Healy and Harding 2003). In the later Neolithic the large henges at Marden, Durrington, Knowlton, Mount Pleasant and, to the north, Avebury are intimately linked with watercourses. Similarly, barrow cemeteries cluster in groups at intervals along the middle and upper courses of the waterways, sometimes on the slopes but, in other cases where the bottom is wide enough, on the valley floor itself. As much importance, however, appears to be placed on the other end of the river system, those areas where the rivers meet the sea. In fact, when the artefact record is considered in isolation it is this seaboard area that comes over as more important than any other. For, on closer inspection, even the coastal sites are located by freshwater, at the mouth of rivers or streams - sites such as Hengistbury Head, Crouch Hill, Rainbow Bar, or Cams.

The implication outlined above is that certain monuments result from aggregations of activity at the boundaries of different sized land-units and reflect activity around the margins of land-units rather than major domestic locales. As such they signal a palimpsest of local territories based on river frontages with boundaries at the margins, and larger polities with limits at the outer fringe of the drainage system, all of which might shift about and change function and nature through time. Whichever way the evidence is viewed, the archaeological data coupled with the various historical accounts and anthropological comparisons conspire to indicate that the watercourses were primary features that conditioned the location of early settlement and activity. While the nature of that activity may have changed over time, the message is one of increasing intensification and thereby restriction in the way that land was used. In fact, as indicated earlier, in such a limited area that comprises large portions of permeable geology, social pressures regarding use of the waterways may have resulted in imposed restrictions well before the 4th millennium and these may have been the catalyst for the social mechanism that ultimately led to monument building on such an extravagant scale.

Given the role of water, both in an economic and symbolic sense, this ought to come as no surprise. Tilley (1994, 47) describes the dreamtime tracks in Australia as following watercourses and it is implicit that the major ritual sites that occur along such paths are predominantly related to them. Layton (1995, 223) describes how each permanent water-hole is associated with a base camp and the surrounding temporary waters form a 'country'. Describing the land of the Foi in Papua New Guinea, Tilley (1994, 61) describes how the upper reaches of watercourses are used as boundaries and clans are located around the 'mouth and source of identifying streams', where concepts such as distance are 'related to the flow of water'. Elsewhere in Papua New Guinea, the river systems are used as the core of territories (Broomfield 1970a). Similarly, Jordan (2001) describes how for the

One implication is that, while some kind of order was necessary within the drainage pattern as a whole, neighbouring drainage patterns would be of no consequence, and they could be populated by people of different traditions or lineage. Culturally marking the limits of territory might be particularly important here. The area between such zones, in this case the watershed, might therefore be perceived as 'no mans land', a perhaps slightly dangerous area where quarrels and clashes might occur. Such zones could contain less evidence of human intervention in the land, but conversely contain places for meetings and exchange. In Papua New Guinea,

117

ceremonial centres are located in such positions, where meetings can be held between tribes, disputes settled and feasting and other events held (Brookfield 1970a). Within central southern England during the 4th millennium, such locations often harboured causewayed enclosures. Through time, the nature of such places may have changed, but there is renewed focus of activity at, for example, Robin Hoods Ball and White Sheet Hill, that implies a stacking up of important historical events, a commitment to places of ancestral importance, and ensuring that such places retained their significance within the countryside through into later prehistory (e.g. Barrett 1999).

earthworks, even in agriculturally marginal ‘zones of survival’, implies a former system of open or unbounded fields or gardens. Evidence beneath some long barrows e.g. South Street, Wiltshire, implies some movement of the soil early in the 4th millennium and again in the 3rd (Ashbee et al 1979). Whatever the pressure to reorganise land-use, there would remain a continued need for areas of woodland, common pasture and meadow, while old sacred and domestic sites might also avoid redevelopment. The straight lines and extensive coverage of 'Celtic' field layout, however, is the result of a bold confidence and signifies the presence of a new energy. People fully understood the land and what could be obtained from it. There is an implication of productivity, of a new efficiency, effectively the beginning of modern farming practices.

A framework for land-use Similar chronological sequences can be observed within the land as a whole, for example, on Orcheston Down, where a 'Celtic' field system was laid out around a round barrow cemetery, with lynchet overlying barrow ditch and with fields subsequently cut through by a linear ditch, which itself is aligned on and respects the barrow (McOmish et al 2002). As part of a wider process of land-use, both there and at other nearby sites, the sequence continued with renewed use of the field system (perhaps 6 or 700 years later) during the Romano-British period, with some 'green' fields being adopted as fresh settlement units when domestic occupation expanded. At the same time there was renewed use of the linear ditches, not as boundaries but as new streets and trackways. The junctions of such linear ditches often form the focus of later villages, while in turn many of the fields were later re-used as furlong boundaries during the medieval period (McOmish et al 2002). The point about this is that once a feature has been constructed, its influence is often retained through time as it is easier to re-utilise old field banks than to level them and lay out a new system. How widely this applies remains to be demonstrated, but we still see something of this process repeated in the housing estate layouts of the post-war period, whereby new road patterns reflect the former fields that were purchased for development. There appear to be some indications that the earthwork sequence recognised on the Higher Downs, where the 'Celtic' fields almost to provide a framework, foundation or template, on which subsequent developments in the English countryside were made, might hold good for parts of the Coastal Plain as well. At this stage, however, there must be caution, for lynchets may not build up in the same way on level gravel and brickearth terraces and field limits, especially if only ephemerally marked out, will be much easier to erase.

An intriguing question presents itself as to how far the land-unit arrangement can be extended back in time. The almost regular positioning of round barrow groups depicted here, implies an integral link with the immediate land every bit as significant as that witnessed in the historic period. Where investigated elsewhere, the position of cemeteries or burial grounds are often located in liminal positions, marking for example the junction of forest edge (Tacon 1999, 41), or of a bluff crest overlooking the valley (Buikstra and Charles 1999, 2067). Little work has been done on this within the UK, but Bronze Age barrow cemeteries often seem to be placed in such positions in southeast England (Field 1998). During historic times, the resilient attachment to certain geographic locations was reflected by a remarkable social stability based on family (ancestral) commitment to a piece of land, which hinged in turn on certain social structures e.g. the local political economy coupled with the church. Thus most English villages, although shifting slightly to accommodate population increases or declines, have been remarkably stable over 1500 years. The main reason appears to be that they are sited on those optimum locations suitable for initial sustained settlement, protection from the extremes of weather coupled with access to a variety of resources, water, soils, vegetation types etc. Without excavation it is not possible to know how widely the sequence of countryside development outlined above applied, and it might be pushing the point rather far to suggest that it served as an origin to all English villages, but elements can be traced towards the centres of some, and there are many cases of villages with Roman finds, or circular churchyards (c.f. Knowlton) at their centre. Urban centres too may be part of the process, for example, the Borough layout and the medieval property boundaries at Hungerford appear to be based on a 'Celtic' field system that can still be traced across adjacent Hungerford Common.

Although common elements can be detected across ’Celtic’ field systems, each individual system is likely to have been laid out across a pre-existing land-unit. The process of laying them out, from places fully domestic to incorporate ever more liminal areas, is unclear. Equally, what preceded them is unknown. The lack of extant

118

Discussion of the Wessex finds and monuments has taken place for 200 years now and the data generated over that time will continue to influence public imagination and tax archaeological interpretation, even though some have argued that the idea of Wessex has run its course. In recent times there has been a tendency to emphasise regional variation in prehistory (e.g. Barclay 2001), but ultimately, like Wessex, other regions will be the product of their available resources and how they have been exploited. There can be a danger of repetition in studying selected areas, of writing more parish histories. The interesting point may be in how such areas relate to each other and how they interact. In which case, in addition to the heartland, it will be worthwhile looking at the limits of the drainage system, the watersheds, the gateways between landforms, the areas of 'no mans land' and potential boundaries. Basingstoke is one such place, situated between the Solent and the Thames. Warminster, or the Dinton area leading to the Blackmore Vale and fringed by the chalk of Cranborne Chase and Salisbury Plain are others. In recent times the very notion of Wessex, as consisting of Stonehenge and chalk-bound Bush Barrow gold, has restricted and confined investigation. The image presented here is of a widely used Coastal Plain, socially organised river valleys and fertile maritime exploration, where occupants constantly adapt to changes imposed by natural events and the challenges of new ideas. It is an assessment that provides a fresh perspective and new opportunities for inquiry.

Reprise Changing environmental circumstances appears to have profoundly influenced the manner in which land was used within the Solent drainage. Chief among these may have been the repercussions of the rising sea-level, but encounters with the sea had positive effects too. The unique tidal regime created in the Solent provided a perfect nursery for early mariners while the tributaries provided supurb arteries for the dissemination of fresh ideas into the interior. The pattern of use is not restricted to any particular millennium, but it can be traced from the Mesolithic through into the Roman period and beyond. Thus the Coastal Plain appears to have had a significant role in influencing Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement patterns and land-use. Loess-laden soils here were better for early cultivation than in the interior. The climate was better too. Artefact distribution, increasingly supported by the discovery of monuments and settlement features has created a body of evidence that allows a different model of prehistoric land-use to be constructed. Coupled with this, it is possible to envisage the extensive funereal monument distribution as reflecting domestic patterns; patterns repeatedly indicating the importance of the water-courses. In this respect, Wessex is no different from other parts of the country.

119

REFERENCES Adkins, R, and Jackson, R 1978 Neolithic stone and flint axes from the River Thames London: British Museum Occ Paper No1 Ainsworth, S, Field, D, and Pattison, P, 1999 The changing emphasis of archaeological field survey, in Pattison, D Field and S Ainsworth (eds) Patterns of the Past: essays in Landscape Archaeology for Christopher Taylor, 1-4 Oxford: Oxbow books Albarella, U and Serjeantson, D 2002 A passion for pork: meat consumed at the British Late Neolithic site of Durrington Walls, in P Miracle and N Milner (eds) Consuming passions and patterns of consumption Cambridge: McDonald Institute Allen, J R L 2000 Sea-level, saltmarsh and fen: shaping the Severn estuary levels in the late Quaternary (Ipswichian – Holocene), in S Rippon (ed) Estuarine Archaeology: the Severn and beyond. Archaeology and the Severn estuary 11, 13-34 Allen, L G and Gibbard, P L 1993 Pleistocene evolution of the Solent River of southern England Quaternary Science Review 12, 503-528 Allen, M and Gardiner, J 2000 Our Changing Coast: A survey of the inter-tidal archaeology of Langstone Harbour, Hampshire CBA Res Rep No 124 York: CBA Allen, M J, Morris, M and Clark, R H 1995 Food for the living: a reassessment of a Bronze Age barrow at Buckskin, Basingstoke, Hampshire Proc Prehist Soc 61, 157-190 Allen, M J and Scaife, R G 1991 The exploitation of the flora and fauna and its impact on the natural and derived landscape, in P W Cox and A M Hearne Redeemed from the Heath; The archaeology of the Wytch farm Oilfield (1987-90) Dorchester: Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc Mon 9 Allen, T 1991 Sturminster Marshall Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Arachaeol Soc 113, 170 Allen, T, Barclay, A and Lamdin-Whymark, H 2004 Opening the wood, making the land: the study of a Neolithic landscape in the Dorney area of the Middle Thames Valley, in J Cotton and D Field (eds) Towards a New stone Age: aspects of the Neolithic in southwest England , 82-98 CBA Res Report 137 York: CBA Anderson, F W 1932 The New Docks excavations, Southampton Proc Hants Field Club 12, 168-176 Andrews, J and Dury, A 1974 A 1773 Map of Wiltshire (reduced facsimile edn in atlas form with an introduction by E Crittal. Wilts Record Soc 1952 rep 1968: Devizes Annable, K and Simpson, D 1964 Guide catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze age collections in Devizes Museum Devizes: Wiltshire Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc Anon 1963 Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 58, 30-38 Anon 2001 Yarnton Current Archaeol 173, 216-221 Anon 2004 Testwood Bridge Current Archaeology 190, 428-429 Aprahamian, M and Robson, C F, 1996 Fish: salmon, sea trout and eels, in Barne et al 1996, 117-118 Aprahamian, M and Robson, C F, 1998 Fish: salmon, sea trout and eels, in Barne et al 1998, 99-100 ApSimon, A M 1954 Dagger graves in the 'Wessex' Bronze Age Ann Rep Univ London Inst of Archaeol 10, 37-62 Arnold, J, Green, M, Lewis, B and Bradley, R 1988 The Mesolithic of Cranborne Chase Proc Dorset NH and Archaeol Soc 110, 117-125 Ashbee, P 1966 The Fussell's Lodge long barrow excavations 1957 Archaeologia 100, 1-80 Ashbee, P 1970 The earthen long barrow in Britain London: Dent Ashbee, P, Bell, M and Proudfoot, E, 1989 Wilsford Shaft: Excavations 1960-62 English Heritage Archaeological Report 11 London: HBMC Ashbee, P, Smith, I F and Evans, J G 1979 Excavation of Three Long Barrows near Avebury, Wiltshire Proc Prehist Soc 45, 207-300 Ashmore, W, and Knapp, A Bernard, 1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: contemporary perspectives Oxford: Blackwell Ashton, N, Dean, P and McNabb, J 1991 Flakes flakes: what, where, when and why? Lithics 12, 1-11 Atkinson, R J C 1956 Stonehenge London:Hamish Hamilton Atkinson, R J C, Piggott, C M, and Sandars, N K, 1951 Excavations at Dorchester, Oxon Oxford: Dept Antiquities, Ashmolean Mus. Austin, P, 2000 The emporer's new garden: woodland, trees, and people in the Neolithic of southern Britain, in A S Fairbairn (ed) Plants in

Neolithic Britain and beyond Neolithic Neolithic Studies Group Seminars Papers 5, 63-78 Oxbow: Oxford Bamber, R N and Barnes, R S K, 1996 Coastal lagoons, in Barne et al 1996, 49-51 Bamber, R N and Barnes, R S K, 1998 Coastal lagoons, in Barne 1998 et al 44-45 Barber, K E 1981 Pollen analytical paleaoecology in Hampshire: problems and potential, in S Shennan and T Schadla-Hall eds The archaeology of Hampshire: from the Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution Hampshire Field Club and Archaeol Soc mono ser 1, 91-94 Barber, K E 1987 Wessex and the Isle of Wight: field guide Quaternary Research Association. Cambridge Barber, K E and Brown, A G 1987 Late Pleistocene organic deposits beneath the floodplain of the river Avon at Ibsley, Hampshire, in K E Barber (ed) 1987, 65-74 Barber, K E and Clarke, M J 1987 Cranes Moor, New Forest: palynology and macrofossil stratigraphy, in K E Barber 1987, 33-44 Barber, M, Field, D, and Topping, P, 1999 The Neolithic flint mines of England Swindon: English Heritage Barclay, A and Halpin, C 1999 Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire Vol I: The Neolithic and Bronze Age Monument Complex Oxford: Oxbow Barclay, G 2001 ‘Metropolitan’ and ‘Parochial’/’Core’ and ‘Periphery’: a Historiography of the Neolithic of Scotland Proc Prehist Soc 67, 1-18 Barker, H, and Mackey, J, 1961 British Museum Radiocarbon dates Radiocarbon 3 Barne, J H, Robson, C F, Kaznowska, S S, Doody, J P and Davidson, N C (eds) 1996 Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom. Region 9 Southern England: Hayling Island to Lyme Regis. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee Barne, J H, Robson, C F, Kaznowska, SS, Doody, J P, Davidson, N C and Buck, A L (eds) 1998 Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom Region 8 Sussex: Rye Bay to Chichester Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee Barnes, G L 1999 Bhuddist Landscapes of East Asia, in W Ashmore and A Bernard Knapp (eds) Archaeologies of Landscape: contemporary perspectives, 101-123 Oxford: Blackwell Barrett, J 1980 The evolution of later Bronze Age settlement, in J Barrett and R Bradley (eds) The British Later Bronze Age 77-100 Oxford: British Archaeol Report 83 Barrett, J 1994 Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain 2900-1200BC Oxford: Blackwell Barrett, J 1999 The Mythical Landscape of the British Iron Age, in W Ashmore and A Bernard Knapp (eds) Archaeologies of Landscape: contemporary perspectives, 253-268 Oxford: Blackwell Barrett, J and Bradley, R 1980 Preface: the ploughshare and the sword, in J Barrett and R Bradley (eds) The British Later Bronze Age 9-14 Oxford: British Archaeol Report 83 Barrett, J and Bradley, R 1980 The British Later Bronze Age, 57-76 Oxford: British Archaeol Report 83 Barrett, J C, Bradley, R J, and Green, M 1991 Landscape, Monuments and Society: the prehistory of Cranborne Chase Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press Barry, R G 1964 Weather and climate in F J Monkhouse ed A survey of Southampton and its region for the meeting of the British Association, 73-92 Southampton: Southampton Univ. Press Barton, R N E 1992 Hengistbury Head, Dorset 2: The Late Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic sites Oxford: Oxford Univ Comm for Archaeol Mon 34 Barton, R N E, Berridge, P J, Walker, M J C, Bevins, R E 1995 Persistent Places in the Mesolithic landscape: an Example from the Black Mountain Uplands of South Wales Proc Prehist Soc 61, 81-116 Bates, M R 2001 The meeting of the waters: raised beaches and river gravels of the Sussex Coastal Plain/Hampshire Basin, in FF Wenban Smith and R T Hosfield (eds) Palaeolithic Archaeology of the Solent River London: Lithic Stusies Soc Occ Paper 7 Beck, C, and Shennan, S, 1991 Amber in Prehistoric Britain Oxford: Oxbow Bedwyn, O 1981 Excavations at the Neolithic enclosure on Bury Hill, Houghton, W Sussex, 1979 Proc Prehist Soc 47, 69-86

120

Bender, B, Hamilton, S and Tilley, C 1997 Leskernick: Stone Worlds; Alternative Narratives; Nested Landscapes Proc Prehist Soc 63, 147-78 Bernard Knapp, A, 1999 Ideational and industrial landscape on Prehistoric Cyprus, in W Ashmore and A Bernard Knapp eds Archaeologies of Landscape , 229-252 Oxford: Blackwells Bewley, R, Crutchley, S, Grady, D 2004 Aerial survey and its contribution to understanding the Neolithic of the south-east, in J Cotton and D Field (eds) Towards a New Stone Age: aspects of the Neolithic in south east England, 71-75 York: CBA Research Vol 137 Binford, L 1982 The archaeology of place Journ Anthropological Archaeol 1, 5-31 Birch, B P 1964 Soils in F J Monkhouse (ed) A survey of Southampton and its region for the meeting of the British Association, 66-72 Southampton: Southampton Univ. Press Birks, H J B, Deacon, J and Pegler, S 1975 Pollen maps for the British Isles 5000 years ago Proc Royal Soc Lond 189, 87-105 Bishop, C, Woolley, A R, Kinnes, I and Harrison, R, 1977 Jadeite axes in Europe and the British Isles: an interim study Archaeol Atlantica 2, 1-8 Block, M, 1995 People into Places: Zafimaniry Concepts of Clarity, in E Hirsh and M O'Hanlon (eds) The Anthropology of Landscape, 63-77 Oxford: Clarendon Press Boast, R 1995 Fine pots, pure pots, Beaker pots, in I Kinnes and G Varndell (eds) 'Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shpe': Essays in British and Irish Pottery for Ian Longworth, 69-80 Oxford: Oxbow Booth, A St J and Stone, J F S 1952 A trial flint mine at Durrington, Wiltshire Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 54, 381-8 Bowen, H C 1978 'Celtic' fields and 'ranch' boundaries in Wessex, in S Limbrey and J G Evans (eds) The effect of man on the landscape: the lowland zone CBA Res Report 21 Bowen, H C and Smith, I F 1977 Sarsen stones in Wessex: the society's first investigations in the evolution of the landscape project Antiq J 57, 186-96 Boyd-Dawkins, W 1900 Early man in H A Doubleday (ed) A History of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight vol 1 Westminster: Constable Bradley, C A, Macdonald, A T, Webber, N B and Pelham, R A, 1064 Hydrology and water supply in F J Monkhouse ed A survey of Southampton and its region for the meeting of the British Association, 93-104 Southampton: Southampton Univ. Press Bradley, R (ed) 1996 Sacred Geography World Archaeol 28, 2 Bradley, R 1975 Maumbury Rings, Dorchester: the excavations of 1908-1913 Archaeologia 105, 1-97 Bradley, R 1978 The Prehistoric settlement of Britain London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Bradley, R 1980 Subsistence exchange and technology a social framework for the Bronze Age in southern England c1400-700bc, in J Barrett and R Bradley The British Later Bronze Age, 57-76 Oxford: British Archaeol Report 83 Bradley, R 1981a 'Various styles of urn'-cemeteries and settlement, in R Chapman, I Kinnes and K Randsborg (eds) The archaeology of death, 93-104 Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press Bradley, R 1981b From ritual to romance: ceremonial enclosures and hillforts, in G Guilbert (ed) Hillfort Studies: Essays for A H A Hogg, 2027 Leicester: Leicester University Press Bradley, R 1984 The social foundations of prehistoric Britain London and New York: Longman Bradley, R 1990 The passage of arms Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bradley, R 1992 The excavation of an oval barrow beside the Abingdon causewayed enclosure, Oxfordshire Proc Prehist Soc 58, 127-142 Bradley, R 1993 Altering the Earth Edinburgh: Soc of Ants of Scotland Mon 8 Bradley, R 1998 The significance of monuments London and New York: Routledge Bradley, R 2000a An archaeology of Natural Places London and New York: Routledge Bradley, R 2000b The Good Stones: A New Investigation of the Clava Cairns Edinburgh: Soc Antiquaries Scotland Bradley, R 2002 The Past in Prehistoric Societies Longdon & New York: Routledge Bradley, R 2003 Seeing things: Perception, experience and the constraints of excavation Journ Social Anthrop 3 (2), 151-168 Bradley, R and Chambers, R 1988 A new study of the cursus complex at Dorchester on Thames Oxford Archaeol Journal 7(3), 271-289

Bradley, R and Edmonds, M 1993 Interpreting the Axe Trade Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bradley, R and Ellison, A 1975 Rams Hill British Archaeological Report 19 Oxford: BAR Bradley, R, Entwistle, R and Raymond, F 1994 Prehistoric Land Divisions on Salisbury Plain: the work of the Wessex Linear Ditches Project (English Heritage Monograph No 2). London: English Heritage Bradley, R and Hooper, B, 1975 Recent discoveries from Portsmouth and Langstone harbours: Mesolithic to Iron Age Proc Hant Field Club 30, 17-27 Bradley, R and Lewis, W, 1974 A Mesolithic site at Wakefords Copse Havant Rescue Archaeol in Hants Bradley, R and Thomas, J 1984 Some new information on the henge monument at Maumbury Rings Proc Dorset Nat Hist Soc 106, 132-4 Bradley, R and Williams, H, 1998 The Past in the Past: The reuse of ancient monuments World Archaeol 30, 1 Brady, J E and Ashmore, W, 1999 Mountains, Caves, Water: Ideational landscapes of the Ancient Maya , in W Ashmore and A Bernard Knapp eds Archaeologies of Landscape , 125-145 Oxford: Blackwells Braudel, F 1972 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II London: Harper Collins Brennand, M and Taylor, M 2003 The Survey and Excavation of a Bronze Age Timber Circle at Holme-next-the Sea, Norfolk, 1998-9 Proc Prehist Soc 69, 1-84 Brewster, T C M, 1992 The excavation of Whitegrounds barrow, Burythorpe 2nd ed The East Riding Archaeol Res Committee, Malton: John Gett Publications Briard, J, 1991 The Megaliths of Brittany Lucon: Gisserot Bridgeland, D R 1996 Quaternary river terrace deposits as a framework for the Lower Palaeoloithic Record, in C S Gamble and A S Lawson (eds) The English Palaeolithic Reviewed, 23-39 Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Bridgeland, D R 1999 Analysis of the raised beach gravel deposits at Boxgrove and related sites, in Roberts, M A, and Parfitt, S A Boxgrove: a Middle Pleistocene hominid site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex, 100-110 London: English Heritage Bridgeland, D R 2001 The Pleistocene evolution and palaeolithic occupation of the Solent River, In F F Wnban Smith and R T Hosfield (eds) Palaeolithic Archaeology of the Solent River, 15-26 London: Lithic Studies Soc Occ Paper 7 Briggs, C S, 1976 Cargoes and field clearance in the history of the English Channel Quaternary Res Assoc Newsletter June 1976, 15 Bristow, R, Mortimore, R and Wood, C, 1997 Lithostratigraphy for mapping the Chalk of southern England Proc Geol Assn 108, 293-315 British Geological Survey and Sawyer, J, 1998 Coastal geology, in J H Barne, SS Kaznowska, J P Doody, N C Davidson, and A L Buck (eds) Coasts and seas of the United Kingdon Region 8 Sussex: Rye Bay to Chichester, 19-21 Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee (Coastal Directory Series) British Geological Survey 1996 Coastal geology, in Barne et al 1996, 21-23 British Geological Survey 1996 Coastal landforms, in Barne et al 1996, 35-6 British Geological Survey 1996 Offshore geology, in Barne et al 1996, 24-26 British Geological Survey 1996 Sea level rise and flooding, in Barne et al 1996, 33 British Geological Survey 1996 Wind and water, in Barne et al 1996, 27-30 British Geological Survey and Sawyer, J 1998 Coastal landforms, in Barne et al, 33-6 British Geological Survey, 1998 Offshore geology, in Barne et al British Geological Survey, Dales, D and Gilbert, K 1998 Sea-level rise and flooding, in Barne et al, 31-32 British Geological Survey, Dales, D and Gilbert, K 1998 Wind and Water in Barne et al, 25 Britton D 1963 Traditions of metalworking in the later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Britain Proc Prehist Soc 29, 258-325 Brongers, J A, 1976 Air photography and celtic field research in the Netherlands ROB:Amersfoot Brown, A, 2000 Floodplain vegetation history: clearings as potential ritual spaces, in A S Fairburn (ed) Plants in Neolithic Britain and beyond Neolithic Studies Group seminar papers 5, 49-62 Oxbow: Oxford

121

Brown, P A 1966 A cist burial at Blashenwell tufa pit, Corfe Castle Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 87, 97-8 Brookfield, H C 1970a The Chimbu: a highland people in New Guinea, in Social Sciences Team, Open University (eds) Understanding Society, 50-65 London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Brookfield, H C 1970b The money that grows on trees: the consequences of an innovation within a man-environment system, in in Social Sciences Team, Open University (eds) Understanding Society, 65-79 London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Brück, J 1999 Whats in a settlement? Domestic practice and residential mobility in the Early Bronze Age in southern Britain, in J Brück and M Goodman (eds) Making places in the prehistoric world: themes in settlement archaeology, 52-75 UCL Press Brück, J, 2000 Settlement, landscape and social identity: the EarlyMiddle Bronze Age transition in Wessex, Sussex and the Thames Valley Oxford J Archaeol 19 (3), 273-300 Buikstra, J E and Charles, D K 1999 Centreing the Ancestors: cemeteries, mounds, and sacred landscapes of the ancient north American midcontinent, in W Ashmore and A Bernard Knapp (eds) Archaeologies of Landscape, 201-228 Oxford: Blackwells Burgess, C B 1968 The later Bronze Age in the British Isles and north western France Archaeol J 125, 1-45 Burgess, C B 1980 The Age of Stonehenge London: Dent Burl, A 1985 Megalithic Brittany London: Thames and Hudson Bushe-Fox, J P 1913-14 '..report on the excavations undertaken at Hengistbury Head in 1912-13' Proc Soc Antiqs 26 (2nd ser), 212 Bushe-Fox, J P 1915 Excavations at Hengistbury Head, Hampshire in 1911-12 Oxford: Soc of Antiquaries Res Rep 3 Calkin, J B 1952a A Mesolithic site at Ulwell Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 74, 48-9 Calkin, J B 1952b The Bournemouth area in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age times Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 73, 32-70 Calkin, J B 1960 Some archaeological discoveries on the Isle of Purbeck Pt II: a possible avenue to the Rempstone Circle Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc (for 1959) 81, 114-115 Calkin, J B 1962 The Bournemouth Area in the Middle and Late Bronze Age with the Deverel Rimbury problem reconsidered Archaeol J 119, 165 Calkin, J B 1964 Discovering Prehistoric Bournemouth and Christchurch Christchurch Camden, W 1607 Britannia: or a chorographical description of the flourishing kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland vol 1, translated R Gough 1806 London: Stockdale Campbell Smith, W 1963 Jade axes from sites in the British Isles Proc Prehist Soc 29, 133-172 Care, V 1979 The production and distribution of Mesolithic axes in southern England Proc Prehist Soc 45, 93-102 Carmichael, D L, Hubert, J, Reeves, B and Schanche, A (eds) 1994 Sacred Sites: Sacred Places London and New York: Routledge Cartwright, C 1984 Field survey of Chichester harbour, 1982 Sussex Archaeol Colls 122, 23-7 Case, H J 1977 The Beaker Culture in Britain and Ireland, in R Mercer (ed) Beakers in Britain and Europe: Four Studies Brit Archaeol Report S 26, 71-101 Oxford: Brit Archaeol Reports Case, H J 1997 Beakers: loosening a sterotype, in I Kinnes and G Varndell (eds) 'Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape': Essays on British and Irish Pottery for Ian Longworth Oxford: Oxbow Catlin, G 1989 North American Indians New York and London: Penguin Catt, J A 1974 Loess deposits in southern England mss of lecture at Inst of Archaeology London Catt, J A 1978 The contribution of loess to soils in lowland Britain, in S Limbrey and J G Evans eds The effect on man on the landscape: the lowland zone CBA Res Rep No 21, 12-20 Catt, J A, Reynolds, N S and Reynolds, P J 1987 Long Slade Bottom, New Forest: Prehistoric farming and colluvial history, in K E Barber ed 1987, 5-11 Chadburn, A, and Gardiner, J, 1985 A Grooved ware pit and Prehistoric spademarks on Hengistbury Head (site 6), Dorset, 1984 Proc Prehist Soc 51, 315-8 Chapman, R 1981 The emergence of formal dispersal areas and the 'problem' of megalithic tombs, in R Chapman, I Kinnes, and K Randsborg (eds) The archaeology of death, 71-82 Cambridge: Cambridge Univesrity Press

Chikhi, L, Nichols, R A, Barbujani, G and Beaumont, M A, 2002 Y genetic data support the Neolithic demic diffusion model Proc National Acad Sci USA 99 (17) 11008-11013 Chisholm, M 1968 Rural settlement and land use 2nd ed London: Hutchinson Clark, G 1948 Fowling in prehistoric Europe Antiquity 22, 116-30 Clark, G, 1966 The invasion hypothesis in British Archaeology Antiquity 40, 172-189 Clark, J G D, 1929 Discoidal polished flint knives – their typology and distribution Proc Prehist Soc E Anglia 6, 41-54 Clark, J G D, 1932 The Mesolithic Age in Britain Cambridge Clark, J G D, 1932-4 The curved flint sickles of Britain Proc Prehist Soc East Anglia 7, 67-81 Clark, J G D, and Rankine, W F, 1939 Excavations at Farnham, Surrey (1937-38): the Horsham Culture and the question of Mesolithic dwellings Proc Prehist Soc 5, 61-118 Clark, J G D 1947 Sheep and swine in the husbandry of prehistoric Europe Antiquity 21, 122-36 Clark, J G D 1948 The development of fishing in prehistoric Europe Antiq J 28, 45-85 Clarke, D L 1970 Beaker pottery of Great Britain and Ireland Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press Clarke, D L 1976 Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis, in G de G Sieveking, I H Wilson and K E Wilson eds Problems in economic and social archaeology Duckworth. London Clarke, M J and Barber, K E 1987 Mire development from the Devensian Late Glacial to present at Church Moor. Hampshire, in K E Barber ed 1987, 23-32 Clarke, M R and Green, C P 1987 The Pleistocene terraces of the Bournemouth-Fordingbridge area, in K E Barber (ed) 1987, 58-64 Clay, R C C 1928 Pit dwelling of the Beaker period at Lymore, Hants Antiq J 8, 95-6 Cleal, R M J 1991 Cranborne Chase – the Earlier Neolithic pottery, in J Barrett, R J Bradley and M Hall (eds) Papers on the Prehistory of Cranborne Chase, 134-200 Oxford: Oxbow Cleal, R M J 1999 Introduction: The what, when, where and why of Grooved ware, in R Cleal and A MacSweeney (eds) Grooved ware in Britain and Ireland, 1-8 Neolithic Studies Group Seminar papers 3 Oxford: Oxbow Cleal, R M J, Cooper, J and Williams, D 1994 Shells and sherds: identification of inclusions in Grooved ware, with associated radiocarbon dates, from Amesbury, Wiltshire Proc Prehist Soc 60, 4458 Cleal, R M, Walker, K E, and Montague, R 1995 Stonehenge in its landscape English Heritage Archaeol Rep 10: London Cleggett, S 1999 The River Avon; real-time realm of the ancestors Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 121, 49-52 Clinch, G 1905 Ancient Earthworks, in W page (ed) The Victoria History of the County of Sussex vol 1, 453-480 London: Sreet Cobbett, W 1830 Rural Rides (Penguin Library edition 1967) Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Colado, M 2002 Standing stones and natural outcrops: the role of ritual monuments in the Neolithic transition of the Central Alentejo, in C Scarre (ed) Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe, 17-35 London and New York: Routledge Coles, B 1998 Doggerland: a Speculative Survey Proc Prehist Soc 64, 45-81 Coles, J M, and Taylor, J J, 1971 The Wessex Culture: a minimal view Antiquity 45, 6-14 Coles, J, Orme, B, Bishop, A C and Woolley, A R 1974 A jade axe from the Somerset Levels Antiquity 48, 216-20 Collcutt, S W 1999 Structure and sedimentology at Boxgrove, in M A Roberts and S A Parfitt (eds) Boxgrove: a Middle Pleistocene hominid site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex, 42-99 London: English Heritage Cooke, J H, 1923 Cooke, J H, undated Tales of Ancient WessexPortsmouth: Portsmouth Evening News Cope, D 1976 Soils in Wiltshire I Harpendon: Soil Survey Corcoran, J X W P 1969 The Cotswold-Severn Group 2. Discussion, in T G Powell (ed) Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain, 73-104 Liverpool: Liverpool University Press

122

Corney, A, Ashbee, P, Evison, V I and Brothwell, D 1969 A Prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon burial ground Ports Down, Portsmouth Proc Hants Field Club 24 (for 1967), 20-41 Cox, P W, and Hearne, C M, 1991 Redeemed from the heath: the archaeology of the Wytch Farm oilfield (1987-90) Dorchester: Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc Mon 9 Crawford, O G S 1924 Air Survey and Archaeology 2nd ed (1928) Southampton: Ordnance Survey Crawford, O G S 1929 Air photography for archaeologists Ordnance Survey professional Papers 12 Southampton: Ordnance Survey Crawford, O G S 1953 Archaeology in the field London:Dent Crawford, O G S and Keiller, A 1928 Wessex from the Air Oxford: Clarendon Press Crumley, C I, 1999 Sacred landscapes: constructed and conceptualised, in W Ashmore and A Bernard Knapp eds Archaeologies of Landscape , 269-276 Oxford: Blackwells Cummings, W, 1979 Neolithic stone axes: distribution and trade in England and Wales in T H McK Clough and W Cummings (eds) Stone Axe Studies CBA Res Rep No 23, 5-12 Cunliffe. B, 1973a Late Pre-Roman Iron Age, in E Crittal (ed) A History of Wiltshire Vol 1 Part 2 Cunliffe, B 1973 Chalton, Hants: evolution of a landscape Antiq J 53, 173-90 Cunliffe, B 1980 The evolution of Romney Marsh: preliminary statement, in CF A Thompson ed Archaeology and coastal change Soc of Antiquaries occ paper 1, 37-55 Cunliffe, B 1987 Hengistbury Head, Dorset Vol 1 The Prehistoric and Roman settlement 3500BC – AD500 Oxford Univ Comm Research Arch Mon 13 Cunliffe, B 2001 Facing the Ocean Oxford: Oxford University Press Cunnington, M 1914 List of the Long barrows of Wiltshire Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 38, 379-414 Cunnington, M 1929 Woodhenge Devizes: Simpson and Co Curwen, E Cecil 1930 Prehistoric flint sickles Antiquity 4, 179-185 Dacre, M and Ellison, A 1981 A Bronze Age urn cemetery at Kimpton, Hampshire Proc Prehist Soc 47, 147-204 Dale, W 1898-1903 Neolithic implements from the neighbourhood of Southampton Proc Hants Field Club 4, 183-5 Dale, W 1909 Report for local Secretary Proc Soc of Antiqs 22, 374 Dale, W 1917-18 Report as local Secretary for Hampshire Proc Soc Antiq Lond 30, 2nd ser 20-32 Dargie, T C D, 1996 Sand dunes, in Barne et al 1996, 41-43 Darvill, T 1997 Ever Increasing Circles: The Sacred Geographies of Stonehenge and its Landscape, in B Cunliffe and C Renfrew (eds) Science and Stonehenge, 167-202 Oxford: British Academy David, A 1991 Palaeolithic and Mesolithic settlenmment in Wales with special reference to Dyfed unpublished PhD thesis University of Lancaster Davidson, N C 1996, Marine and estuarine environments, in Barne et al 1996, 61-64 Davidson, N C, 1998 Marine and estuarine environments, in Barne et al 1998, 53-56 Davies, S, and Graham, A H, 1984 Evidence of Prehistoric and AngloSaxon settlement found during gravel extraction near Hucklesbrook, in the Avon Valley, Hampshire Proc Hants Field Club and Archaeol Soc 40, 127-130 Davis, T 1811 General view of the agriculture of Wiltshire London: Phillips de Roever, J P 1979 The pottery from Swifterbandt-Dutch Ertobolle? Helinium 19, 13-36 Defoe, D 1724-6 A tour through the whole island of Great Britain (Penguin Library edition rep 1979) Harmpndsworth: Penguin Books Devoy, R J 1982 Analysis of the geological evidence for sea-level movements in south-east England Proc Geol Assn 93, 65-90 Devoy, R J 1987 The estuary of the western Yar, Isle of Wight: sealevel changes in the Solent region, in K E Barber ed 1987, 115Dimbleby, G W 1962 The development of British heathlands and their soils Oxford Forestry Memoir 23 Oxford Dimbleby, G W 1974 The archaeology and history of heaths Southern Heathlands Symposium. Rogate, 40-52 Dimbleby, G W and Bradley, RJ 1975 Evidence of Pedogenesis from a Neolithic site at Rackham, Sussex Journal Archaeol Science 2, 179-186 Dixon, C 1988 The Neolithic settlements on Crickley Hill, in C Burgess, P Topping, C Mordant, and M Maddison (eds) Enclosures and

defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe, 75-88 Oxford: BAR International Series 403 Doody, J P 1998 Introduction to the region, in J H Barne, C F Robson, S S Kaznowska, J P Doody, N C Davidson and A L Buck eds Coast and seas of the United Kingdom Region 8 Sussex: Rye Bay to Chichester, 13-17 Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee (Coastal Directory Series) Draper J C 1951a Mesolithic sites in south Hampshire Archaeol Newsletter 4:4, 60-1 Draper J C 1951b Stone industries from Rainbow Bar, Hants Archaeol Newsletter 3:9, 147-9 Draper J C 1953 Further Mesolithic sites in south Hampshire Archaeol Newsletter 4:12, 193 Draper J C 1958 Survey of islands in Langstone Harbour Archaeol Newsletter 6:9, 204 Draper, J C 1964-8 Mesolithic distribution in south-east Hampshire Proc Hants Field Club 23, 110-9 Drew, C D 1936 Two Bronze Age Barrows, excavated by Mr Edward Cunnington Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 58, 18-21 Drew, C and Piggott, S 1936 Excavation of Long Barrow 163a on Thickthorn Down, Dorset Proc Prehist Soc 2, 77-96 Drewett, P 1975 The excavation of three round barrows of the second millennium BC at West Heath, West Sussex, in Bulletin Institute Archaeology, London, 12, 19-24 Drewett, P 1980 Blackpatch and the Later Bronze Age in Sussex, in J Barrett and R Bradley (eds) The British Later Bronze Age, 377-396 British Archaeol Report 83 BAR: Oxford Duck, C D, 1998, in Barne et al, 1998, 114-5 Dumont, J 1988 A microwear analysis of selected artefact types from the Mesolithic sites of Star Carr and Mount Sandel Brit Archaeol Report 187 Dyer, C 1996 Seasonal settlement in medieval Gloucestershire, in H A S Fox (ed) Seasonal Settlement, 25-34 Vaughan Paper 39 Leicester: Univ Leicester Dyer, K R 1975 The buried channels of the Solent river, southern England Proc Geol Assn 86, 239-46 Eagles, B 1991 A new survey of the hillfort on Beacon hill, Burghclere, Hampshire Antiq J 148, 98-1-3 Eagles, B and Field D 2004 'William Cunnington and the long barrows of the River Wylye', in J Pollard and R Cleal (eds) Monuments and material culture Eastburn, C P and Griffiths, W F, The Port of Southampton, in F J Monkhouse (ed) A survey of Southampton and its region for the meeting of the British Association, 278-293 Southampton Univ Press Edmonds, M 1995 Stone Tools and Society London: Batsford Edwards, M and John, A W G 1998 Plankton, in Barne et al 1998, 6567 Ehrenburg, M 1980 The Occurance of Bronze Age Metalwork in the Thames: An Investigation Trans LAMAS 31, 1-15 Ellaby, R 1987 The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Surrey, in J Bird and D G Bird (eds) The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540 Guildford: Surrey Archaeol Soc Ellaby, R, 2004 Food for thought: a late Mesolithic site at Charlwood, Surrey, in J Cotton and D Field (eds) Towards a New Stone Age CBA Research report 137 York: Council for British Archaeology Res Report 137 Ellison, A and Harriss, J 1972 Settlement and landuse in the prehistory and early history of southern England, in D L Clarke (ed) Models in Archaeology, 911-962 London: Methuen Ellison, A and Rahtz, P 1987 Excavations at Whitsbury Castle Ditches, Hampshire, 1960 Proc Hants Field Club 43, 63-81 Emery, , and Aubrey, , 1991 Entwistle, R, 2000 A Bronze Age Round barrow and Deverel Rimbury cremation cemetery at Zionhill Copse, Chandlers Ford, Hampshire Proc Hants Field Club and Archaeol Soc 56, 1-20 Evans, J 1992 River valley bottoms and archaeology in the Holocene, in B Coles (ed) The Wetland Revoution in Prehistory Exeter: Prehist Soc and WARP Evans, C A, 1974 Post-glacial environmental change, Gravelhill Bottom, Butser Hill, Hants unpub BA diss Dept of Geography Portsmouth Polytechnic Evans, J G 1975 The environment of early man in the British Isles Elek: London

123

Evans, J G 1984 Stonehenge - the environment in the late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age and a Beaker-age burial Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 78, 7-30 Evans, J G and Simpson, D D A 1991 Giants' Hills 2 Long Barrow, Skendleby, Lincolnshire Archaeologia 109, 1-46 Evans, J G and Wainwright, G J 1979 The Woodhenge excavations, in G J Wainwright Mount Pleasant, Dorset: excavations 1970-1971 , 71-4 London: Rep Soc Antiqs London Everard, C E 1954 Submerged gravel and peat in Southampton Water Proc Hants Field Club 18, 263-85 Everard, C E 1980 On sea-level changes, in F H Thompson ed Archaeology and coastal change Occasional Paper (ns) 1, 1-23 Society of Antiquaries. London Exon, S, Gaffney, V, Woodward, A and Yorston, R 2001 Stonehenge landscapes: Journeys through real and imagined worlds Oxford: Archaeopress and Compact Disc Farrer, P 1917 Excavations in the Cursus July 1917 Swindon: typescript NMR Fasham, P J 1982 The excavation of four ring-ditches in central Hampshire Proc Hants Field Club 38, 19-56 Field, D 1989 Tranchet Axes and Thames Picks: Mesolithic core-tools from the west London Thames TransLAMAS 40, 1-26 Field, D 1997 The landscape of extraction: aspects of the procurement of raw material in the Neolithic, in P Topping (ed) Neolithic landscapes, 55-68 Oxford: Oxbow Field, D 1998 Round barrows and the harmonious landscape: placing early Bronze Age burial monuments in south-east England Oxford J Archaeol 17 (3), 309-26 Field, D 1999 Ancient water management on Salisbury Plain, in P Pattison, D Field and S Ainsworth (eds) Patterns of the Past: Essays in Landscape archaeology for Christopher Taylor, 29-36 Oxford: Oxbow Field, D 2004 Use of land in central southern England during the Neolithic and early Bronze Age PhD dissertation University of Reading Field, D and Barber, M nd (1998) The Neolithic flint mines on Easton Down, Winterslow, Wiltshire unpublished report Swindon: RCHME Field, D, and Cotton, J, 1987 Neolithic Surrey: a survey of the evidence, in J Bird and D J Bird (eds) The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540 Guildford: Surrey Archaeological Society Field, D, Nicolaysen, P, Waters, K, Winser, K and Ketteringham, L L 1990 Prehistoric material from sites near Slines oak and Worms Heath, Chelsham Surrey Archaeol Colls 80, 131-145 Field, K, 1975 Ring-Ditches of the Upper and Middle Great Ouse Valley Archaeol J 131 (for 1974), 58-74 Field, N 1998 Agricultural landscape change in West Sussex 1750-1950 unpub BA diss Univ of Southampton Field, N H 1962 Discoveries at the Knowlton Circles, Woodlands, Dorset Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 84, 117-124 Findlay, D C, Colborne, G J N, Cope, D W, Hogan, D V and Staines, S J, 1984 Soils and their use in south-west England Soil Survey of England and Wales Bull 14: Harpenden Fisher, G C, 1971 Brickearth and its influence on the character of the soils in the south-east New Forest Proc Hants Field Club and Archaeol Soc 28, 99-109 Fitzpatrick, A P, 1998 Testwood lakes, Netley Marsh, in A Purdy and D Hopkins (eds) Archaeology in Hampshire: Annual Report for 1998 Winchester: Hampshire County Council Fitzpatrick, A P 1992a Westhampnett: from the Ice Age to the Romans Salisbury: Wesssex Archaeology Fitzpatrick, A P, 1992b The archaeology of Chichester and District 1992 in S Woodward (ed) Annual Report for Southern Archaeology 1992, 49-54 Chichester: Chichester District Council Fitzpatrick, A P 1992c Report on the Westhampnett by-pass, near Chichester, West Sussex Sussex Archaeol Soc Newsletter 67 Fitzpatrick, A P 2002 The Amesbury Archer: 'King of Stonehenge?' PAST 41 London: Prehistoric Soc Fitzpatrick, A P 2003 The Amesbury Archer Current Archaeol 184, 146-152 Fitzpatrick, A P, Powell, A B and Allen, M J 2001 (unpublished) Archaeological Excavations on the Route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex, 1992 Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Fleming, A 1971 Territorial patterns in Bronze Age Wessex Proc Prehist Soc 37 (1), 138-166

Fleming, A 1973 Models for the development of the Wessex culture, in C Renfrew (ed) The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory, 571-585 London: Duckworth Flood, J 1983 The archaeology of the Dreamtime London: Collins Fowles, J ed 1980 John Aubrey's Monumenta Britannica Sherbourne: DPC Fox, C, Sir 1947 The Personality of Britain Cardiff: National Museum Wales Fox, H S A 1996a Introduction: transhumance and seasonal settlement, in H S A Fox (ed) Seasonal Settlement, 1-24 Vaughan Paper 39 Leicester: Univ Leicester Fox, H S A 1996b Cellar settlements along the south Devon coastline, in H S A Fox (ed) Seasonal Settlement, 61-69 Vaughan Paper 39 Leicester: Univ Leicester French, C, Lewis, H, Allen, M J, Scaife, R G and Green, M 2003 Archaeological and Palaeo-environmental investigations of the Upper Allen Valley, Cranborne Chase, Dorset (1998-2000): a New Model of Earlier Holocene Landscape Development Proc Prehist Soc 69, 201234 Froom, F R 1972 A Mesolithic site at Wawcott, Kintbury Berks Archaeol Journal 66, 23-44 Froom, F R 1976 Wawcott III: a stratified Mesolithic succession Brit Archaeol Rep 27 Gabel, W C 1957 The Campignian Tradition and European flint mining. Antiquity 31, 90-92. Gardiner, J P 1984 Lithic distributions and Neolithic settelement patterns in central southern England, in R J Bradley and J P Gardiner (eds) Neolithic studies I: a review of some current research, 15-40 Oxford: British Archaeol Rep 133 Gardiner, J P 1987a Tales of the unexpected: approaches to the assessment and interpretation of museum flint collections, in A G Brown and M R Edmonds (eds) Lithic analysis and later British Prehistory, 49-65 Oxford: British Archaeol Rep 169 Gardiner, J P 1987b The Occupation 3500-1000BC, in B Cunliffe Hengistbury Head, Dorset vol 1: The Prehistoric and Roman settlement 3500BC-AD500, 22-54 Oxford: Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Mon 13 Gardiner, J P 1987c Neolithic and Bronze Age, in B Cunliffe Hengistbury Head, Dorset vol 1: The Prehistoric and Roman settlement 3500BC-AD500, 329-335 Oxford: Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Mon 13 Gardiner, J P 1996 Early farming communities in Hampshire in D A Hinton and M Hughes Archaeology in Hampshire: a framework for the future Hants County Council Garton, D 1987 Buxton Current Archaeol 9 (103), 250-253 Garwood, P 1999 Grooved ware in Southern Britain: chronology and interpretation, in R Cleal and A MacSween (eds) Grooved ware in Britain and Ireland, 145-176 Neolithic Studies Group Seminar papers 3 Oxford: Oxbow Garwood, P 2003 Round barrows and funerary tradtions in Late Neolithic and bronze Age Sussex, in D Rudling (ed) Archaeology of Sussex to AD2000, 47-68 Brighton: Univ of Sussex Geddes, I 2000 Hidden depths: Wiltshire's Geology and Landscapes Trowbridge: Ex Libris Press Gee, H T, 1996 Wet grassland, in Barne, J H, Robson, C F, Kaznowska, S S, Doody, J P and Davidson, N C (eds) 1996 Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom. Region 9 Southern England: Hayling Island to Lyme Regis, 53-56. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (Coastal Directory Series). Gee, H T 1998 Wet grassland, in Barne, J H, Robson, C F, Kaznowska, SS, Doody, J P, Davidson, N C and Buck, A L (eds) 1998 Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom Region 8 Sussex: Rye Bay to Chichester, 47-9 Peterborough: JNCC Gell, A 1995 The language of the forest, in E Hirsh and M O'Hanlon (eds) 1995 The Anthropology of Landscape Oxford: Clarendon Press Gerloff, S 1975 The Early Bronze Age daggers in Great Britain and a Reconsideration of the Wessex Culture Prähistorische Bronzefunde 6 (2) München: C H Beck'sche Gerrard, S 1993 New Forest Barrows, in M Hughes (ed) Archaeology in Hampshire: Annual Report for 1992 Winchester: Hants County Council Gibson, A and Kinnes, I 1997 On the urns of a dilemma: radiocarbon and the Peterborough problem Oxford J Archaeol 16(1), 65-72 Gifford, J 1957 The physique of Wiltshire, in R B Pugh ed A history of Wiltshire 1, pt 1, 1-20 Victoria County History London: Oxford University Press

124

Gillings, M, Pollard, J and Wheatley, D 2002 Excavations at the Beckhampton Enclosure, Avenue and Cove, Avebury: an interim report on the 2000 season Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Mag 95, 249-58 Gingell, C 1992 The Marlborough Downs: a Late Bronze Age landscape and its origins Devizes: Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc/ Trust Wessex Archaeol Gingell, C and Harding, P 1983 A Fieldwalking Surve in the Vale of Wardour Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 77, 11-25 Godwin, H 1945 A submerged peat bed in Portsmouth Harbour. Data for the study of Post-Glacial History. IX New Phytologist 44, 152-155 Godwin, H 1962 Vegetational history of the Kentish Chalk Downs as seen at Wingham and Frogholt Veroff Geobot Institute Zurich 37, 83-99 Godwin, H and Godwin, M E, 1940 Submerged peat at Southampton, data for the study of post glacial history New Phytol 39, 303-307 Godwin, H and Switzur, V R 1966 Cambridge University Natural Radiocarbon measurements VIII Radiocarbon 8, 390-400 Gordon, P J 1973 The molluscan fauna of the superficial deposits in Rake Bottom, Butser Hill unpub BA diss Dept of Geography, Portsmouth Polytechnic Gough, R transl 1806 Britannia: or a chorographical description of the flourishing kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland vol 1, by William Camden 1607 London: Stockdale Gow, P 1995 Land, People, and paper in Western Amazonia, in E Hirsh and M O'Hanlon (eds) The Anthropology of Landscape, 43-62 Oxford: Clarendon Press Grant, E 1986 Central Places, archaeology and history Sheffield: University of Sheffield Graves, P and Hammond, P 1993 A Mesolithic site at Angmering Decoy, West Sussex Sussex Archaeol Colls 131, 195-198 Green, C and Rollo Smith, S 1984 The excavation of eighteen round barrows near Shrewton, Wilts Proc Prehist Soc 50, 255-318 Green, C P and Keen, D H 1987 Stratigraphy and palaeoenvironments of the Stone Point deposits: the 1975 investigation, in K E Barber ed, 17-20 Green, F J, 1996 Mesolithic or later houses at Bowmans Farm. Romsey Extra, Hampshire, England in T Darvill and J Thomas (eds) Neolithic houses in northwest Europe and beyond Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 1 Oxbow Monograph 57 Green, H S 1975 Early Bronze Age Burial, Territory, and Population in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, and the Great Ouse Valley Archaeol J 131 (for 1974), 75-139 Green, H S 1980 The flint arrowheads of the British Isles Oxford: Brit Archaeol Rep 75 Green, M 2000a A Landscape Revealed: 10,000 years on a chalkland farm Stroud: Tempus Green, M 2000b Down Farm Current Archaeology 169, 4-10 Green, M and Allen, M 1997 An early prehistoric shaft on Cranborne Chase Oxford Journ Archaeology 16:2, 121-132 Greensmith, U T and Tucker, E V 1973 Holocene transgressions and regressions on the Essex coast outer Thames Estuary Geologie en Mijnbouw 52, 193-202 Greensmith, U T and Tucker, E V 1976 Major Flandrian transgressivecycles, sedimentation and palaeogeography in the coastal zone of Essex, England Geologie en Mijnbouw 55, 133-46 Greensmith U T and Tucker, E V 1980 Evidence for differential subsidence on the Essex Coast Proc Geol Assn 91 (3), 169-75 Grigson, C 1986 Animal Remains, in P Ashbee, The excavation of Milton Lilbourne Barrows 1-5 Wilts Archaeo and Nat Hist Soc Mag 80, 74-81 Grimes, W F 1931 The Early Bronze Age flint dagger in England and Wales Proc Prehist Soc E Anglia 6, 340-355 Grimes, W F 1960 Excavations on defence sites 1939-1945 HMSO: London Grinsell, L V 1931 Sussex in the Bronze Age Sussex Archaeol Colls 72, 30-68 Grinsell, L V 1932 Some Surrey bell barrows Surrey Archaeol Colls 40, 56-64 Grinsell, L V 1932-4 Bell barrows Proc Prehist Soc East Anglia 7, 203230 Grinsell, L V 1934a An analysis and list of Surrey barrows Surrey Archaeol Colls 42, 26-60 Grinsell, L V 1934b Sussex barrows Sussex Archaeol Colls 75, 217-75 Grinsell, L V 1938 Hampshire barrows Proc Hants Field Club 14(1), 10-40

Grinsell, L V 1939 Hampshire barrows: agenda and corrigenda Proc Hants Field Club 14(2), 195-229 Grinsell, L V 1940 Sussex barrows: a supplementary paper Sussex Archaeol Colls 81, 210-214 Grinsell, L V 1941a The Bronze Age Round barrows of Wessex Proc Prehist Soc 7, 73-113 Grinsell, L V 1941b The Bronze Age round barrows of England 2nd ed London: Methuen Grinsell, L V 1953 The Ancient Burial Mounds of England 2nd ed London: Methuen Grinsell, L V 1957 Archaeological gazetteer, in R Pugh and E Crittal (eds) A History of Wiltshire 1 (I), 21-272 The Victoria County Histories of England London: Oxford University Press Grinsell, L V 1959 Dorset barrows Grinsell, L V 1971a Somerset barrows pt 1 Proc Somerset Archaeol Soc 113, 1-43 Grinsell, L V 1971b Somerset barrows pt 2 Proc Somerset Archaeol Soc 115, 44-137 Grinsell, L V 1972 Archaeology and distribution maps, in F Lynch and C Burgess eds Prehistoric man in Wales and the west Bath: Adams and Dart Grinsell, L V 1974 Disc Barrows Proc Prehist Soc 40, 79-112 Grinsell, L V 1982 Dorset Barrows: a supplement The Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc Grose, F 1777 A description of an ancient Fortification near Christchurch, Hampshire Archaeologia 5, 237-240 Hamblin, R J O, Crosby, A, Balson, P S, Jones, S M, Chadwick, R A, Penn, I E and Arthur, M J 1992 The geology of the English Channel British Geol Survey UK Offshore Regional Report London: HMSO Harding, A F 1987 Henge Monuments and related sites of Great Britain: air photographic evidence and catalogue Oxford: Brit Archaeol Rep 175 Harding, P 1988 The Chalk Plaque Pit, Amesbury Proc Prehist Soc 54, 320-27 Harrison, R J 1977 The Bell Beaker Cultures of Western and South Western Europe, in R Mercer (ed) Beakers in Britain and Europe: Four Studies, 5-26 Oxford: Brit Archaeol Reports S 26 Harsema, O H 1992 Geschiedenis in het landscap Drenthe Museum Haskins, L E 1978 The vegetational history of south-east Dorset unpub PhD thesis Univ of Southampton Hawley, Lt Col W 1910 Notes on barrows in south Wilts Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 36, 615-28 Healy, F 1982 Single-piece flint sickles in Britain Antiquity 56, no218, 214-5 Healy, F and Harding, J 2003 Raunds, Northamptonshire Pre-Iron Age Project: Research in a Prehistoric ritual landscape CfA News: newsletter of the Centre for Archaeology 5, 4-7 English Heritage Hedges, J and Buckley, D 1978 Excavation at a Neolithic causewayed enclosure, Orsett, Essex, 1975 Proc Prehist Soc 44, 219-308 Hearne, C M and Birbeck, V 1997 The Canford Magna Golf Course Project, 1993-1994 Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 118 (for 1996), 35-50 Herne, A, 1988 A time and place for the Grimston bowl, in J Barrett and I Kinnes (eds) The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age - recent trends Sheffield: Univ of Sheffield Herring, P 1996 Transhumance in medieval Cornwall, in H S A Fox (ed) Seasonal Settlement, 35-44 Vaughan Paper 39 Leicester: Univ Leicester Higgs, E 1959 Excavations at a Mesolithic site at Downton, near Salisbury, Wiltshire Proc Prehist Soc 25, 209-232 Hill, M I 1996 Saltmarsh, in Barne et al 1996, 57-60 Hill, M I 1998 Saltmarsh, in Barne et al 1998, 50-52 Hillam J, Groves C M, Brown D M, Baillie M G L, Coles J M and Coles B J 1990 Dendrochronology of the English Neolithic Antiquity 64 (243), 210-220 Hirsh, E and O'Hanlon, M (eds) 1995 The Anthropology of Landscape Oxford: Clarendon Press Hoare, R C 1810 The ancient history of Wiltshire volume 1 London: Miller Hodder, I and Orton, C 1976 Spatial analysis in archaeology Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press Hodson, F 1964 Geology, F J Monkhouse ed A survey of Southampton and its region, prepared for the meeting of the British Association, 1536 Southampton: Southampton Univ Press

125

Hodson, F and West, I M 1972 Holocene deposits of Fawley, Hants: the development of Southampton Water Proc Geol Assn 83, 421-441 Hooley, R W 1922 The history of the drainage of the Hampshire Basin Proc Hants Field Club 9, 151-172 Hooper, B 1968 Note in Archaeol Review 5, 12 Hooper, B 1969 Bosham flint finds Sussex Notes and Queries 17 (4), 126 Horton, B P, Innes J B, Shennan, I,Gehrels, W R, Lloyd, J M, McArthur, J J and Rutherford, M M 1999 The Northumberland Coast, in D R Bridgeland, B D Horton and J B Innes (eds) The Quaternary of North-East England: Field Guide Quaternary Research Assn Coast Hoskins, W G 1955 The making of the English landscape (Pelican Books rep1975) Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Howard, S 1991 A double ring-ditched Bronze Age barrow at Barford Farm, Pamphill Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 113, 32-55 Hughes, M and ApSimon, A 1978 A Mesolithic flint working site on the south coast motorway (M27): near Fort Wallington, Fareham, Hampshire, 1972 Proc Hants Field Club 34, 23-35 Hughes, M and Smith, S 1994 Archaeology in Hampshire: Annual Report for 1993, 17 Winchester: Hampshire County Council Humphrey, C 1995 Cheifly and Shamanist Landscapes in Mongolia, in E Hirsh and M O'Hanlon (eds) The Anthropology of Landscape, 135162 Oxford: Clarendon Press Hutchins, J, 1767 King-barrow, near Wareham, Dorsetshire Gentlemans Magazine 27, 53-4 Hutchins, J, 1774 The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset vol 1, Westminster: Bowyer, Nichols & Sons Ingold, T 2000 The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill London and New York: Routledge Irving, R A 1996 The sea bed, in Barne et al 1996, 65-73 Irving, R A 1998 The sea bed, in Barne et al 1998, 57-64 Issac, G 1981 Stone Age visiting cards: approaches to the study of early land-use patterns, in I Hodder, G Isaac and M Hammond (eds) Patterns of the Past: studies in honour of David Clarke Cambridge: CUP Jacobi, R M 1978 Population and landscape in Mesolithic lowland Britain in The effect of man on the landscape: The lowland zone eds S Limbrey and J G Evans, 78-85 CBA Res Rep Jacobi, R M 1978 The Mesolithic of Sussex, in P Drewett ed The archaeology of Sussex to AD1500 CBA Res Rep 29, 15-22 Jacobi, R M 1979 Early Flandrian hunters in the south-west Proc Devon Archaeol Soc 37, 49-88 Jacobi, R M 1980 The Mesolithic of Essex, in D Buckley (ed) Archaeology in Essex to AD1500 CBA Research Report 34. York:Council for British Archaeology Jacobi, R M 1981 The last hunters in Hampshire in S J Shennan and R T Shadla Hall (eds) The archaeology of Hampshire from the Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution, 10-25 Mon 1 Hampshire Field Club Jarman, M R 1972 A territorial model for archaeology: a behavioral and geographical approach, in D L Clarke (ed) Models in Archaeology, 705733 London: Methuen Jarman, M R, Vita-Finci, C and Higgs, E S 1972 Site catchment analysis in archaeology, in P Ucko, R Tringham and G W Dimbleby (eds) Man, settlement and urbanism, 61-7 London: Duckworth Jarvis, K 1983 Excavations in Christchurch, 1969-1980 Dorchester: Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc Mon 5 Jarvis, K 1985 Observations for sea-level changes on the south-east side of Furzy Island, Poole Harbour Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 107, 153-4 Johnson, G A 1972 A test of the utility of Central Place Theory in archaeology, in P Ucko, R Tringham and G Dimbleby (eds) Man, settlement and urbanism, 769-85 London: Duckworth Jones, A 1998 Where Eagles Dare: landscape, animals and the Neolithic of Orkney Journ Material Culture 3, 301-124 Jones, E 1960 Eighteenth century changes in Hampshire chalkland farming Agric Hist Review 8, 5-19 Jones, M Allison, R J and Gilligan, J, 1984 On the relationships between geology and coastal landforms in central southern England Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 105, 107-118 Jones, V, Bishop, A C, and Woolley, A R 1977 Third supplement of the catalogue of jade axes from the British Isles Proc Prehist Soc 43, 287293 Jordan, P D 2001 Cultural landscapes in Colonial Siberia: Khanty Settlements of the Sacred, the Living and the Dead Landscapes 2, 2, 83105

Jordon, D, Haddon-Reece, D and Bayliss, A 1994 Radiocarbon dates from samples funded by English heritage before 1981 London: English Heritage Kavanagh, H 1998 West Quay Shopping Centre Archaeology in Hampshire: Annual Report for 1998 Winchester: Hampshire County Council Kay, F F 1939 A soil survey of the Strawberry district of south Hampshire Univ of Reading Bull 52 Kelley, K B and Francis H 1994 Navajo Sacred Places Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press Kemp, D J and Rogers, R J 1984 Field walking prehistoric sites in Gosport: reports I and II Proc Hants Field Club 40, 27-33 Kenny, J P 1988 Selsey Bill (SZ 859 924), in The Archaeological Advisory Committee of Chichester District Council (ed) The Archaeology of Chichester and District 1988 Chichester: Chichester District Council Kenny, J P 1993 Lavant: The Reservoir Site at Chalkpit lane (SU 868095) in S Woodward (ed) Southern Archaeol Annual Report 1993, 26-28 Chichester: Chichester District Council Kerney, M P, Brown, E H and Chandler, T H 1964 The late glacial and post glacial history of the chalk escarpment near Brook, Kent Phil Trans Royal Soc London No 745 Vol 248, 135-204 Kinnes, I 1979 Round barrows and ring-ditches in the British Neolithic British Museum Occ Paper 7 London: British Museum Kinnes, I 1981 Dialogues with death, in R Chapman, I Kinnes, and K Randsborg (eds) The archaeology of death, 71-82 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Kinnes, I 1992 Non megalithic long barrows and allied structures in the British Neolithic Brit Mus Occ Paper 52 London, British Museum Kinnes, I, Gibson, A, Ambers, J, Bowman, S, Leese, M and Boast, R 1991 Radiocarbon dating and British Beakers: The British Museum programme Scottish Archaeol Review 8, 35-68 (with responses 69-78) Ladle, L 1996 Bestwall Quarry Archaeological Project: Phase 5 Rep for CAMAS Aggregates Wareham and Dist Archaeol and Local Hist Soc: Unpublished report Ladle, L 1997 Bestwall Quarry Archaeological Project: Phase 6 Rep for CAMAS Aggregates Wareham and Dist Archaeol and Local Hist Soc: Unpublished report Ladle, L 2000 Bestwall Quarry excavations-interim report Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archael Soc 122, 160 Ladle, L 2001 Bestwall Quarry Archaeological Project, Dorset in D Hinton (ed) Salisbury: CBA Wessex Group CBA Wessex News October 2001, 5 Ladle, L nd Bestwall Quarry Archaeological Project Phase 6 – 1997 Wareham: Wareham and District Archaeol and Local Hist Soc Ladle, L and Woodward, A 2003 A Middle Bronze Age House and Burnt mound at Bestwall, Wareham, Dorset: an Interin Report Proc Prehist Soc 69, 265-278 Lambeck, K 1995 Late Devensian and Holocene shorelines of the British Isles and North Sea from models of glacio-hydro-isostatic rebound Journal Geological Soc 152, 437-448 Lambert, J M 1964 The vegetation of the region in F J Monkhouse ed A survey of Southampton and its region prepared for the meeting of the British Association, 105- 9 Southampton: Southampton Univ Press Lane Fox, A H 1869a. An examination into the character and probable origins of the hillforts of Sussex. Archaeologia 42, 27-52. Lane Fox, A H 1869b. Further remarks on the hillforts of Sussex: being an account of the excavations of the hillforts at Cissbury and Highdown. Archaeologia 42, 53-76. Lane Fox, A H 1869c. On some flint implements found associated with Roman remains in Oxfordshire and the Isle of Thanet. Journal of the Ethnological Society of London New Series, 1, 1-12. Lane Fox, A H 1876. Excavations in Cissbury Camp, Sussex; being a report of the Exploration Committee of the Anthropological Institute for the year 1875. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 5, 357-90. Lawson, A J, Martin, E A and Priddy, D 1981 The barrows of East Anglia East Angliaan Archaeology Report No 12

126

Layton, R 1995 Relating to the Country in the Western desert, in E Hirsch and M O'Hanlon eds The anthroplogy of landscape: perspectives on place and space, 210-231 Oxford: Clarendon Press Leakey, L S B 1951 Preliminary excavations of a Mesolithic site at Abinger Common, Surrey Res Paper Surrey Archaeol Soc 3 Lee, R B 1967 !Kung Bushman subsistence: an input-output analysis, in A P Vayda Human Ecology: and anthropological reader New York Legge, A 1981 Where ends meet Antiquity 65, 147-153 Lewis, G 1960 A possible Mesolithic site at Angmering Sussex Archaeol Colls 98, 12-13 Lewis, H, French, C and Green, M 2000 A decorated megalith from Knowlton, Dorset PAST 35, 1-3 Light, A, Schofield, A J and Shennan, S J 1995 The Middle Avon Valley Survey: a study in settlement history Proc Hants Field Club 50, 43-101 Long, I and Innes, J B 1993 Holocene sea-level change and coastal sedimentation in Romney Marsh Proc Geol Assn 104, 223-37 Long, A J, Plater, A J, Waller, A J and Innes, J B 1996 Holocene coastal sediments in the Eastern English Cannel: new data from the Romney Marsh region, UK. Marine Geology 136, 97-120 Long, A J and Roberts, D H 1997 Sea-level change, in M Fulford, T Champion and A Long eds Englands coastal heritage, 25-49 RCHME and English Heritage Long, A J, Scaife, R G and Edwards, R J 1999 Pine pollen in intertidal sediments from Poole harbour, UK; implications for late-Holocene sediment accretion rates and sea-level rise Quaternary International 55, 3-16 Longworth, I H 1984 Collared Urns of the Bronze Age in Great Britain and Ireland Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press Longworth, I H and Cleal R M J 1999 Grooved Ware Gazeteer, in R Cleal and A MacSeewn (eds) Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland, 177-206 Oxford: Oxbow Lukis, Rev 1867 Notes on barrow diggings in the parish of Collingbourne Ducis Wilts Archaeol andNnat Hist Soc Mag 10, 85-103 Lunn, A E 2001 Sarsen: the old grey stones of Hampshire Farnborough: Lunn Lynch, F, 1969 The megalithic tombs of North Wales , in T G Powell (ed) MegalithicEnquiries in the West of Britain, 108-148 Liverpool: Liverpool University Press Macmillan, Commander D H 1964 The hydrography of the Solent and Southampton Water in F J Monkhouse ed A survey of Southampton and its region prepared for the meeting of the British Association, 51-65 Southampton: Southampton Univ. Press Manby, T G 1974 Grooved ware sites in Yorkshire and the north of England Oxford: Brit Archaeol Report 9 Manning S, BronkRamsey, C, Doumas, C, Marketou, T, Cadogan, G, and Pearson, C 2002 New evidence for an early date for the Aegean Late Bronze Age and Thera eruption Antiquity 76,733-44 Mansell-Pleydell, J C 1886 On a tufaceous deposit at Blashenwell, Isle of Purbeck Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 7, 109-113 Marsill, L 1921 Catalogue Musée Archaeologique de la Société Polymatique du Morbihan Vannes Marshall, L 1970 Sharing, talking and giving: relief of social tensions among !Kung Bushmen, in The Open University (ed) Understanding Society, 93-106 London and Basingstoke: Macmillan May, R T and Law, A B 1998 Migrant and wintering waterfowl, in Barne et al 1998, 108-111 Masters, L 1983 Chambered tombs and non-megalithic barrows in Britain. in C Renfrew (ed) The Megalithic Monuments of Western Europe, 97-112 London: Thames and Hudson McInnes, I 1968 Jet sliders in neolithic Britain, in J M Coles and D D A Simpson (eds) Studies in Ancient Europe: essays presented to Stuart Piggott, 137-144 Leicester: Leicester Univ Press McMillan, M 1992 Whitby jet through the years (privately printed) McOmish, D, Field, D and Brown, G 2002 The field archaeology of Salisbury Plain Training Area Swindon: English Heritage Megaw, J V S 1976 Gwythian, Cornwall: some notes on the evidence for Neolithic and Bronze Age settelement, in C Burgess and R Miket (eds) Settlement and economy in the third and second millennia BC, 5166 Oxford: British Archaeol Reports BAR 33 Megaw, B R S and Hardy, E M 1938 British decorated axes and their diffusion during the earlier part of the Bronze Age Proc Prehist Soc 4, 272-307

Mellars, P 1976a Fire ecology, animal populations and man: a study of some ecological relationships in prehistory Proc Prehist Soc 42, 15-45 Mellars, P A 1976b Settlement patterns and industrial variability in the British Mesolithic, in G de G Sieveking, I H Longworth and K E Wilson (eds) Problems in social and economic archaeology, 375-399 London: Duckworth Mellars, P, and Reinhardt, S C 1978 Patterns of Mesolithic land-use in southern England: a geological perspective in P Mellars (ed) The early glacial settlement of northern Europe, 243-294 London: Duckworth Melville, R V and Freshney, E C 1982 The Hampshire Basin and adjoining areas British Regional Geography 4th ed London: HMSO Mercer, R 1981 Excavations at Carn Brae, Illogen, Cornwall, 1970-73: a Neolithic fortified complex of the third millennium BC Cornish Archaeol 20, 1-204 Message, B, 1987 A palynological study of the Holocene deposits of the Arne peninsula, Dorset unpub undergrad diss Univ of Southampton. Miles, W A, 1826 The Deverel Barrow London: Nichols and Son Moffat, A J, 1988 The distribution of 'Celtic Fields' on the East Hampshire chalklands Proc Hants Field Club 44, 11-23 Moore, J 1997 The infernal cycle of fire ecology, in P Topping ed Neolithic landscapes Neolithic Studies Group seminar papers 2, 33-40 Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 86 Morphy, H, 1995 Landscape and the reproduction of the Ancestral Past, in E Hirsch and M O'Hanlon eds The anthroplogy of landscape: perspectives on place and space, 184-209 Oxford: Clarendon Press Mortimer, J R 1905 Forty Years Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire London: Brown Mortimer, N 2003 Stukeley Illustrated Sutton Mallet: Green magic Mottershead, D N, 1976 The quaternary history of the Portsmouth region Portsmouth Geographical essays vol 2 Dept of Geography Portsmouth Polytechnic Musson, R C 1954 An illustrated catalogue of Sussex Beaker and Bronze Age pottery Sussex Archaeol Colls 92, 106-124 Myers, A 1987 All shot to pieces? Inter site assemblage variability, lithic analysis and Mesolithic assemblage 'types': some preliminary observations, in A Brown and M Edmonds (eds) Lithic Analysis and later prehistory, 137-153 British Archaeological Reports --. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Needham, S P 1978 The extent of foreign influence on Early Bronze Age axe development in southern Britain, in Proc of the 5th Atlantic Colloquium: the origins of metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, 265-93 Dublin Needham, S P 1985 Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement on the buried floodplains of Runnymede Oxford J Archaeol 4, 125-37 Needham, S P 1996 Chronology and periodisation in the British Bronze Age Acta Archaeologia 67, 121-140 Needham, S P 2000 Power pulses across a cultural divide: cosmologically driven acquisition between Armorica and Wessex Proc Prehist Soc 66, 151-207 Needham, S P and Burgess, C B 1980 The later Bronze Age in the lower Thames Valley: the metalwork evidence, in J Barratt and R Bradley (eds) The British Later Bronze Age, 437-69 Oxford: Brit Archaeol Rep 83 Newall, R S 1928 Two shale cups of the Early Bronze Age and other similar cups Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 44, 111-117 Newbould, P J 1960 The ecology of Cranesmoor, a New Forest valley bog Journal of Ecology 48, 361-83 Nicholls, R J 1987 Evolution of the upper reaches of the Solent River and the formation of Poole and Christchurch bays, in K E Barber (ed) Wessex and the Isle of Wight: field guide, 99-114 Quaternary Research Association. Cambridge O'Brien, W 2002 Megaliths in a mythologized landscape: southwest Ireland in the Iron Age, in C Scarre (ed) Monuments and landscape in Atlantic Europe London: Routledge O'Kelly, M 1984 New Grange: archaeology, art and legend London: Thames and Hudson O'Malley M 1978 Broom Hill, Braishfield: Mesolithic dwelling Current Archaeol 63, 117-20 O'Malley, M 1982 When the mammoth roamed Romsey: a study of the prehistory of Romsey and district LTVAS Group:Romsey O'Malley, M and Jacobi, R M 1978 The excavation of a Mesolithic occupation site at Broomhill, Braishfield, Hampshire Rescue Archaeol in Hants 4, 19-38

127

Oswald, A, Dyer, C, and Barber, M, 2001 The creation of monuments: Neolithic causewayed enclosures in the British Isles English Heritage: Swindon Ozanne, P, 1972 The excavation of a round barrow on Rollestone Down. Winterbourne Stoke, Wiltshire Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 67, 43-60 Palmer, L S and Cooke, J H, 1923 The Pleistocene deposits of the Portsmouth district and their relation to early man Proc Geol Assn 34, 253-82 Palmer, M 1996 Travels through Sacred China London: Thorsons Palmer, R and RCHME 1984 Danebury : an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire: an aerial photographic interpretation of its environs London: Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) Palmer, S 1969 A Mesolithic site at Portland Bill Proc Dorset Nat Histand Archaeol Soc 90, 183-206 Palmer, S 1970 The stone age industries of the Isle of Portland, Dorset and the utilisation of Portland Chert as artefact material in southern England Proc Prehist Soc 36, 82-115 Palmer, S 1972 The Mesolithic industries of Mother Sillers Channel, Christchurch, and the neighbouring areas Proc Hants Field Club 27 Palmer, S 1973 Interim note on excavations at the Winfrith Newburgh Mesolithic site, Dorset, 1972 Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 94, 75 Palmer, S 1977 Mesolithic cultures of Britain Poole: Dolphin Press Palmer, S 1999 Culverwell Mesolithic habitation site Oxford: Brit Archaeol Report 287 Palmer, S and Dimbleby, G W 1977 A Mesolithic habitation site on Winfrith Heath, Dorset Part 1 Excavation report: part 2 Pollen analysis Proc Dorset Nat Histand Archaeol Soc 98 Parker Pearson, M and Ramilisonina, , 1998 Stonehenge for the Ancestors: the stones pass on the message Antiquity 72, 308-26 and 855-6 Pattison, P, Field, D and Ainsworth, S 1999 Patterns of the Past: Essays in Landscape archaeology for Christopher Taylor Oxford: Oxbow Patton, M 1991 Axes, men and women: the symbolic dimensions of Neolithic excange in Armorica, in P Garwood, D Jenniongs, R Skeates and J Toms (eds) Sacred and Profane: Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, 65-79 Oxford Monographs in Archaeology Pawson, M G and Robson, C F 1996a Exploited sea-bed species, in Barne, J H, Robson, C F, Kaznowska, S S, Doody, J P and Davidson, N C Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom. Region 9 Southern England: Hayling Island to Lyme Regis, 103-107. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (Coastal Directory Series). Pawson, M G and Robson, C F 1996b Fish: exploited sea fish, in Barne, J H, Robson, C F, Kaznowska, S S, Doody, J P and Davidson, N C Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom. Region 9 Southern England: Hayling Island to Lyme Regis, 113-116. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (Coastal Directory Series). Pawson, M G and Robson, C F 1998a Exploited sea-bed species, in J HBarne, CF Robson, S S Kaznowska, J P Doody, N C Davidson and A L Buck (eds) Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom Region 8 Sussex: Rye Bay to Chichester, 87-9 Peterborough: JNCC Pawson, M G and Robson, C F 1998b Fish: exploited sea fish, in J HBarne, CF Robson, S S Kaznowska, J P Doody, N C Davidson and A L Buck (eds) Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom Region 8 Sussex: Rye Bay to Chichester, 95-8 Peterborough: JNCC Peacock, D P S 1969 Neolithic pottery production in Cornwall Antiquity 43, 145-9 Pelham, R A 1964 The concept of Wessex in F J Monkhouse (ed) A survey of Southampton and its region prepared for the meeting of the British association, 169-176 Southampton: Southampton Univ Press Percival, Rev S T and Piggott, S 1934 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlement at Broom Hill, Michelmersh, Hants Antiq J 14, 256-253 Peters, F 1999 Farmers and their ancestral tombs Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 121, 37-48 Peters, F 2000 Two traditions of Bronze Age burial in the Stonehenge landscape Oxford Journal Archaeol 19 (4), 343-358 Petersen, F, 1973 Traditions of multiple burial in Later Neolithic and Early Bronze age England Archaeol J 129, 22-43 Petersen, F F 1981 The excavation of a Bronze age cemetery on Knighton Heath, Dorset Oxford: British Archaeol Report 98 Peterson, R 2003 William Stukley: an eighteenth century phenomenologist? Antiquity 77, no 296, 394-400

Phillips, C W 1936 The excavation of the Giants' Hills Long Barrow, Skendleby, Lincolnshire Archaeologia 85, 37-106 Piggott, C M 1938 A Middle Bronze Age barrow and Deverel Rimbury Urnfield at Latch Farm, Christchurch, Hampshire Proc Prehist Soc 4, 169-187 Piggott, C M 1943 Excavation of Fifteen Barrows in the New Forest, 1941-2 Proc Prehist Soc 9, 1-27 Piggott, S 1934 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlement at Broom Hill, Michelmersh, Hants Antiq J 14, 246-53 Piggott, S 1936 Comparative notes on the objects found Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 58, 22-25 Piggott, S 1937 The excavation of a long barrow in Holdenhurst parish, near Christchurch, Hampshire Proc Prehist Soc 3, 1-16 Piggott, S 1938 The Early Bronze Age in Wessex Proc Prehist Soc 3, 52-106 Piggott, S 1954 Neolithic cultures of the British Isles Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Piggott, S 1973 The Wessex Culture of the Early Bronze Age in E Crittall (ed) A History of Wiltshire vol 1 part 2, 352-375 Victoria County History Oxford: Oxford University Press Piggott, S and Piggott, C M 1939 Stone and Earth circles in Dorset Antiquity 13, 138-158 Pitt-Rivers, Lt Gen A H 1887 Excavations on Cranborne Chase vol – privately printed Pitt-Rivers, Lt-Gen A H, 1898 Excavations in Cranborne Chase near Rushmore, on the borders of Dorset and Wilts, 1893-1896 Vol IV South Lodge Camp, Rushmore Park, Handley Hill Entrenchment, Stone Age and Bronze Age Barrows and Camp, Handley, Dorset, Martin Down Camp etc London: privately printed Pitts, M W 1980 A gazeteer of Mesolithic finds on the West Sussex coastal plain Sussex Archaeol Colls 118, 153-162 Pitts, M W 1982 On the road to Stonehenge: report on the investigations beside the A344 in 1968, 1979 and 1980 Proc Prehist Soc 48, 75-132 Pitts, M W 2001 Excavating the Sanctuary: new investigations on Overton hill, Avebury Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 94, 1-23 Pitts, M W and Jacobi, R M 1979 Some aspects of change in flaked stone industries of the Mesolithic and Neolithic in southern Britain J Archaeol Science 6, 163-177 Pollard, J 1995 Incribing space: Formal deposition at the Later Neolithic monument of Woodhenge, Wiltshire Proc Prehist Soc 61, 137-156 Poole, G, 1988 The coastal landforms of central southern England: a critical review Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 109, 117-121 Proudfoot, E V W 1963 Report on the examination of a bell barrow in the parish of Edmonsham, Dorset England Proc Prehist Soc 29, 395425 Rackham, O 1980 Ancient Woodland: its history, vegetation and uses in England London: Edward Arnold Radley, J 1969 An archaeological survey and policy for Wiltshire pt 2 Mesolithic Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 64, 18-20 Rahtz, P, 1963 Neolithic and Beaker sites at Downton, near Salisbury, Wiltshire Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 58, 116-141 Rankine, W F R 1938 Tranchet axes of southwest Surrey Surrey Archaeol Colls 46, 98-113 Rankine, W F R 1939a Some notes on flints from Beaulieu Proc Hans Field Club 14, 230-40 Rankine W F 1939b Mesolithic and Neolithic studies, in K P Oakley, W F Rankine and A W G Lowther (eds) A survey of the Prehistory of the Farnham District, 61-132 Guildford: Surrey Archaeol Soc Rankine, W F R 1940 Mesolithic sites in Hampshire: some notes on flints from Beaulieu Proc Hants Field Club 14, 230 Rankine, W F R 1949 A Mesolithic survey of the west Surrey Greensand Res Paper of the Surrey Archaeol Soc No 2: Guildford Rankine, W F R 1954 Mesolithic research in southern England Archaeol Newsletter 5, 37-41 Rankine, W F R 1956 The Mesolithic of southern England Res Paper Surrey Archaeol Soc No 4: Guildford Rankine, W F R 1961 Mesolithic folk movements in southern England Archaeol Newsletter 7: 3, 63-5 Rankine, W F R 1962 The Mesolithic Age in Dorset Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 83, 91-9 RCHME 1970 Dorset II, Southeast; pt 3 London: HMSO RCHME (Smith, I) 1979 Long barrows in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight London: HMSO

128

RCHME 1960 A Matter of Time: an archaeological survey London: HMSO RCHME 1970 Shielings and Bastles London: HMSO RCHME 1989 The classification of cropmarks in Kemt: a report for the Monument Protection Programme London: RCHME Reid, C 1896 An early Neolithic kitchen midden and tufaceous deposit at Blashenwell Proc Dorset Nat Hist Soc 17, 67-75 Reid, C 1902 The geology of the country around Ringwood Mem Geol Survey GB London: HMSO Renfrew, C 1973 Monuments, mobilisation and social organisation in Neolithic Wessex, in C Renfrew (ed) The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory, 539-558 London: Duckworth Reynolds, K S and Catt, J A 1987 Soils and vegetation history of abandoned enclosures in the New Forest, Hampshire, England J Archaeol Science 14, 507-527 Reynier, M J 1998 Early Mesolithic settlement in England and Wales: Some preliminary observations, in N Ashton, F Healy and P Petitt (eds) Stone Age Archaeology: essays in honour of John Wymer Oxford: Oxbow Reynolds, P J 1987a Holbury Gravel Pit: deposition and weathering features of the Devensian brickearths, in K E Barber (ed) 1987, 12-14 Reynolds, P J 1987b Lepe Cliff: the evidence for a pre-Devensian brickearth, in K E Barber ed 1987, 21-22 Richards, J 1990 The Stonehenge Environs Project English Heritage Archaeol Report 16 London: HBMC Richards, J and Whitby, M 1997 The Engineering of Stonehenge, in B Cunliffe and C Renfrew (eds) Science and Stonehenge, 231-56 Oxford: British Academy Roberts, A J, Barton, R N E, and Evans, J 1998 Early Mesolithic mastic: radiocarbon dating and analysis of organic residues from Thatcham III, Star Carr and Lackford Heath, in N Aston, F Healy and P Petit eds Stone Age archaeology: essays in honour of John Wymer Oxbow Monograph 102 Roberts, M A, and Parfitt, S A 1999 Boxgrove: a Middle Pleistocene hominid site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex London: English Heritage Robertson-Mackay, R 1986 The Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Staines, Surrey: Excavations 1961-63 Proc Prehist Soc 53, 23-128 Roe, F E S 1979 Typology of stone implements with shaftholes, in T H McK Clough and W A Cummins (eds) Stone Axe studies CBA Research Rep 23, 23-48 London: Council for British Archaeology Rollando, Y 1985 Le Prehistoire du Morbihan Vannes: Bull de la Société Polymatique Ross Williamson, R P 1930 Excavations in Whitehawk Neolithic camp, near Brighton Sussex Archaeol Colls 71, 57-96 Rowlands, M J 1976 The organisation of Middle Bronze Age metalworking Oxford: British Archaeol Report 31 Rowlands, M 1980 Kinship, alliance and exchange in the European Bronze Age, in J Barrett and R Bradley (eds) The British Later Bronze Age 15-56 Oxford: British Archaeol Report 83 Rowley-Conwy, P 1983 Sedentary hunters: the Ertobolle example, in G Bailey (ed) Hunter-gatherer economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective Rowley-Conwy, P 1984 The laziness of the short distance hunter: the origins of agriculture in western Denmark Journ Anthrop Archaeol 3, 300-324 Russel, A D 1990 Two Beaker burials from Chilbolton, Hampshire Proc Prehist Soc 56, 153-172 Sargent, A 2001 Changing settlement location and subsistence in Later Prehistoric Apulia, Italy Origini 23, 145-167 Saunders, N 1994 'At the mouth of the obsidian cave: deity and place in Aztec religion, in D Carmichael, J Hubert, B Reeves abd A Schanche (eds) Sacred Sites: Sacred Places, 172-183 (rep 1998) London and New York: Routledge Scaife, R G 1982 Late Devensian and early Flandrian vegetational changes in southern Britain, in S Limbrey and M Bell (eds) Archaeological aspects of woodland ecology Brit Archaeol Report Int ser 146, 57-74 Scaife, R G 1987 The Late-Devensian and Flandrian vegetatiuon of the Isle of Wight, in K E Barber (ed) Wessex and the Isle of Wight: field guide, 156-180 Quaternary Research Association. Cambridge Scaife, R G 1988 The Elm decline in the pollen record of south-east England and its relationship to early agriculture, in M Jones ed

Archaeology and flora of the British Isles Oxford Comm for Archaeol mon 14, 21-33 Scaife, R G and McPhail, R I 1983 The post Devensian development of heathland soils and vegetation SEESOIL 1, 70-99 Scarre, C 2002a Introduction: situating monuments: the dialogue between built form and landform in Atlantic Europe, in C Scarre (ed) Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe: perception and society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, 1-14 London and New York: Routledge Scarre, C 2002b Atlantic France, in C Scarre (ed) Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe: perception and society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, 71-2 London and New York: Routledge Scarre, C 2002c Coast and cosmos: the Neolithic monuments of northern Brittany, in C Scarre (ed) Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe: perception and society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, 84-102 London and New York: Routledge Schadla-Hall, R T, and Fasham, P J, 1981 The Neolithic and Bronze Age in Hampshire, in S J Shennan and R T Schadla-Hall (eds) The Archaeology of Hampshire from The Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution Winchester: Hants Field Club and Archaeol Soc Schama, S 1996 Landscape and memory London: Fontana Schofield A J 1991 Lithic distributions in the Upper Meon valley: Behavioural response and human adaptation on the Hampshire chalklands Proc Prehist Soc 57, 159-178 Schofield, A J 1987 A jadeite axe from Droxford, Hampshire and its regional context Proc Prehist Soc 53, 483-5 Schulting, R and Wysocki, M 2002 Cranial trauma in the British earlier Neolithic Past, newsletter of the Prehistoric Soc 41, 4-6 Schulting, R J 2000 New AMS dates from the Lambourne long barrow and the question of the earliest Neolithic in Southern England: repacking the Neolithic package Oxford J Archaeol 19(1) 25-35 Scott, J G 1969 The Clyde cairns of Scotland, in T G Powell (ed) Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain, 175-222 Liverpool: Liverpool University Press Seaby, W A, 1950 Mesolithic site at Wooton, New Forest Archaeol Newsletter 3: 4, 64 Serjeantson, D 1998 unpub Neolithic and Early Bronze age (4000BC1500BC): The development of agriculture and animal husbandry, in Reviews of Environmental Archaeology in England: Animal Remains in Southern England Sharples, N 1991 Maiden Castle: excavations and field survey 1985-6 London: English Heritage Sharples, N 2000 Antlers and Orcadian Rituals: an Ambiguous Role for Red Deer in the Neolithic, in A Ritchie (ed) Neolithic Orkney in its European context Cambridge: Mac Donald Institure Mon. Shennan, I 1982 Flandrian sea level data from the Fenland, England Proc Geol Assn 93(1), 53-63 Shennan, I 1989 Holocene crustal movements and sea-level changes in Great Britain Journal of Quaternary Science 4(1), 77-89. Sherley-Price, L transl 1975 A History of the English Church and People by Bede, rev and rep Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Sherrat, A 1972 Socio-economic and demographic models for the Neolithic and Bronze Ages of Europe, in D Clarke (ed) Models in Archaeology, 477-542 London: Methuen Shore, T W 1891-3 Hampshire mudlands and other alluviums Proc Hants Field Club and Archaeol Soc 2, 181-200 Shore, T W 1905 The origin of Southampton Water Proc Hants Field Club 5:1, 26-36 Shore, T W and Elwas, J W 1889 The new dock excavation at Southampton Proc Hants Field Club and Archaeol Soc 1, 43-56 Shortt, H de S 1946 Bronze Age Beakers from Larkhill and Bulford Wiltshire Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 51, 381-383 Simpson, D D A 1971Beaker houses and settlements in Britain, in (ed) D D A Simpson Economy and settlement in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain and Europe, 131-152 Leicester: Leicester Univ Press Smallcombe, W A, 1937 A flint sickle with associated objects from East Knoyle, Wilts Proc Prehist Soc 3, 158-9 Smith, A 1996 A study of the vegetational history of the eastern Yar valley and its likely influence on human activities on its composition unpub BSc diss Univ of Southampton Smith, A C 1884 British and Roman antiquities of North Wiltshire Marlborough: Marlborough College Natural History Soc

129

Smith, I F 1965 Windmill Hill and Avebury: excavations by Alexander Keiller 1925-1939 Oxford: Clarendon Press Smith, I F 1979 The chronology of British stone implements in T H McK Clough and W A Cummins (eds) Stone Axe Studies CBA Res Report 23, 12-23 Smith, I F 1991 Roundbarrows Wilsford cum Lake G51-G54: Excavations by Earnest Greenfield in 1958 Wilts Archaeol and Nat His Soc Mag 84, 11-39 Smith, N 1999 The earthwork remains of enclosure in the New Forest Proc Hants Field Club 54, 1-56 Smith, R A 1917-18 Specimens from the Layton Collection in Brentford Public Library Archaeologia 69, 1-30 Smith, R J C, Healy, F, Allen, M J, Morris, E L, Barnes, I and Woodward, P J 1997 Excavations along the route of the Dorchester Bypass, Dorset, 1986-8 Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Snead, J E and Preucel, R W 1999 The ideology of settlement:Ancestral Keres landscapes in the northern Rio Grande in W Ashmore and A Bernard Knapp eds Archaeologies of Landscape , 169-197 Oxford: Blackwells Sparey-Green, C 1994 Observations on the site of 'Two Barrows', Fordington Farm, Dorchester: with a note on the 'Conquer Barrow' Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 116, 45-54 Stafford, M 1999 From Forager to Farmer in Flint: a lithic analisis of the prehistoric transition to agriculture in southern Scandinavia Archus: Arhus University Press Stenning, D J 1970 The Wodaabe today: founding a family and a herd, in Social Sciences Foundation Course Team Understanding Society: Readings in the Social Sciences The Open University Steptoe, T 1991 Avon valley Archaeological Society, in CBA Group 12 Newsletter April 1991, 28-29 Stevens, F 1938 The barrows of Winterslow Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 48, 174-182 Stevenson, W 1815 General view of the agriculture of Dorset London Stone, J F S 1931a Easton Down, Winterslow, Wilts, Flint Mine Excavations 1930 Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 45, 350-365 Stone, J F S 1931b A settlement site of the Beaker Period on Easton Down, Winterslow, South Wiltshire Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 45, 366-372 Stone, J F S 1933a A Middle Bronze Age urnfield on Easton Down, Winterslow Wilts Archaceol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 46, 218-224 Stone, J F S 1933b 'Excavations at Easton Down, Winterslow 19311932' Wilts Archaeol & Nat Hist Soc Mag 46, 225-242

Stukeley, W 1740 Stonehenge: a Temple restor'd to the British Druids London Stukeley, W 1743 Abury: a Temple of the British Druids London Stukeley, W 1776 Itinerarium Curiosum (facsimilie ed 1989) Gregg: Farnborough Summers, P G 1941 A Mesolithic site near Iwerne Minster, Dorset Proc Prehist Soc 7, 145-6 Sumner, H 1913 Ancient earthworks of Cranborne Chase Sumner, H 1917 The ancient earthworks of the New Forest Dolphin Press: Christchurch Sumner, H 1988 The ancient earthworks of Cranborne Chase first pub 1913 Gloucester: A Sutton and Wilts County Library Sutherland, F M J 1984 Flandrian sea-level changes on the south coast of England unpub MSC thesis Dept Geog. Univ of Durham Tacon, P S C 1991 The power of stone: symbolic agents of stone use and tool development in western Arnhem Land, Australia Antiquity 65, 192-207 Tacon, P S C 1999 Identifying Ancient Sacred Landscapes in Australia: from physical to social, in W Ashmore and A Bernard Knapp (eds) Archaeologies of Landscape: contemporary perspectives, 33-57 Oxford: Blackwell Taverner, L E, Cadman, W A and Manners, J G 1964 Land use, agriculture, forestry and conservation in F J Monkhouse A survey of Southampton and its region prepared for the meeting of the British Association, 131-151 Southampton Univ Press Taylor, C 1972 The study of settlement patterns in pre-Saxon Britain, in P Ucko, R Tringham, and G Dimbleby (eds) Man, settlement and urbanism, 109-113 London: Duckworth Thomas, J 1991 Rethinking the Neolithic Cambridge: Cambridge Univesrity Press Thomas, K D 1982 Neolithic enclosures and woodland habitats on the South Downs in Sussex, England, in M Bell and S Limbrey eds Archaeological aspects of woodland ecology, 147-170 Oxford: Brit Archaeol Report Int Ser 146 Thomas, N 1956 Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire, 1956 Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 56, 231-252 Thomas, N 1960 A Guide to Prehistoric England London: Batsford Thomson, D F 1939 The Seasonal Factor in Human Culture, illustrated from the life of a Contemporary Nomadic Group Proc Prehist Soc 5, 209-221 Thorley, A 1971 Vegetational history of the Vale of Brooks, in Guide to Sussex excursions, Inst Brit Geog 47-50 Thorpe, I J 1984 Ritual, Power and Ideology: a reconstruction of Earlier Neolithic rituals in Wessex, in R Bradley and J Gardiner (eds) Neolithic Studies: A Review of Some Current Research, 41-60 British Archaeological Reports 133 Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Thurnam, J 1869 On Ancient British Barrows, especially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining counties (Part 1 Long Barrows) Archaeologia 42, 161-244 Thurnam, J 1871 On Ancient British Barrows, especially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining Counties (Part II Round Barrows) Archaeologia 43, 285-551 Tilley, C 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape Oxford: Berg Tomalin, D 1993 Combe-cluster barrow cemeteries in the Isle of Wight Proc Isle of Wight Nat Hist and Arvchaeol Soc 11, 85-96 Tomalin, D 1996 Towards a new strategy for curating the Bronze Age landscape of the Hampshire and Solent region in D A Hinton and M Hughes (eds) Archaeology in Hampshire: a framework for the future , 13-25 Winchester: Hants County Council Toms, G S G 1968 Interim report of excavations at Newfoundland wood, Church Knowle Proc Dorset Nat Hist Soc 89, 141-3 Topping, P 1997 Structured deposition, symbolism and the English flint mines, in R Schild and Z Sulgostowska (eds) Man and flint, 127-132 Proceedings of the VIIth International Flint Symposium WaszawOstrowiec Swietokrzyski Sept 1995 Warszawa: Inst of Archaeol and Ethnology Topping, P 2004 Towards an ethnography of flint mining, in J Cotton and D Field (eds) Towards a New Stone Age: Aspects of the Neolithic of south-east England York: CBA Res Rep 137 Toren, C 1995 Seeing the Ancestral sites: Transformations in Fijian notions of the land, in E Hirsch and M O'Hanlon eds The anthropology of landscape: perspectives on place and space, 163-183 Oxford: Clarendon Press

Stone, J F S 1934 'A case of Bronze Age cephalotaphy on Easton Down in Wiltshire' Man Stone, J F S 1935a Some discoveries at Ratfyn, Amesbury, and their bearing on the date of Woodhenge Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Mag 47, 55-67 Stone, J F S 1935b 'Excavations at Easton Down, Winterslow, 19331934' Wilts Archaeol & Nat Hist Soc Mag 47, 68-80 Stone, J F S 1936 An Enclosure on Boscombe Down East Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 47, 466-489 Stone, J F S 1938 An Early Bronze Age grave in Fargo Plantation near Stonehenge Wilts Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc Mag 48, 357-370 Stone, J F S 1941 The Deverel-Rimbury settlement on Thorny Down, Winterbourne Gunner, S Wilts Proc Prehist Soc 7, 114-133 Stone, J F S 1948 A Beaker interment on Stockbridge Down, Hampshire, and its cultural connexions (sic) Antiq J 28, 149-156 Stone, J F S and Gray Hill, N 1940 A round barrow on Stockbridge Down Antiq J 20, 39-51 Stone, J F S and Thomas, L C 1956 The use and distribution of faience in the Ancient East and Prehistoric Europe Proc Prehist Soc 22, 37-84 Stopes, M C, Oakley, K P, and Wells, L H, 1952 A discovery of human skulls with stone artefacts and animal bones in a fissure at Portland Proc Dorset Nat Hist Soc 74, 39-47 Stroud, D A and Craddock, D M, 1996 Migrant and wintering waterfowl, in Barne et al 1996, 129-133 Stukeley, W 1724 Itinerarium Curiosum, or an account of the antiquitys and remarkable curiosiys in natur or art, observed in travels thro' Great Britain London

130

Toulmin Smith, L (ed) 1964 The itinerary of John Leland London: Clarendon Press Troubridge, T S 1936a A Mesolithic village in Hampshire Antiq J 16 (2), 200-202 Troubridge, T S 1936b A Mesolithic village in Hampshire Proc Hants Field Club 13 (2), 184 Tubbs, C R 1968 The New Forest: an ecological historyNewton Abbott: Davisd and Charles Turner, D 1997 Pipeline from Lavant in S Woodward (ed) Southern Archaeol Annual Report 1997, 19-23 Chichester: Chichester District Council. University of Bristol 1947 Land Classification of Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire J W Arrowsmith Van de Guchte, M 1999 The Inca cognition of landscape: archaeology, ethnohistory, and the aesthetic of alterity, in W Ashmore and A Bernard Knapp eds Archaeologies of Landscape , 150- 168 Oxford: Blackwells Van Dommelen, P 1999 Exploring everyday places and cosmologies, in W Ashmore and A Bernard Knapp eds Archaeologies of Landscape , 277-285 Oxford: Blackwells Vancouver, C 1813 General view of the agriculture of Hampshire including the Isle of Wight London: Sherwood, Nealy and Jones. Venables, E M 1970 Report on erratic boulder at Rustington mss in Rustington Library Vita Finzi, C and Higgs, E S 1970 Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine Proc Prehist Soc 36, 1-37 Wainwright, G J 1979 Mount Pleasant, Dorset: excavations 1970-1971 London: Rep Soc of Antiqs Wainwright, G J 2000 Time please Antiquity 74, 909-943 Wainwright, G J and Longworth, I H 1971 Durrington Walls: excavations 1966-1968 London: Rep Soc of Antiqs Walker, K E and Farwell, D E 2000 Twyford Down, Hampshire: Archaeological Investigations on the M3 Motorway from Bar End to Compton 1990-93 Hants Field Club Mon 9 Waller, M P 1993 Flandrian vegetational history of south-east England. Pollen data from Pannel Bridge, East Sussex New Phytol 124, 345-369 Waller, M P 1994 Paludification and pollen representation: the influence of wetland size on Tilia representations in pollen diagrams The Holocene 4, 4, 430-434 Waller, M P and Hamilton, S D 1998 The vegetational history of the South Downs: Mount Caburn, in J B Murton et al The Quaternary of Kent and Sussex: field guide Quaternary Research Assoc, 115-120 Warne, C 1866 The Celtic tumuli of Dorset London: Russell Smith Waton, P V 1982 Man's impact on the chalklands: some new pollen evidence, in M Bell and S Limbrey (eds) Archaeological aspects of woodland ecology British Archaeol Rep 146, 75-92 Waton, P V and Barber, K E 1987 Rimsmoor, Dorset: biostratigraphy and chronology of an infilled doline, in K E Barber (ed) 1987, 75-80 Watson, A 2000 Round barrows in a circular world: monumentalising landscapes in Bronze Age Wessex, in J Brück (ed) Bronze age Landscapes: Tradition and Transformation. 207-216 Oxford: Oxbow

Windell, D, Chapman, A and Woodiwiss, J 1990 From Barrows to Bypass: Excavations at West Cotton, Raunds, Northamptonshire 19851989 Northampton: Northamptonshire County Council Wood, E S 1952 Neolithic Sites in West Surrey Surrey Archaeol Colls 52, 11-28 Woodward, A 2000 British barrows Stroud: Tempus Woodward, A 2002 Beads and Beakers: heirlooms and relices in the British Early Bronze Age Antiquity 76, 1040-47 Woodward, A and Woodward, P 1996 The Topography of some Barrow Cemeteries in Bronze Age Wessex Proc Prehist Soc 62, 275-294 Woodward, P J 1978 Flint distribution, ring ditches and Bronze Age settlement patterns in the Great Ouse Valley Archaeol J 135, 32-56 Woodward, P J 1991 The south Dorset ridgeway: survey and excavations 1977-84 Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc Mon 8 Woodward, P J, Davies, S M and Graham A H 1993 Excavations at Greyhound Yard, Dorchester 1981-4 Dorchester: Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc Mon 12 Wooldridge, S W and Linton, D L 1933 The loam terrains of south-east England and their relation to its early history Antiquity 7, 297-310 Wymer, J J 1977 Gazetteer of Mesolithic sites in England and Wales CBA Yates, D, 2001 Bronze Age agricultural intensification in the Thames Valley and Estuary in J Brück (ed) Bronze Age Landscapes: tradition and transformation, 65-82 Oxford: Oxbow Young, Rev A 1813 General view of the agriculture of the County of Sussex rep 1970 New York: Kelley

Wells, T C E, Sheail, J, Ball, D F and Ward, L K 1976 Ecological studies on the Porton Ranges: relationships between the vegetation, soils and land-use history J Ecol 64, 589-626 Wessex Archaeology 1992 Winchester, M3 Bar End-Compton Down extension in M Hughes (ed) Archaeology in Hampshire: Annual report for 1991 Winchester: Hants County Council West, I M 2004 Erratics, including sarsens, of the Wessex Coast http://www.soton.ac.uk/imw/erratic.htm White, D A 1971 Early man in Cranborne Chase Proc Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc 93, 176-82 White, D A 1982 The Bronze Age cremation cemeteries at Simons Ground, Dorset Dorchester: Dorset Nat Hist and Archaeol Soc Mon 3 Whittle, A, Atkinson, R J C,, Chambers, R and Thomas, N 1992 Excavations in the Neolithic and Bronze Age complex at Dorchester on Thames, Oxfordshire 1947-52 and 1981 Proc Prehist Soc 58, 143-202 Whittle, A, Pollard, J, and Grigson, C 1999 The Harmony of Symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure Oxford: Oxbow Books Williams-Freeman, J P 1920-4 Notes Proc Hants Field Club 9, 388-416 Williams-Thorpe, O, Potts, P J, and Jones, M C 2004 Non-destructive provenancing of bluestone axe-heads in Britain Antiquity 78, 359-379

131

APPENDICES

APPENDICES 3:1 Mesolithic C14 dates 3:2 Mesolithic sites by landform 3:3 Mesolithic sites around Christchurch and Bournemouth 4:1 Extraction sites 4:2 Long Barrows 4:3 Jadeite Axes 4:4 Ground flint axes 4:5 Seamer axes 4:6 Leaf arrowheads 4:7 Causewayed enclosures 4:8 Oving District flintwork 5:1 Peterborough Wares 5:2 Ground edge flint knives 5:3 Maceheads 5:4 Discoidal knives 5:5 Petit Tranchet Derivative arrowheads 5:6 Edge-ground flint axes 5:7 Ground axes of rocks foreign to central southern England 5:8 Flint sickles 5:9 Flat bronze and copper axes 5:10 Beakers from Knighton Farm 5:11 Easton Down 6:1 Bell barrows 6:2 Disc barrows 6:3 Saucer barrows 6:4 Pond barrows 6:5 Ring ditches 6:6 Flint daggers 6:7 Plano convex knives 6:8 Barbed and tanged arrowheads 6:9 Other arrowheads 6:10 Shafthole adzes 6:11 Battle axes 6:12 Axe hammers

133

ABBREVIATIONS AltM AshM BWM B'hamM BrightM BM BNHM Calkin list CCM CUM DCM DM HMS LM MG NM PCM PM PDM PRM RM RCM RHM SCM SM SNHS UC WCM WM

Alton Museum Ashmolean Museum, Oxford Bishops Wordsworth School Museum, Salisbury Birmingham City Museum Brighton Museum British Museum Bournemouth Nat Hist Soc Museum List of artefacts in local collections compiled by J Calkin, HMS Carisbrooke Castle Museum Cambridge University Archaeological & Anthropological Museum, Cambridge Dorset County Museum, Dorchester Devizes Museum Hants Museum Service, Winchester (including the Redhouse Museum, Christchurch) Lewes Museum Martin Green Museum Newbury Museum Portsmouth City Museum Poole Museum Porton Down Museum Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford Reading Museum Russell Cotes Museum, Bournemouth Redhouse Museum, Christchurch Southampton City Museum Salisbury Museum Sturminster Newton High School Robin Upton Collection Winchester City Museum Worthing Museum

134

APPENDIX 3:1 C14 DATES MESOLITHIC SITES

Site

Date

Cal Date

Blashenwell

5425+/-140BP (BM 1258)

4600-3900calBC

Material

Feature

Reference Barker

5750+/-150BP (BM 1257)

4950-4300calBC

Mackey

6450+/-150BP (BM 89)

5700-5050calBC

Palmer 1977, 105

and 1961:

Bowmans Farm

5910+/-90BP (OxA 263)

4800-4900calBC

Wood

Beam slot

Green 1996, 117

Culver Well

7150+/-135BP (BM 473)

6350-5700calBC

Charcoal

Hearth

Palmer 1999

7101+/-97BP (BM 960)

5620-5360calBC

Charcoal

6800+/-60BP (AA 28213)

5800-5610calBC

6730+/-55BP (AA 28214)

5730-5530calBC

Shell

6410+/-55BP (AA 28215)

5480-5300calBC

Shell

7145+/-70BP (AA 28216)

6110-5840calBC

Shell

7285+/-60BP (AA 28217)

6240-6010calBC

Shell

7525+/-60BP (AA 28218)

6460-6230calBC

Shell

6525+/-60BP (AA 28219)

5570-5360calBC

Shell

6855+/-75BP (AA 28220)

5890-5620calBC

Shell

FirTree Field

4300-4150calBC

Chalk Pit Field

5640-5140calBC

Down Farm

Shaft

Green 2000, 41

Bone

Cursus ditch

Green 2000. 40 Bradley & Lewis

5980-5560calBC

Green 2000

Wakefords Copse

5680+/-120BP (HAR 233)

4800-4250calBC

Charcoal

Pit 8

Broom Hill

7540+/-150BP (Q1192)

7800-7350cal BC

Charcoal

Pit 3

8315 +/-150BP (Q1383)

7540-7170cal BC

Charcoal

Pit 3

8515+/-150BP (Q1528)

7750-7340cal BC

Charcoal

Pit 3

7830+/- 150BP (Q1460)

7050-6450 cal BC

Charcoal

Pit 3

7720+/-120BP (Q1191)

6220-5980 cal BC

Hazlenuts

Pit 3

6535+/-125BP (Q1128)

5570-5360 cal BC

Charcoal

Pit 2

1974

High Rocks Wawcott Charlwood

5760+/-150BP (BM 40)

4900-4050calBC

5730+/-150BP (BM91)

4950-4250calBC

O'Malley 1982, 16

Money 1960

5260+/-130BP (BM 449)

4350-3750calBC

Froom 1972

6120+/-134BP (BM767)

5400-4700calBC

Froom 1976, 160

5770+/-90BP (HAR 4532)

4350-3900calBC

Ellaby 2004

5640+/-90BP (HAR 4533)

4710-4330calBC

APPENDIX 3:2 LANDFORMS AND MESOLITHIC SITES Coastal Plain

NGR

Estuary

Spring

Confluence

Valley

Bluff

Watershed Interfluve

Culver Well

SY 685694

*

Blashenwell

SY 953805

*

Ulwell

SZ 02058098

Bestwall Quarry

SY 933882

* *

Crouch Hill

SZ 16959170

*

Southampton

SZ 427104

*

North Bersted

SU 930010

*

*

135

Hilltop

Beaucroft Field

SY 975975

*

Crumpets Farm

SY 964965

*

Draglens

SY982981

*

Church Knowle

SY 93687925

Godlington

SZ 02127988

*

Hengistbury

SZ 178905

*

SZ 164913

*

*

Bournemouth

SZ 070940

Latch Fm

SZ 15259385

Beaulieu

SU 380020

Ashurst

SU 338096

*

Longdown Sandpit

SU353096

*

Ashurst Walk

SU335085

*

Nursling

SU 370165

Totton

SU 355145

Cams

SU 595055

South Wallington

SU 586065

Rainbow Bar

* * *

* * * *

Portchester

SU 627050

*

Portsmouth

SU 649049

*

Langstone Harbour

*

Farlington Marshes Selsey sites

*

*

* SZ845929 SZ 8794 SZ 8393

Pagham Harbour

SZ 880970

Broadstone

SZ 013952

* *

Lee-on-Solent

*

Bincombe

SY 70198424

Fawley

SU 42950364

Fareham

SU596055

Shedfield

SU554144

Tertiary Junction

NGR

Broom Hill

SU 38502615

* * * *

Estuary

Spring

Confluence

Valley

SU180211

*

Bowmans Fm

SU331174

*

Wakefords Copse

SU 72780914

Boxgrove

SU 993067

Higher Chalk

NGR

Stonehenge

SU122422

Iwerne Courtney

Watershed

*

Estuary

Spring

Confluence

Valley

Bluff

Watershed

Hilltop

*

*

* *

ST 891131

Butser

*

Cranborne Chase East Meon

Hilltop

*

Downton

Down Farm

Bluff

* SU657198

*

136

APPENDIX 3:3 MESOLITHIC SITES AROUND CHRISTCHURCH Site

NGR

Avon Common

SZ 130986

Bosley

SZ 147958

Furzy

SZ 155939

Homelands

SZ 150926

Kings Avenue

SZ 160928

Mill Plain

SZ 158935

Parley Cross

SZ 083983

Pokesdown

SZ125922

Queens Park

SZ 110935

Red Hill Common

SZ 088956

St Catherines Hill

SZ1495

Sopley Common

SZ 130977

Southbourne

SZ 136914

Talbot Wood

SZ 070940

Tuckton

SZ 145923

Wallis Down

SZ 070945

Winkton Mead

SZ 168958

Wick

SZ1692

Comments

Large site

Barton 1992, 248

Barton 1992, 247

APPENDIX 4:1 EXTRACTION SITES

Extraction sites Parish Amesbury, King Barrow Ridge Brading Down, IOW Clanfield Compton, Nore Down Compton, Nore Down Durrington, Larkhill Rd Eartham, Long Down Easton Down Funtingdon, Stoke Down Lavant, Goodwood Madehurst, Fairmile Bottom Over Wallop, Martins Clump Woodford LB G2

NGR SU130422 SZ599866 SU717159 SU77311306 SU77311306 SU154440 SU93100932 SU23723589 SU83220960 SU87650983 SU99380986 SU252388 SU10073772

NMR No SU14SW137 SZ58NE11 SU71NW26 SU71SE20 SU71SE20 SU14SE27 SU90NW9 SU23NW26 SU80NW13 SU80NE22 SU90NE415 SU23NE5 SU13NW13

137

Notes Extraction pits Flint extraction Axe Factory Flint mine Flint mine Extraction pits Flint mine Flint mine Flint mine Alleged flint mine Alleged flint Mine Flint mine Extraction pits

APPENDIX 4:2 LONG BARROWS Dorset Parish Bournemouth Chettle Chettle Child Okeford Child Okeford Church Knowle Corfe Castle Dorchester Ferndown Town Gillingham Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Pentridge Pentridge Pentridge Pentridge Pentridge Sixpenny Handley Tarrant Gunville Tarrant Hinton Tarrant Hinton Tarrant Hinton Tarrant Hinton Tarrant Hinton Tarrant Hinton Tarrant Keyneston Tarrant Launceston Tarrant Rawston Verwood, Pistle Down Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Woodlands Wiltshire Parish Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Ansty Boyton, Corton Bratton Brixton Deverill Brixton Deverill Broad Chalke Bulford Chicklade Chicklade Chute Clarendon Park Clarendon Park Clarendon Park Clarendon Park Collingbourne Kingston Coombe Bissett Donhead St Mary Donhead St Mary, Ansty Downton Downton Downton Durrington Durrington Durrington

NGR SZ 11699461 ST 95061280 ST 93731355 ST 84521265 ST 84891206 SY 92338208 SY 99588151 SY 702899 SZ 057993 ST 78752723 ST 99301382 ST 99471359 ST 99301310 ST 97031238 ST 98131138 ST 97191225 SU 03941951 SU 02581694 SU 04161876 SU 04061914 SU04141903 SU 01241728 ST 93141226 ST 92270933 ST 91751049 ST 92581220 ST 94621176 ST 96441317 ST 92270933 ST 91540398 ST 92940884 ST 91560666 SU0805 SU 01461476 SU 013146 SU 04011168 SU01421466 SU 0210

NMR No SZ 19 SW 7 ST 91 SE 38 ST 91 SW 22 ST 81 SW 11 ST 81 SW 18 SY 98 SW 6 SY 98 SE 14 SY 78 NW 72 SZ 09 NE 59 ST 72 NE 6 ST 91 SE 9 ST 91 SE 13 ST 91 SE 17 ST 91 SE 21 ST 91 SE 27 ST 91 SE 23 SU 01 NW 39 SU 01 NW 47 SU 01 NW 42 SU01NW40(1) SU01NW40(2) SU 01 NW 14 ST 91 SW 23 ST 90 NW 4 ST 91 SW 11 ST 91 SW 24 ST 91 SW 38 ST 91 SE 39 ST 90 NW 4 ST 90 SW 119 ST 90 NW 39 ST 90 NW 19

NGR SU 13744318 SU 11944217 SU 11544175 SU 14184194 ST 9424 ST98084033 ST90045159 ST87253744 ST84693837 SU 03412113 SU 16364304 ST 87933406 ST88063402 SU28455609 SU 17383175 SU 19153246 SU 18673262 SU 17903239 SU25645671 SU 09572244 ST 91681964 ST 9424

NMR No SU 14 SW 3 SU 14 SW 56 SU14SW91 SU14SW257 ST92SW 10 ST94SW37 ST95SW2 ST83NE6 ST83NW46 SU02SW18 SU14SE80 ST83SE17 ST83SE18 SU25NE21 SU13SE24 SU13SE39 SU13SE37 SU13SE36 SU25NE17 SU02SE6 ST91NW1 ST 92 SW 10

SU 16102300 SU 19722356 SU 12222200 SU 1543 SU 12474437 SU 14644324

SU 12 SE 7 SU 12 SE 94 SU 12 SW 11 SU 14 SE 79 SU14SW23 SU14SW521

SU 01 SW 12 SU 01 SW 20 SU 01 SW 119 SU01SW131 SU 01 SW 103

138

Notes Site of Holdenhurst The Giants Grave

Exc. Allington Ave Possible Longbury barrow

Thickthorn Down Thickthorn Down Pentridge 23 Pentridge 18 Bokerley Down ?Bank barrow ? Bank barrow Wor Barrow Possible ?Garden feature Pimperne Possible Possible Cropmarks

Cropmark of a probable Cropmark of a possible Knowlton North Notes

Cropmark

Keysley Down Oval Oval Possible Fussell’s lodge Alleged-doubtful Alleged Giant’s Grave Ashmore Down Giant’s Grave Cropmark Possible Cropmarks

Edington Figheldean Figheldean Figheldean Fittleton Heytesbury Heytesbury Heytesbury Idmiston Idmiston Inkpen Kingston Deverill Knook Knook Laverstock Maiden Bradley Maiden Bradley Maiden Bradley Milston Milston Milston Milston Milston Netheravon Netheravon Netheravon Norton Bavant Norton Bavant Pitton & Farley Sherrington Sherrington Stockton Sutton Mandeville Tidcombe & Fosbury Tilshead Tilshead Tilshead Tilshead Tilshead Tisbury Warminster Warminster Warminster Wilsford Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterslow Woodford Hampshire Parish Ashley Barton Stacey Barton Stacey Barton Stacey Basingstoke and Deane Bramdean Breamore Breamore Broughton Chilbolton Corehampton & Meonstoke Denny Lodge Droxford Droxford East Meon, Salt hill Exton

ST93895239 SU 16864822 SU 10894588 SU 12794535 SU19885166 ST00964815 ST92494417 ST94204678 SU 20493481 SU 21643422 SU365623 ST84903794 ST96754625 ST95614461 SU 15883405 ST 825360 ST82363565 ST825360 SU 189459 SU 21254664 SU 18974597 SU 21704624 SU 21694631 SU11434667 SU11224686 SU10874663 ST91854596 ST92594595 SU 21593299 ST96873918 ST95103842 ST96573763 ST 98382640 SU29255760 SU 05964945 SU 03294685 SU 02304683 SU 00014789 SU 02114751 ST 96332830 ST87384706 ST90244717 ST89764445 SU07035137 SU 11884129 SU 11414106 SU 10794019 SU 10404118 SU11434100 SU 1041 SU 09164279 SU 10004151 SU 10104190 SU 22003426 SU 10073772

ST95SW13 SU 14 NE 12 SU 14 NW 5 SU 14 NW 14 SU15SE16 ST94NE7 ST94SW6 ST94NW20 SU23SW16 SU23SW17 ST83NW12 ST94NE18 ST94SE21 SU13SE18 ST83NW5 ST83NW33 ST83NW5 SU 14 NE 9 SU24NW95 SU 14 NE 125 SU24NW93 SU24NW34 SU14NW7 SU14NW41 SU14NW59 ST94NW16 ST94NW28 SU23SW6 ST93NE1 ST93NE23 ST93NE26 ST 92 NE 20 SU25NE20 SU 04 NE 7 SU 04 NW 3 SU 04 NW 9 SU 04 NW 11 SU 04 NW 12 ST 92 NE 1 ST84NE5 ST94NW17 ST84SE8 SU05SE22 SU14SW78 SU14SW95 SU14SW94 SU14SW93 SU14SW144 SU 14 SW 92 SU 04 SE 33 SU14SW92 SU14SW535 SU23SW20 SU 13 NW 13

NGR SU 39502912 SU 42583878 SU 43473862 SU 43363867 SU 60185013 SU 59272839 SU 15151983 SU 138920003 SU 32933581 SU 41773828 SU 63791956

NMR No SU 32 NE 4 SU 43 NW 10 SU 43 NW 12 SU 43 NW 12 SU 65 SW 33 SU 52 NE 13 SU 11 NE 4 SU 12 SW 50 SU 33 NW 37 SU 43 NW 19 SU 61 NW 5

Notes Possible Moody's Down West Moody's Down South-east Moody's Down South-west Possible Lamborough Lane Uncertain mound Giant's Grave Houghton Down Chilbolton Down Giant's Grave

SU 35970445 SU 60571791 SU 6018 SU 67162012 SU 63902061

SU 30 SE 4 SU 61 NW 9 SU 61 NW 26 SU 62 SE 12 SU 62 SW 23

Discredited

139

Tinhead Sheer Barrow Knighton Barrow Imber 4a Boles Barrow Possible Combe Gigget Knook Down Knook Barrow Ende Burgh ?Possible Oval Milston 31 Milston 1 Milston 39 Milston 40 Netheravon 6 Norton Bavant 14 Norton Bavant 13 Possible

Tilshead 7 Whitebarrow Old Ditch KillBarrow Tilshead 5 Tilshead Lodge Castle Ditches – possible Arn Hill Oxendean Down King Barrow Ell Barrow

Mortuary Enclosure

Cropmark Woodford G2

Possible

Havant, Portsdown Headbourne Worthy Itchen Valley Litchfield and Woodcott Litchfield and Woodcott Longstock Longstock Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Micheldever Nether Wallop Nether Wallop Nether Wallop Overton Overton Overwallop Overwallop Owslebury Owslebury Penton Grafton Portsmouth, Portsdown Preston Candover Rochbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne South Wonston South Wonston Whitchurch Whitsbury Wonston Wonston

SU 69230642 SU 45583526 SU 50783578 SU 42845449 SU 46475403 SU 34953906 SU 33493812 SU 0642181810 SU 08871987 SU 07892189 SU 03552042 SU 06382060 SU 50633596 SU 31933831 SU 3132023836 SU 32363872 SU 49625245 SU 50705261 SU 26623834 SU 25053845 SU 51982537 SU 53442448 SU 33104952 SU66650641 SU 60464032 SU 09001978 SU 10152220 SU 10452039 SU 47233607 SU 47323608 SU 47705179 SU 11262270 SU 47063671 SU 48954248

SU 60 NE 8 SU 43 NE 43 SU 53 NW 8 SU 45 SW 9 SU 45 SE 33 SU 33 NW 14 SU 33 NW 23 SU 01 NE 12 SU 01 NE 18 SU 02 SE 21 SU 02 SW 34 SU 02 SE 23 SU 53 NW 57 SU 33 NW 3 SU 33 NW 3 SU 33 NW 10 SU 45 SE 17 SU 55 SW 15 SU 23 NE 3 SU 23 NE 4 SU 52 NW 22 SU 52 SW 13 SU 34 NW 6 SU60NE3 SU 64 SW 14 SU 01 NE 19 SU 12 SW 31 SU 12 SW 35 SU 43 NE 18 SU 43 NE 18 SU 45 SE 19 SU 12 SW 30 SU 43 NE 17 SU 44 SE 11

Isle of Wight Parish Freshwater Freshwater

NGR SZ 35198575 SZ33648558

NMR No SZ 38 NE 14 SZ38NW28

Notes Afton Down Mortuary Encl

NGR TQ 0108 SU 91910958 SU8216

NMR No TQ 00 NW 110 SU 90 NW 93 SU81NW47

Notes Bevis's Tomb ?Spoil heap Possible

SU 78761551 SU78491294 SU86590943 SU801156 SU 97081149 SU 82181218 SU82241209 SU 83201072

SU 71 NE 34 SU71SE37 SU80NE94 SU81NW45 SU 91 SE 47 SU 81 SW 30 SU 81 SW 30 SU 81 SW 65

Bevis's Thumb Oval Radley type Oval Possible

West Sussex Parish Arundel Boxgrove Chichester, Phillis Wood Compton Compton Lavant Marden Slindon Stoughton A Stoughton B West Dean

140

Bevis Grave Discredited Uncertain- cropmark Possible Manor Down Knap Barrow Furze Down Vernditch South-west Danebury West Danebury East Danebury North-east Suddern Martin's Farm Longwood Nutbane Preston Grange Grans Barrow Rockbourne Down Duck's Nest South Wonston West South Wonston East Round Clump Sanctuary Farm

Oval

APPENDIX 4:3 JADEITE AXES Location Amesbury, barrow nr Stonehenge Barton `near the sea' Beaulieu Beaulieu Bournemouth, Parkstone

NGR SU1242 SZ2393 SU3802 SU3802 SZ038909

Bournemouth, Tuckton Breamore, Marsh Farm Droxford Fareham, Hill Head Iwerne Courteney, Hambledon Hill Milton, Hordle, at base of cliff Preston Soberton, Bushy Down Farm Sturminster Marshall, Newton Peveril Teffont Magna Down Titchfield Winterslow, nr Lopcombe Corner

SZ1592 SU1618 SU 6018 SU 5403 ST850123 SZ2695 SY7082 SU623180 SY9399 ST 9832 SU5395 SU25483668

NMR No SU14SW138

Cat W321

SU30SE27 SU30SE27 SZ09SW3

H16 Dt114 H45 H21

Dt90a

Jadeite Jadeite Jadeite Jadeite Jadeite Jade or Nephrite Jadeite Jadeite Jadeite

W380

Jadeite Jadeite Jadeite

H19 Dt135 SZ29NE16 Dt45 SU61NW40 SY99NW5

SU23NE2

Material Jadeite Jadeite Jadeite Jadeite Jadeite

Accession No SM28/59 RHM loan WCM HMS (WCM)2212 HMS(WCM)2213 CambMAE A.1905 RCM28.89(lost) DM WCM2215 DCM Hartley Mus DCM1932..1.1 Ex Farnham (lost) SM71/50 HMS(WCM)2214 SM100/58

APPENDIX 4:4 GROUND AXES Ground flint axes

?Andover ?Basingstoke, Round Town ?Coombe Bissett, New Farm ?Farnham, Shaftesbury Field ?Owslebury, Rose Hill ?Weymouth, Cobham Drive `Uffe Pitt' near Chichester ?Selsey Alderbury, railway cutting nr Belmont Alderbury, railway cutting nr Belmont Alton Alton, west of hospital Amberley Amberley Amesbury, Avenue Field Amesbury, King Barrow Ridge Amesbury, King Barrow Ridge Amesbury, King Barrow Ridge Amesbury, King Barrow Ridge Amesbury, King Barrow Ridge Amesbury, Stonehenge Amesbury, Totterdown, nr Woodhenge Ampfield Andover, Galahad Close Andover, S of Bury Hill Appleshaw, Hants Apuldram Arundel Arundel Arundel Arundel Arundel Arundel Arundel Arundel Ashford Hill with Headley Ashmore

NGR

NMR No

T Complete y p e B Frag B Blade C C

Location

SU170284

SU12NE31

B B

HMS A89.24 HMS 4317/8 SM 214/84 SM PRC WCM 2144.5 DCM 1970.6 CCM SM1002

SU170284

SU12NE31

A

SM1001

SU7139 SU7048

SU73NW59 Arch in Hants 1990 TQ01SW44

Willis SU0923

TQ0210 TQ0313 SU1242 SU13624245 SU13534247 SU13604273 SU13604273 SU13604273 SU122422 SU1543 SU4023 SU362470 SU3442 SU8403 TQ018073 TQ018073 TQ018073 TQ018073 TQ018073 TQ018073 TQ018073 TQ0180073 SU 51806171 ST913163

Butt

B Frag B Frag B Blade B Chisel B Butt C Blade B Blade

HMS Private RM SM 104/38 DM 72.1976.5 DM 72.1976.12 DM 73.1976.2 DM Cooper 451 DM Cooper 660 SM 1021 DM Cooper SCM A109.67

SU34NE56

Frag Frag B B Butt Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag JG

SU56SW5 A

141

HMS A70.304 SM 13/49 CCM LM LM LM LM LM WM WM Bright M Private MGM

Baeford St Martin Barford St Martin, Grovely Wood Barford St Martin, Hurdcott Basing, Huish Basing, Ruckstall's Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing, Wellocks Hill Basing,Wellocks Hill Basingstoke Basingstoke Basingstoke (allotment gardens) Basingstoke (allottment gardens) Basingstoke (allottment gardens) Basingstoke (allottment gardens) Basingstoke (allottment gardens) Basingstoke (allottment gardens) Basingstoke (allottment gardens) Basingstoke (allottment gardens) Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Down Grange Farm Basingstoke, Eastrop Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, KempshottLane Basingstoke, Kite Hill Basingstoke, Park Drewett Hospital Basingstoke, South Ham Basingstoke, South Ham Basingstoke, Worting House Basingstoke, Worting Wood Basingstoke, Worting Wood Basingstoke, Worting Wood Basingstoke, Worting Wood Basingstoke, Worting Wood Basingstoke, Worting Wood Basingstoke, Worting Wood

SU0430 SU0534 SU043311 SU672517 SU650515 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU654518 SU6452 SU611516 SU62855170 SU62855170 SU61755160 SU61755160 SU61755160 SU61755160 SU62855170 SU62855170 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6150 SU6452 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU59904930 SU602512 SU61775383 SU6151 SU6151 SU599520 SU530600 SU530600 SU530600 SU530600 SU530600 SU530600 SU530600

Butt Willis Willis

Chisel Butt Butt

DM 1795 DM 1793 SM HMS HMS

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Blade Blade Blade Blade Butt Butt Centre Chisel Blade

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS

Chisel Rechipped

HMS Private

Blade Butt Butt Butt Centre Centre Centre Centre Centre Centre Centre Centre Flake Frag Blade Blade Blade Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Centre Centre Centre Centre Centre Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Blade Centre

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS

Butt Butt Frag Blade Blade Blade Blade Butt Butt Frag

HMS HMS HMS 4345 HMS 4341a HMS 4341b HMS 4341c HMS 4341d HMS 4341e HMS 4341j HMS 4341f

B B

SU03SW25 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 SU65SE26 Willis SU65SW19 SU65SW21 SU65SW21 SU65SW19 SU65SW19 SU65SW19 SU65SW19 SU65SW21 SU65SW21

SU54NE10

SU65SW53 SU65SW20 SU65SW20

142

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Basingstoke, Worting Wood Basingstoke, Worting Wood Basingstoke, Worting Wood Basingstoke, Worting Wood Basingstoke,Viables Fm Cottages Basingstoke,Viables Fm Cottages Basingstoke,Worting Rd,allotments Batt Batt Batt Batt Batt Lone Barn Baughurst Bembridge, IOW Bemerton Bere Regis, Bere Heat Fm Bighstone, IOW Bincombe, n of village Bincombe, nr Barrow G10a Bincombe, nr Barrow G1a Bishopstoke Bishopstone Bishopstone Bishopstone Boarhunt, West Lodge Bognor Bournemouth Bournemouth, Boscombe Bournemouth, Boscombe Place, Boscombe Manor, Skellys Houses Bournemouth, Boscombe Station Bournemouth, Branksome, Bourne Valley pottery pit, twixt Winston Ave & Mt Talbot Bournemouth, Broadstone, Hillbourne Bournemouth, Carbery Ave, nr Tuckton End Bournemouth, Castle Lane, Nr Butlers Cottages Bournemouth, Charminster Bournemouth, Charminster, Acland Rd Bournemouth, Charminster, Markham Rd Bournemouth, Dudsbury, field to E Bournemouth, Dudsbury, garden of Horn Inn Bournemouth, East Howe, Aldridge Rd Bournemouth, Ensbury Pk, Columbia Rd Bournemouth, Ensbury, nr Patty Barn Bournemouth, Ferndown Bournemouth, Hadden Hill Bournemouth, Highcliffe Bournemouth, Hurn, in mound barrow 1 Bournemouth, Iford Lane, in riverbank Bournemouth, Iford, abuttment for new bridge Bournemouth, Iford, Exton Rd, Iford side of railway Bournemouth, Iford, Sheepwash Bournemouth, Kattens Hill, allotments to s Bournemouth, Kingdown, Chilbridge Fm Bournemouth, Kings Park Bournemouth, Little Canford, from riverbank

SU530600 SU530600 SU530600 SU530600 SU631503 SU631503 SU6452

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

SZ6488 SU1231 SZ8494 SZ43068351 SY6884 SY6866 SY6866 SU4719 SU0726

SZ68NW37

SU0726 SU0726 SU60021215 9399 SZ0891 SZ1191 SZ1191

SU02NE4 SU02NE4 SU61SW10

Frag Frag Frag Frag Butt Frag Flake Blade Butt Frag Frag Blade B Blade B Blade

SZ48SW46

HMS 4341g HMS 4341h HMS 4341i HMS 4341k HMS HMS HMS HMS 4403d HMS 4403e HMS 4403a HMS 4403b HMS 4403c HMS 62.62 DM-OGSC DCM 1962.15-1

Butt

SU02NE4

A / B B B Blade Frag B Blade Flake Butt A Blade

SZ124924 SZ0693

Recipped Blade

DCM 0.21.1 DCM 0. 33.1 DCM 0.27.1 WCM2144.49 SM1053 SM1012 SM1039 CCM BNHM Calkin 130 Calkin list 50 Calkin 106 Calkin list

SZ0195

B

Calkin list

SZ145921

A

Calkin list 52 Blade

SZ103946 SZ097937

B

Calkin list PM Nii62 Calkin list

SZ095935

Calkin list

SZ078978 SZ0798

Frag

Calkin 117 Calkin list 65

SZ072961

Blade

Calkin 158

SZ074947

C

SZ0794

Calkin 6 Frag

SZ0700 SZ1194 SZ2093 SZ1397

A Rechipped Blade Blade

SZ1393

Calkin 121 Calkin list 53 RCM Calkin list Calkin list 63 Calkin 131

SZ137936

A Rechipped

SZ136931

Rechipped

Calkin list 77

Butt

Calkin list 57 Calkin list

Butt

Calkin 146

SZ1493 SZ146950

SZ122926 SZ046997

A

SZ19SW22 DNHAS67,2 8

143

A Rechipped D

Calkin 62

Calkin list Calkin 67

Bournemouth, Moordown, Redbreast Bournemouth, nr Kinson Cemetery, Wavell Rd Bournemouth, nr St Johns Church, Moor Down Bournemouth, Pamphill, Lake Bournemouth, Parley Bournemouth, Pokesdown Hill, E of school & W of KP Bournemouth, Queens Park Golf Links, Lower Drive Bournemouth, Redhill Bournemouth, Somerford Nursuries Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Southbourne, 50yds NE of Grassendale Bournemouth, Southbourne, Castlemaine Rd Bournemouth, Southbourne, Cranleigh Rd Bournemouth, Southbourne, Northey Rd Bournemouth, Southbourne, nr CG station Bournemouth, Southbourne, nr water tower, rear of bowling alley Bournemouth, Southbourne, twixt Fishermans Walk & CGS Bournemouth, Strouden Farm, 400yds S of farm buildings Bournemouth, Strouden Park, 54 Chesildene Ave Bournemouth, Talbot Ave Bournemouth, Talbot Woods, twixt Rosslyn & Stirling Rds Bournemouth, top of Talbot Road Bournemouth, Tuckton Bournemouth, Tuckton Lane, nr Rookery on Southbourne Rd side of railway bridge Bournemouth, Tuckton, Belle Vue Rd lower end Bournemouth, Tuckton, Seafield Rd, nr Rookery Bournemouth, twixt Boscombe Pier & Pokesdown steps Bournemouth, West Cliff Rd Bournemouth, West Howe, corner Ritchie Rd & Mount Rd Bournemouth, West Parley Bournemouth, West Parley Bournemouth, West Parley Bournemouth, West Parley, Dudsbury Bournemouth, Wick Lane, Barrow Plot Bournemouth, Wick Lane, Barrow Plot Bournemouth, Wick Lane, Barrow Plot Bournemouth, Wick, Gravel pit (nr barrow) Bournemouth, Winton Bournemouth, Winton Bournemouth,Boscombe Place, Boscombe Manor nr Chalk Rd Bradford Peverell Bradford Peverell, nr barrow 22 Bradford Peverill, Whitfield Farm Bradley, Southwood Farm Bradley, Southwood Farm Bradley, Southwood Farm Bradley, Southwood Farm

SZ0994

Calkin list

SZ068958

Calkin 153

SZ0994

Calkin list

SZ9998 SZ0898 SZ130920

PPS30,359

Flake Frag Butt

SZ110935

Calkin 174 Calkin 127 Calkin list Calkin 78

SZ1391 SZ1391

Frag

RCM Calkin 103

Flake

Calkin list Calkin 164

SZ133923

Rechipped

Calkin 125

SZ140925

Rechipped

SZ143927

Butt

Calkin 163

SZ147911

Rechipped

Calkin 110

SZ1391

A

Calkin list SZ1491

Butt

Calkin list58

Frag

Calkin list

SZ106953

RCM

SZ0793 SZ082934

Calkin 5 Calkin 4

SZ082934 SZ1492 SZ141929

B Rechipped

SZ1492

Rechipped

BNHM Calkin list Calkin list 61 Calkin 109

SZ144925

Calkin 91

SZ1291

Calkin 132

SZ083907 SZ066956

Calkin 3 Calkin 162

SZ0897 SZ07889797 SZ0897 SZ07829808

SZ09NE45 SZ09NE58 SZ09NE43

Frag

DCM

SZ15239210

SZ19SE19

Frag

SZ15239210

SZ19SE19

SZ15239210

SZ19SE19

Calkin 124 Calkin 90

Butt

Calkin 99

SZ1592

A

Calkin list 60

SZ0893 SZ0993 SZ1191

C

Calkin 98 PM Nii38 Calkin list

SY6592 SY6592 SY6592 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428

frag SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8

144

Willis Willis Willis Willis

Chisel Butt Blade

DCM 1973.8.4 DCM 1887.1.1 DCM 1884.6.2 HMS HMS HMS HMS

Bradley, Southwood Farm Bradley, Southwood Farm Bradley, Southwood farm Bradley, Southwood farm Bradley, Southwood Farm Bradley, Southwood Farm Braishfield, Broom Hill Braishfield, Broom Hill Bramley Bramley Bramshaw, Dazel Bransgore, Harrow Farm Brighstone, IOW Brighstone, IOW Broad Chalk Broad Chalk Broad Chalke Broad Chalke Broad Chalke Broad Chalke, Knighton Broadway Broadway Bulford Bulford Burley, Burley Lawn Busey Stool Bussey Stool Bussey Stool Bussey Stool Bussey Stool Bussey Stool Bussey Stool Bussey Stool Bussey Stool Bussey Stool Butser Butser Butser Hill crossroads Butser No2 Meso site Butser, Fegdown Hill Calbourne, IOW Canford Magna Chalton, Windmill Hill Chandlers Ford, garden 14 Oakwood Rd Chapel Down Farm Cheesefoot Head Cheriton Chesilbourne Chettle, Chettle Down Chettle, Greenclose Chettle,Greenclose Chichester, Sheet Common Chichester, West Wittering Chidden Chilbolton Chilbolton (Park) Chilmark Bake Chilmark Down Chiselbourne, E of Eastford Fm Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch, Canberra Rd Christchurch, Avenue Rd, S end Christchurch, Canberra Road Christchurch, Court House Christchurch, Furzy, Latch Farm Christchurch, Grove Farm, Christchurch Field Christchurch, Grove Fm Christchurch, Heng Head

SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU38502613 SU38502612 6458 6458 SU26551732

SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8

SZ39508339 SZ40758428 SU01172709 SU01172709 SU0325 SU01352655 SU0325 SU0524

SZ38SE7 SZ48SW5 SU02NW36a SU02NW36b

SU1743 SU1743 SU21950365 ST932152 ST929153 ST932154 ST929153 ST932156 ST932153 ST928154 ST932154 ST933156 ST934152 SU7120 SU7120 SU7120 SU7120 SU7120 SZ4385 SZ0095 715162 SU4321

SU32NE8

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis O'Malley

Blade Butt Butt Butt Centre Centre Broken C C Blade

HMS 62.60 HMS 62.61

B

PM Nii10

SU21NE17

SU02NW38 SU02NW14

SU20SW7

Flake A C B Frag B Blade Flake Flake B C Butt B B Frag B Blade C Blade B Blade rechipped A Butt B Butt B Butt C Butt B Butt B Butt C Rechipped `Broken' Flake Butt Rechipped B Blade

SU5828

C

ST9513 ST933145 ST933145

C Blade A Butt Butt

MGM MGM MGM MGM MGM MGM HMS A89.7 PCM Draper Draper Draper Draper DCM 1937.60.2 PCM Draper WCM 2182 SM.PRC HMS A77.2 WCM 2144.4 DCM 1987.45.1 DCM 1946.35.3 SM.PRC SM.PRC CCM

SU70SE16 SU61NE24 C

ST9534 ST96373538

Private Private SM 8/71 SM 54/60 SM 1035 SM 1022 Calkin 171 Calkin 172 SM SM 1020 Private MGM MGM MGM MGM

SZ48NW26

Frag Frag

SU784003 SU6517 SU3939

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS

ST93SE20 ST93NE48

C

SZ1592 SZ1592 SZ1592 SZ1592 SZ1592

A A C C Blade Frag A Blade C

SZ152939

B Rechipped A

SZ138945 SZ1790

Frag Flake

145

WCM 3466 WCM 3466 SM SM DCM 1963.10.1 HMS NL62 HMS NL62 PM Nii56 SM 2022 HMS NL62 Calkin 150 Calkin 159 PM Calkin 156 PM nii40 Calkin list Calkin 111 HMS NV coll

Christchurch, Heng Head Christchurch, Heng Head (iron workings) Christchurch, Heng Head SE top Christchurch, Heng Head SE top Christchurch, Heng Head SE top Christchurch, Heng Head top Christchurch, Heng Head, field W of Dykes Christchurch, Heng Head, foot of cliffs nr Dyke Christchurch, Heng Head, Low ground Sill30 Christchurch, Heng Head, nursery Christchurch, Heng Head, nursery on low ground Christchurch, Iford Christchurch, Iford, Exton Road Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy, Lower Close Christchurch, Latch Farm, Mill Plain Christchurch, Mudeford Fm Christchurch, prob Christchurch, Purewell gravel pit at se corner of X-road to Mudeford Christchurch, Roebury, 2nd field W of dykes, Heng Head Christchurch, Rowbury, Double Dykes Clanfield Clanfield, Windmill Hill Clarendon Clarendon Clatford, Danebury Cliddesden Cliddesden Cliddesden Cliddesden Cliddesden Cliddesden Cliddesden Cliddesden Cliddesden Cliddesden Cliddesdon Cliddesdon Cliddesdon Cliddesdon, Winslade Cliddesdon, Winslade Cliddesdon, Winslade Colden Common Colden Common Colden Common Colemore, Becksteddle Farm Compton Chamberlayne Coombe Bissett (on road) Coombe Bissett, New Farm Corfe Castle Corfe Castle, Blashenwell Corfe Castle, Harmans Cross Corfe Mullen Corfe Mullen Corfe Mullen, ¼ mile W of Merly Hall Fm Corfe Mullen, Cogdean Gravel Pit Corhampton & Meonstoke Corhampton & Meonstoke Cowes, IOW Cranborne Cranborne Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down

SZ1790 SZ176905

Flake Frag

HMS NV coll

SZ178905 SZ178905 SZ178905 SZ174906 SZ162909

A Frag A A Rechipped

Calkin list Calkin list Calkin list51 Calkin list72

SZ164908

A

Calkin 149

Draper

SZ1691

Reused

SZ173908 SZ173908

Calkin 160 Calkin 152 Calkin 118

SZ1493

B C

SZ154945 SZ154945

Flake Rechipped

PM PM Calkin 112 Calkin 102

SZ154935

A Blade

Calkin list

SZ1892

A Rechipped B Blade Frag

Calkin list55 HMS Calkin list

SZ1693 SZ163912

Calkin list

SZ163913 SU7117 SU6916 SU1830 SU1830 SU330380 SU643477 SU643477 SU643477 SU643477 SU643477 SU643477 SU643477 SU643477 SU643477 SU643477 SU6349 SU6349 SU6349 SU657482 SU657482 SU657482 SU4821 SU4821 SU4821 SU69503075 SU0230 SU0923 SU0923 SY951805 SY953805 SY97708082 SY9797 SY9797 SZ0098 SU625189 SU64302047 SZ50909495 SU048177 SU048177 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130

SU33NW15 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

SU42SE35 SU42SE35

B

PM Nii3

C Blade C C Blade Blade

PCM display WCM 2169 SM 1003 SM 1004 SM 90/1966

Blade Butt Butt Butt Butt Centre B Blade Butt, Reused

SU63SE12 SU03SW39 A Butt B Chisel

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS WCM 2144 WCM 2144.7 WCM 2144.9 WCM SM 9/1929 SM 1169 SM 214/84

SY98SE51 Calkin SY98SE61 SY99NE14

SU61NW45 SU62SW31 SZ59SW27 SU01NW54 SU SU SU

146

Butt rechipped

Calkin list 64 Calkin 165

Butt

Calkin list

Draper B Butt Frags Wilis Willis Willis

SM 2037c HMS HMS HMS

Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Dewlish

SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SU55255130 SY7798

SU SU SU SU SU SU SU SU SU SU SU SU SU SU SU SU55SE8 SU 55SE8 SU 55SE8 SU55SE8 SU55SE8 SU55SE8 SU55SE8 SU55SE8 SU55SE8 SU55SE8

Dewlish Dewlish,

SY7798 SY7798

SY79NE17

Dewlish, nr barrow G6-9 Dewlish, W of church Dinton Dinton Beeches Dinton Beeches Dinton Beeches, New Barn Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Ditchling Common, St George's Retreat Donhead St Andrew Donhead St Andrew Donhead St Andrew Donhead St Andrew Donhead St Andrew Donhead, Rectory Gardens Donhead, Rectory Gardens Donhead, Rectory Gardens Donhead,Whitesand Cross Dorchester, Conygar Hill Dorchester, Fordington Field Dorchester, nr Poundbury Dorchester, S of Poundbury Down Farm Shaft Down Farm, Cursus Field Down Farm, Home Field Down Farm, Home Field Down Farm, St Giles Field Downton, CollegeFarm Drowford, Shirrell Heath Droxford Droxford

SY7798 SY7798 SU0131 SU0034 SU0034 SU0034 ?SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029

SU03SW57

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Wilis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Blade Blade Blade Butt Butt Centre Centre Centre Flake Frag B Blade rechipped Chisel B Centre rechipped C A B B

Butt Butt Butt Blade

B Butt C Butt C Centre Flake A Frag B Frag B Frag B Frag C Frag C Frag C Frag A Frag B Frag B Frag B

ST926221 ST927222 ST927222 ST923221 ST923221 ST9222 ST9222 ST9222 ST925235 SY6990 SY6688 SY6990 SY6990 SU2014 SU20221462 ST996148 ST998149 SU004146 SU1722 SU5814 SU6015 SU6015

Blade C Butt B Frag B Frag Flake C Blade B Butt B Blade B Butt

B C C B B C

Butt Frag Blade Part ground Centre Butt (thin) Frag

147

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS PM A53 DCM 1910.3.6 PM A54 DCM 1935.32.13 DCM 1919.3.1 DM 1834 SM 1014a SM 1014 SM 195/84 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 SM 15/51 CCM MGM MGM MGM MGM MGM SM 2/1911b SM 2/1911a SM 2/1911c SM PRC DCM 1987.23.61 DCM 0.14.1 DCM 0.30.1 DCM 1882.2.1 MGM MGM MGM MGM MGM SM.RSN WCM 2144.50 PCM Draper PCM Draper

Droxford Droxford Droxford, Pondside Farm Dummer Dummer Dummer Dummer Dummer Dummer Dummer Dummer Dummer Dummer Dummer Dummer Dunbridge Durrington Walls Durweston Durweston, Knighton Fm Durweston, Knighton Fm East Dean East Dean East Knoyle East Meon East Meon, Oxenbourne Down East Meon, Oxenbourne Farm East Meon, Salt Hill East Meon, Salt Hill East Meon, Wether Down East Moen, Salt Hill East Stour, Hunger hill East Woodhay Eastleigh Eastleigh

SU604154 SU6015 SU6015 SU602467 SU602467 SU602467 SU57974648 SU602467 SU602467 SU602467 SU602467 SU602467 SU602467 SU602467 SU602467 SU3226 SU150435 ST8508 ST8508 ST8508 TV5597 TV5596 ST871309 SU6921 SU706192 SU6921 SU673202 SU657198 SU677195 SU673202 ST801239 SU4161 SU4519 SU4519

Eastleigh Easton Lane interchange Easton waterworks Easton, Nr Winchester Ebbesbourne Wake Eldon Ellingham Ellingham Ellingham, Warren Farm Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Ellisfield Elsdon Faccombe, Kimber Farm Fareham Fareham Fareham, Cams Fareham, Cams Fareham, Cams Fareham, Cams Fareham, Cams Fareham, Red Barn Farleifh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop

SU43732202 SU4932 SU5132 ST98442578

SU61NW8 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU54NE23 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU54NE23

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Rechipped Frag

Draper PCM Draper

Blade Blade Blade Blade Butt Butt Butt Butt

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS WCM 850.95 SM DCM 1987.49.2 DCM 1987.49.1 DCM 1987.49.2

B Frag Frag

TV59NE166 TV59NE167 ST83SE12 SU62SE14 SU71NW27 SU62SE14 SU62SE11 SU61NE20 SU61NE23 SU62SE11 ST82SW5 SU46SW5 SU41NE7

Butt Frag Draper Draper Draper Draper Draper

Blade Butt Frag Rechipped Private Newbury 28.31 WCM 2144.6

PSA21,1906, 462

SU42SW6 Blade B ST92NE35 C

SU15080838 SU16970825 SU120106 SU62854571 SU62854571 SU62854571 SU62854571 SU62854571 SU62854571 SU62854571 SU62854571 SU62854571 SU62854571 SU6309045083 SU6345 SU6345 SU6345 SU6345 SU6345 SU6345

SU10SE20 SU10NE26 SU11SW17 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW23 SU64NW29

SU395568 SU62490444 SU5706 SU5805 SU5805 SU5805 SU5805 SU596055

SU35NE7 SU60SW6

SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479

SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15

SM Private PCM Draper Private

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Private HMS WCM 3465 WCM 3465 Private HMS 69.171/1 Private Private

Blade Blade Centre Centre Centre Centre

HMSBas HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS 69.171.13

Butt Butt Butt Centre Centre

PCM 25/50/60 PCM 25/50/182 PCM 25/50/130 PCM 25/50/184 PCM 25/50/183

B Hooper B C C B B SU50NE9

HMS A:1990.7

148

Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Manor Farm Farley Farley Farley Farley Mount Farlington, North Binnes Island Farnham Farnham Farm Farnham Farm Farnham Farm Farnham Newtown Farnham Newtown Farnham Newtown Farnham Newtown Farnham, Cams Farnham, Half Hide Farnham, Half Hide Farnham, Half Hide Farnham, Hand in Hand Farnham, Newtown, Hand in Hand Farnham, nr The Larmer Fawley Ferndown Fernhurst Fishbourne

SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU622479 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61454980 SU61094739 SU6247 SU6247 SU6247 SU6247 SU692045 ST9516 ST952162 ST952162 ST952162 ST944159 ST943160 ST948163 ST947158 SU5805 ST9515 ST9515 ST9515 ST950155 ST950155 ST94291680 SU43890375 SU0700 SU88002665 SU8302

SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW15 SU64NW3 SU64NW3 SU64NW3 SU64NW3 SU64NW3 SU64NW3 SU64NW3 SU64NW3 SU64NW£ SU64NW3 SU64NW3 SU64NW3 SU64NW14

Ford Four Marks Four Marks Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant

TQ00170357 SU66413418 SU6734 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929

TQ00SW18 SU63SE3

SU40SW29 SUSE14 SU82NE14

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Blade Blade Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Frag B C Blade B Blade Chisel C A Butt B Blade B Blade B Butt B Butt B Butt B Centre A Flake Flake B Blade B Blade C Butt C Butt B Butt B Butt

HMS 69.196/5 HMS 69.196/87 HMS6 9.196/6 WCM 2177 PCM 119/48/1 SM.PRC SM.PRC SM.PRC SM.PRC MGM MGM MGM MGM PCM 950/25 SM 1D111 SM.PRC SM.PRC SM.PRC SM.PRC SM PRC

A

PM Nii21

Blade B Blade rechipped Part B Frag Blade Butt Butt Butt Butt Blade Blade Blade Blade Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag

149

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS

CCM AltM 1957.100 HMS6824 DM DM DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay

Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant Fovant, Chiselbury Ring Fovant, manor Fm (300yds of church) Freshwater, IOW from Pit CSL (Pitt-Rivers report) Froxfield Froxfield Froxfield Froxfield Froxfield Froyle, Holybouirne Down Froyle, Holybourne Down Froyle, Holybourne Down Froyle, Holybourne Down Froyle, Holybourne Down Froyle, Yarnhams Farm Froyle, Yarnhams Farm Froyle. Holybourne Down Gosport Grateley, Quarley Hill Gt Wishford Gurnard, IOW Gussage St Michael Hambleton Racecourse, field to N Handley Harbridge Hart, Odiham Hart, Odiham Hart, Odiham Hart, Odiham Hart, Odiham Hart, Odiham Hart, Odiham Hart, Odiham Hart, Odiham Hart, Odoiham Hart, Yateley Hart, Yateley, West End Farm Havant Havant Havant, garden Warblington Ave Havant, N Binness Island Havant, N Binness Island Havant, N Binness Island Havant, N Binness Island Hayling Island Headley, Standford Hillfield Hinton, ¼ mile SSW of St Michaels Church Homby's Coppice Homington Horn Hursley, Farley Mount Hursley, Farley Mount Hurstbourne Priors Hurstbourne Priors, Tufton Itchen Stoke Itchen Stoke Itchen Stoke Kimmeridge Kingsclere Kingsclere Kingsclere Kingsclere Kingsclere Kingsclere, Ibworth Kingsclere, St Johns Hill Kingston Lacy, Badbury Rings Langrish, Butser Hill

ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 ST9929 SU018282 ST99592971 SZ37868355 SU0219 SU69752538 SU69682533 SU69752539 SU69662531 SU69682533 SU723436 SU723436 SU723436 SU723436 SU723436 SU7243 SU7243 SU723436 SZ59559842 SU26494201 SU0835 SZ469937 SU00651485 SU0017 SU120106 SU722494 SU722494 SU722494 SU722494 SU722494 SU722494 SU722494 SU722494 SU722494 SU722494 SU81346122 SU809608 SU70130717 SU71790355 SU7103 SU694046 SU694046 SU694046 SU694046 SU7200 SU813349

Frag Frag Frag B Butt Frag B Butt A

SU02NW50 ST92NE7 SZ38SE3

Frag B

SU62NE16 SU62NE16 SU62NE23 SU62NE31 SU62NE16 SU74SW1 SU74SW1 SU74SW1 SU74SW1 SU74SW1

Butt Butt Willis

PHFC14,182

SU11SW17 SU74NW7 SU74NW7 SU74NW7 SU74NW7 SU74NW7 SU74NW7 SU74NW7 SU74NW7 SU74NW7 SU74NW7 SU86SW8 SU86SW10 SU70NW2 SU70SW13

Butt Mid Butt Frag C Blade Blade Flakes Rechipped Frag

SU4029 SU4029 SU458468 SU457468 SU5632 SU5632 SU5632 SY909788 SU51806171 SU57195423 SU50055490 SU49705650 SU56305040 SU5458 SU5458 ST965030 SU71592032

Blade Hooper Hooper Hooper Hooper

SU44NE37 SU44NE36

Private

Butt Blade Butt Butt Adze

PCM 20/41 HMS A81/100 DCM 1953.40.1 Calkin MGM SM 1011 PCM 184/68/48 WCM 2158 WCM 2158b SCM 610/453 WCM 3336 WCM133 WCM134 WCM135

Willis

Willis

150

Draper SM PRColl

HMS A1982.2H

Flake Frag Frag Frag B Blade B

A C C B C

SU12NW44

SU72SW17

SM 1017

Frag

SU83SW22

SY97NW24 SU56SW5 SU55SE11 SU55SW63 SU45NE29

HMS HMS

C

SU2094 ST 982169 SU1225

Private HMS

B SU60SE1 SU60SE1 SU60SE1 SU60SE1

SM PRColl Private Private Private

Draper

Willis Willis SU74SW1 SZ59NE5 SU24SE4 SU03NE17 SZ49SE4 SU01SW143

DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay DMClay SM SM 9/58

Frag Frag Frag Blade Butt

HMS Private Private Private HMS WCM 1176 DCM 1942.16.6 Private

Lasham, Lasham Hill Lavant Lavant Lavant Lavant Lavant Lavant Lavant Laverstock Laverstock Laverstock/Ford, Ford Farm Laverstoke, Freefolk Manor Laverstoke, Freefolk Manor Laverstoke, Freefolk Manor Laverstoke, SW of Roundwood Farm Lee-on Solent Leigh Park, The Warren Little Langford Littlehampton Littlehampton Littlehampton Littleton, Worthy Down Litton Cheney, Leggs hill Lone Barn Lone Barn Lone Barn Long Island Longparish Longparish, Fox Farm Lurgashall Maple Durwell Maple Durwell Maple Durwell Maple Durwell Maple Durwell Maple Durwell Maple Durwell Maple Durwell Maple Durwell Maple Durwell Maple Durwell MapleDurwell Martin, Martin Drove End Martin, Martin Drove End Martin, Martin Drove End Maybush, 2 Rosewall Rd Medstead, Ash Rd Melcombe Horsey Meonstoke Meredon (Merdon) Micheldever, Cranbourne Lane Milborne St Andrew, nr Weatherby Milbourne St Andrew, Bagber Millbrook Milton Abbas, Bagber Milton, Hordle Milton, Hordle Minchington Minchington Minchington Down MonkSherbourne, Naishes Farm, Newnham Moreton Moreton, Hurst Farm Mottisfont Mottisfont, Brook Meadows Netley Netton Netton New Milton Newchurch, IOW Newport, IOW Newtown `rear of Hand in Hand Inn'

SU6742 SU8508 SU8508 SU8508 SU8508 SU8508 SU8508 SU8508 SU1632 SU1630 SU16203273 SU50754485 SU50754485 SU50754485 SU5044 SU5500 SU0436 TQ02680242 TQ02680242 TQ026024 SU455347 SY5490 SU5740 SU5740 SU5740 SU702402 SU40104315 SU418461 SU922285 SU69035211 SU69035211 SU69035211 SU69035211 SU69035211 SU69035211 SU69035211 SU69035211 SU69035211 SU69035211 SU6851 SU6851 SU048209 SU048209 SU048209 SU3815 SU6537 ST74630152 SU64302047 SU5336 SY8097 ST8001 SU38891536 ST8001 SZ2695 SZ2695 ST956170 ST956170 ST956170 SU6256 SY8089 SY786904 SU3226 SU 3226 SU4508 SU1336 SU1336 SZ2593 SZ57388545 SZ4486 ST950155

Butt Chisel

HMS CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM 17.8.1930 SM 41/83 SM .RSN SM 126/57 HMS HMS HMS HMS

Butt C Blade

SCM A1147-79 HMS A.1998.35 DM 1833

C B C C C C SU13SE22 SU54SW1 SU54SW1 SU54SW1

Blade Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt rechipped Rechipped

Flake C Butt Willis Willis

SU50SE8

C

TQ00SW21 OS Frag C Frag Willis Willis Willis Draper SU44SW18 SU44NW30 SU92NW6 SU65SE16 SU65SE16 SU65SE16 SU65SE16 SU65SE16 SU65SE16 SU65SE16 SU65SE16 SU65SE16 SU65SE16

Butt Butt Butt Frag Frag

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Frag Frag Frag Reworked Frag

SU02SW43 SU02SW43 SU02SW43 B ST70SW60 SU62SW31

WM HMS DCM 987.23.144 HMS HMS HMS PCM

HMS HMS

SCM A655.63 HMS 6421 Blade

Draper Willis

C Butt Butt

Willis

B Butt Frag C Butt Frag

SU31NE2

HMS 69.172/23 HMS DCM 1888.1.1 DCM 1897.1.1 SCM DCM 1897.1.1 Calkin 105 Calkin SM PRColl SM PRColl SM PRC HMS DCM 1970.5.1 DCM 1970.5

SU32NW14 SU32NW8 SU13NW21 SZ58NE14 SZ48NW27

151

B Butt C C Blade B Blade

Bristol Mus SCM A638.63 SM 1018(759) SM 1018 Calkinlist

B C Butt

SM.PRColl

Newtown, Farnham Niton & Whitwell, IOW Niton & Whitwell, IOW North Binness Island North Binness Island North Boarhunt North Waltham, Waltham Trinleys Norton Bavant, Scratchbury Norton Bavant, Scratchbury Nursling Nursling Nutley Oakley Oakley Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Oakley, Battledown Farm Odiham, Isnam's Farm Odiham, Isnam's Farm Odiham, Isnam's Farm Offham Old Winchester Hill Old Winchester Hill Old Winchester Hill Overton Overton Overton Overton Overton, Abra Barrow Overton, Abra barrow Overton, Ashe Overton, Ashe Overton, Ashe Overton, Ashe Overton, Ashe Overton, Ashe K Overton, Ashe, Burley Lane Overton, Frost Hill Oving Dist Field Survey Field 216 Oving Dist Field Survey Field 216 Owslebury Owslebury Owslebury Owslebury Owslebury, Red Lodge, Baybridge House Pamphill Pamphill, Bottom Field Poole Poole, Barrow Plot, Wick Lane Poole, Hamworthy nr corner of Hamworthy Rd & Tuckers lane Popham Popham

ST950155 SZ50807613 SZ50847567 SU694046 SU694046 SU600122 SU0436 ST911442 ST911442 SU3616 SU3716 SU6145 SU0118 SU563504 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU59605040 SU7249 SU7249 SU7249 TQ02850870 SU641205 SU641205 SU641205 SU51175390 SU53435075 SU51015189 SU51015189 SU50294737 SU50294737 SU5350 SU5350 SU5350 SU5350 SU5350 SU5350 SU5350 SU5153 SU9104 SU9104 SU52412472 SU52932467 SU52582448 SU5123 SU5123

SZ57NW6 SZ57NW11 SU60SE1 SU60SE1 SU61SW10

Hooper Draper Draper Willis

C Blade C Frag Rechipped Flake Frag Frag Blade Edge C Blade

SU31NE8 C Willis SU55SE43 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30 SU55SE30

Flake B Centre Frag

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

SM.PRColl

HMS DMStourhead DM SCM SCM A225.69 HMS SM 220/84

Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Butt Butt Centre Centre Butt Butt Chisel Butt

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS

Blade

Draper PCM Draper PCM Draper NM 149/2/2 HMS

TQ

SU55SW11 SU55SW38 SU55SW19 SU55SW19 SU54NW3 SU54NW3

Willis

Butt Frag Frag Blade Butt Butt Butt Frag Frag Frag

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Butt Butt Flake Frag

SU52SW8 SU52SW* SU52SW8 C C Butt

ST9900 SU974031 SZ06499229

ST90SE5 SZ09SE32

SY99699061

SY99SE6

SU54364413 SU54364413

SU54SW18 SU54SW18

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS 3079 HMS MPColl MPColl Private Site Mus Private Site Mus Private Site Mus SCM A632.63 WCM 2156.12 DCM 1952.83.5

152

B B Hoard of 5 similar

PM A92 PM Nii35 PMA91,Calkinlist

Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham Popham, Dunley Hill Portchester, Wicor Farm

SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU570435 SU55564290 SU6205

Portchester, Wicor Farm Portchester, Wicor Farm Portland, The Verne Portsmouth, Guildford Road Portsmouth, nr Farlington Marshes Preston Candover Preston Candover Preston Candover Preston Candover Preston Candover Preston Candover Preston Candover Preston Candover Preston Candover Preston Candover Preston Candover Preston Candover, Axford Preston Candover, Budds Hill Preston Candover, Budds Hill Preston Candover, Budds Hill Preston Candover, Budds Hill Preston Candover, Budds Hill Preston Candover, Budds Hill Preston Candover, Southwood Fm Preston Candover, Upper Barn Preston, Sutton Poyntz Quarley Redbridge, Hants Redlynch, Hamptworth Ringwood Ringwood Ringwood, Blashford Ringwood, Hangersley Hill Ringwood, Hightown Romsey Romsey, Belbins Pit

SU6205 SU6205 SY6973 SU65450018 SU679041 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU632428 SU622407 SU632428 SU6143 SU6342 SU6342 SU6342 SU6342 SU6342 SU6342

SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SE9 SU54SE22

SU60SE15 SU60SE11 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW8 SU64SW5 SU64SW8

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Hooper Willis Willsi Willis Willis Willi Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

SY7082 SU2642 SU2419 SU1505 SU1505 SU1506 SU1706 SU1704 SU3521 SU3521

Willis SU21NW20 SU10NW11

Blade Blade Blade Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Centre Centre Centre Centre Centre Centre Centre Centre Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS

Blade rechipped Frag Rechipped

WCM 2194.2

Flake

Frag Blade Blade Blade Blade Butt Butt Butt Frag Frag

Blade

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS DCM 0.29.1 HMS SM 2004/747 SM 1028 SM SM SM 70/55 Private Brighton Mus

Rechipped

WCM 2144.2

Blade A B Blade Rechipped

SU10NE30 SU10NE14 SU10SE4 SU32SE7

153

WCM 2194.1 WCM 2194.3 DCM 0.0.37.1

Rookery Farm Rookery Farm Rookery Farm, near Larmer RookeryFarm, Bye Coppice RookeryFarm, nr The Larmer Rushall, Rushall Down Rushall, Rushall Down Rushmore, n of Pitt Place, Chase Ave Rustington Salisbury, below Old Sarum Salisbury, Endless St Salisbury, Endless St Salisbury, Milford Hill Salisbury, nr Old Sarum Salisbury, Old Sarum Salisbury, Soton Rd, Muttons Bridge Sedgeheill & Semley, Semley Common Selsey Selsey Shapwick, N Badbury Shaw Shawford Shedfield Shedfield, Sandy lane Shedfield, Sandy lane Shedfield, Shirrel Heath Shedfield, The Dale Sherborne area

ST942166 ST942166 ST942166 ST9416 ST942166 SU1053 SU1053 ST9518

Sherborne area Sherborne area Sherborne St John, Shaldon Silchester Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley, Wor Barrow ditch Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Soberton, St Clairs Farm Sopley Sopley, Hillside Farm South Newton South Warnborough, Ford Farm South Warnborough, Ford farm South Warnborough, Ford farm South Warnborough, Ford farm South Warnborough, Ford Farm South Warnborough, Ford Farm South Warnborough, Ford farm South Warnborough, Ford Farm South Warnborough, Ford Farm South Warnborough, Ford farm South Warnborough, Ford Farm South Warnborough, Ford Farm South Warnborough, Ford farm South Warnborough, Ford Farm

ST6316 ST6316 6255 SU640624 SU012163 SU013173

TQ05010303 SU1332 SU144302 SU144302 SU1529 SU137327 SU137327 SU1428

B B C A B A B C TQ00SE49

ST82NE8

SZ86259343 SZ86429273 ST9503

SZ89SE44 SZ89SE50

SU4724 SU5613 SU544144 SU544144 SU5713 SU66361361 ST6316

SU95431122 SU960105 SU95671103 SU96161056 SU95580947 SU955111 SU955111 SU950085 SU950086 SU95551108 SU95551058 SU95621032 SU96171095 SU95531076 SU96111062 SU96221069 SU951085 SU95911083 SU 604154 SZ1596 SU18350035 SU1036 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149 SU7149

Blade Frag Frag Centre

Pick C Blade

SU13SW21 SU13SW21

ST8827

Blade Blade

C B B C B

Butt Chisel Butt Butt Butt

SM.PRC SM.PRC SM.PRC SM.PRC SM.PRC DM 1896 DM 28 SM PRC SM 1029a SM 1006 SM 1007 SM 1008 SM 163/63 SM 1029 SM 1005 SM

A Butt Rechipped C Butt Frag SU51SE1 SU51SE1 SU51SE14 SU51SE2

Rechipped

Draper

Butt

Private DCM1954.31.129 -31 DCM1954.31.149 DCM1954.31.97 HMS

X3 Frag Frag Willis

DCM 1942.16.6 CCM WCM 2167.1 Draper

SU66SW13 SU01NW184 B Butt Flake

SM PRC UC RU056

SU91SE16 B B B C B B C C C C C B C B C B

SU61NW8 SZ19NE8 SU10SE20 Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

154

Blade Blade Butt Butt Centre Flake Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Butt Butt

Blade B Butt Blade Blade Blade Blade Butt Butt Butt Butt Butt Centre Centre Centre Centre Centre

UC RU113 UC RU4211 UC RU081 Cufieldwalking UC RU004 UC RU094 UC RU120 UC RU114 UC RU115 UC RU020 UC RU044 UC RU028 UC RU033 UC RU119 UC RU092 UC RU046 PCM 25/62 PM Nii12 Bournemouth AC SM 1016 HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS

Southampton Southampton Southampton, Bassset Green Close Southampton, Bitterne Southampton, Bitterne Manor Southampton, Shirley Southampton, Shirley Southampton, Shirley

SU38891536 SU42741640 SU42741640 SU4313 SU4413 SU3914 SU4013 SU4013

SU41SW42 SU31SE13 SU31SE13 SU41SW61

Southampton, Sholing Southampton, Sholing

SU4511 SU4311

SU41SE12

Southampton, Welbeck Ave St Lukes Road St Mary Bourne St Mary Bourne St Mary Bourne Steeple Langford Steventon Stockbridge Stockbridge, nr Woolbury Stour Valley Gravels Survey Stourpaine, Hod Hill Stourpaine, Hod Hill Stratfield Saye Park Stratford Stratford Tony Stratford Tony Stratton, Wrackleford Sturminster Marshall Sturminster Marshall

SU43011499

SU41SW28

SU42485062 SU416537 SU42485062 SU03353735 SU5648 SU3535 SU3835

SU45SW17 SU45SW26 SU45SW17 SU03NW61

ST8510 ST8509 SU700615 SU1332 SU093267 SU09222792 SY6593 SY9499 SY9499

ST81SE30

Sturminster Marshall Sturminster Marshall, Dullar Fm Sutton Mandeville Sutton Mandeville, Harris Hill Swallowcliffe Swallowcliffe Swallowcliffe Swallowcliffe Swallowcliffe Swanage Tangley, Hatherden Teffont Teffont Titchbourne

SY9499 SY943981 ST981299 ST98362882 ST9726 ST9726 ST9726 ST9726 ST9726 SZ02607936 SU3450 ST9931 ST99713108

Titchfield Titchfield Titchfield Titchfield, Birch Copse Tollard Royal, Long Crate Tolpuddle Tolpuddle Totland, IOW Tuckton Lane, Poole Tunworth Twyford Twyford Twyford Twyford Twyford, Hazely Down Upmarden, nr Compton, Sx Upper Clatford, Bury Hill Camp Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden

SY7994 SZ315853

SU31NE2 SU41NW5 SU41NW5 A B B

SCM A224.69 SCM A645.63 WCM SCM A651.63

A Butt

SCM A635.63

B Adze

HMS 1/65/84 RM HMS 1984.28 RM SM HMS WCM 2144.3 WCM 2180 PM 47 86 II A

PHFC1898,1 83 PSA23,1909, 409

Frag Willis

Centre

SU33NE30 B C Chisel

DCM 1907.2.1 SU76SW11 B Butt A Butt

SU02NE46 SU02NE25

SM 1175f SM 73/75 SM 78/67 DCM 0.39.1

SY99NW11 DCM1943.16.1 Blade C Butt

DCM 1943.16.1 DCM 1908.26.1 DM

B Butt A Frag B Butt Flake B Frag

DM 1866 DM 1816 DM DM DM

A Butt Flake

DM 799 DM 20.1978.10 WCM 2144.14

SU5405 SU5405 SU5405

C Blade Blade Butt

ST9417 SY7994

Flake

SCM 227.69 Draper Draper WCM 2144.1 DM DCM 1885.14.1

SY99NW22 ST92NE53 ST92NE56

SZ07NW4 SU35SW9

DCM 1987.47.1 SZ38NW17

Chisel C

SU6748 SU4824 SU4824 SU4824 SU4824 SU4824 SU7914 SU345435 SU704470 SU712502

Willis

SU34SW16 SU74NW12 SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU42SE34

B Blade Butt C Butt

SU42SE34

155

Blade

Willis

Butt

PM Nii23 HMS WCM 2144.13 WCM 2144.10 WCM 2144.8 WCM 2144.11 WCM 2144.15 PCM 544/1972 HMS

Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, Humbly Grove Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Prevett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Coipse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

SU715502

SU75SW17

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Blade

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Blade

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Blade

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Blade

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Butt

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Butt

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Butt

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Butt

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Mid

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Mid

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Mid

HMS

SU712502

SU75SW17

Willis

Mid

HMS

SU7151502

SU75SW17

Willis

Chisel Frag

HMS

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Blade Blade Blade Butt Butt Centre Centre Centre Frag Frag Frag

HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS

SU7045 SU7045 SU7045 SU7045 SU7045 SU7045 SU7045 SU7045 SU7045 SU7045 SU7045 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470

SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12

156

Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Grey, NE of Privett Copse Upton Lovell, Barrow G2a Upwey Upwey (nr Ridgeway Hill) Upwey, Barrow G8 Upwey, Barrow G8 Upwey, Barrow G8 Upwey, Ridgeway Hill Urchfont, Urchfont Down Verwood Wakefords Copse Walberton Warminster Warningcamp Waterlooville West Dean West Lavington, Strawberry Hill West Lulworth West Parley West Wittering Weston Weston Weston, Five Lanes Weston, Five Lanes Weymouth, Cobham Drive Whitchurch Whitchurch, Tupton Church Whiteparish Whiteparish Hill Whitsbury Wickham, Shirrell Heath Wilsford Hill Wimborne Wimborne Wimborne Winchester, East Gate Winchester, nr Pitt Farm Winchester, St John's St Winslade, Hen Wood Winterborne Monkton Winterborrne Monkton Winterborrne Monkton Winterbourne St Martin Winterbourne St Martin Winterbourne St Martin (nr Barrow G31) Winterbourne St Martin, Maiden Castle Winterbourne St Martin, Maiden Castle Winterbourne St Martin, Maiden Castle Winterbourne St Martin, Maiden Castle Winterbourne St Martin, nr Barrow G6-8 Winterbourne Tomson, Combs Ditch Winterslow, Easton Down Woodcutts Woodcutts Woodcutts Common Woodcutts Common Woodcutts Common Woodcutts Common

SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 SU704470 ST95864277 SY6684 SY6684 SY6684 SY6684 SY6684 SY6684

Woodcutts Common

ST964177

SU 07490859 SU727091 SU97890540 ST86104440 TQ046067 6709 SU82551438 ST995525 SY8180 SY0997 SU784003 SU7221 SU7221 SU7221 SU7221 SY6778 SU462515 SU458468 SU2423 SU2423 SU1319 SU5814 SU1339 SU0100 SU0100 SU0100 SU4829 SU4829 SU4829 SU6647 SY6787 SY6787 SY6787 SY6688 SY6688 SY6688

SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 SU74NW12 ST94SE6

Frag

Frag B B Flake SU90NE35 ST84SE34 TQ00NW26

DM 1413 DCM 0.26.1 DCM 0.22.1 DCM 1884.9.27 DCM 1987.69.1 DCM 1987.69.3 DCM 1886.6.1 DM 1481 MGM PCM 1968/194 DM daybook

Blade B

SU81SW4 ST95SE20

PCM 1977/730 Broken Butt

Frag

DM daybook DCM 1897.2.1 DCM 1925.3.1

SU70SE16 Willis Willis Willis Willis

Blade Butt Centre Centre

SU45SE29

Butt

SU22SW7

C C A Chisel C Centre C

HMS HMS HMS HMS DCM 1970.6.1 HMS 1984.28 WCM 3336 SM 1033 SM 1032 SM 1112 WCM 2144.50 SM.RSN PM Nii57

SU00SW11 SU00SW11 C SU64NE18

Willis Frag Frag

Blade

Frag

WCM 2015 WCM 2189 WCM 2014 HMS 1964/678 DCM 1987.210 DCM1987.23.210 DCM198723.212 DCM 1985.15.1 DCM 1987.274 DCM 1884.9.101

SY6688

DCM1961.49.1

SY6688

DCM1987.24.44

SY6688

X3

DCM1987.24.5-7

SY6688

DCM198724.44

SY6688

DCM 0.34.1

ST8600

ST80SE32

SU234358 ST962173 ST964181 ST965177 ST966174 ST966172 ST963176

DCM1886.7.1 Chisel Blade C Centre A B C Blade B Blade rechipped B Butt

157

Smdisplay MGM SM. PRC MGM MGM MGM MGM MGM

Woodcutts Common Woodcutts Common Woodcutts Common Woodcutts Pit 93 Woodyates Wootton St Lawrence, New Found Wootton St Lawrence, New Found WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm WoottonStLawrence, nrWortingwood Fm Worldham, Manor Fm Wroxall, IOW Wylye Wylye Wylye Wylye Wylye Down Wylye Down Wylye, Bilbury Camp

ST964176 ST963175 ST963178 ST964181 SU0219 SU60415330 SU60415330 SU60415330

SU74063798 SZ55737828 0037 0037 0037 SU0037 SU 0036 SU0036 SU010362

Wylye, N of DintonBeeches Wylye; Dinton Beeches Yarmouth, IOW Yarmouth, IOW

SU0034 SZ35738982 SZ37358659

A C C A C SU65SW6 SU65SW6 SU65SW6

Willis Willis Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

SU60415330

SU65SW6

Willis

Butt Butt Centre Centre Blade Butt

A SZ57NE2

HMS Blade Butt Butt Butt Butt Blade Blade Butt missing

B B A C C B B / C B Poss pol knife C Blade SZ38NE8 SZ38NE22

Ordnance Survey refer to 19 ground axes at Wootton St Lawrence, New Found Ordnance Survey refer to 24 ground axes from Battledown Farm Ordnance Survey refer to 17 ground axes from Farleigh Wallop Ordnance Survey refer to 15 ground axes from Dummer Ordnance Survey refer to 30 ground axes from Deane Down, Deane Ordnance Survey refer to 16 ground axes from Wellocks Hill, Basingstoke

158

MGM MGM MGM SM. PRC SM 1D27 HMS HMS

SM.RSN SM.RSN SM.RSN SM.1036 SM.RSN SM.RSN SM.RSN SM SM 1015

APPENDIX 4:5 SEAMER AXES a) EDGE GROUND Ground Flint Seamers Amesbury, West of Stonehenge Bakers Island Bere Regis Bishopstone Bishopstone Bournemouth (near) in ploughed field Bournemouth, Redhill Bournemouth, Winton Broad Chalke Bussey Stool Christchurch, Latch Farm, Mill Plain Christchurch, prob Cobley, Foresters Cottage Cranbourne Chase, Scrubbity Copse Deane, Deane Down Deane, Deane Down Down Farm, Home Field Down Farm, St Giles Field Dummer Dummer Dummer Dummer Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farnham Newtown Fovant HandleyDown, Angle Ditch Hayling Island Hindon (N side of ?) Lavant Longwood Manor Odiham, Isnam's Farm Overton, Ashe Poole, Hamworthy, Lake Clay Pits Shedfield, Winchester Road Shirley Southampton, Sholing Southern Hampshire Stockton earthworks Vindocladia Walderton Down, Sx Woodcutts, Handley

NGR SU1142 695035 SY862918 SU0725 SU0725

NMR

Notes D-shaped adze

Museum SM Draper

?Seamer Blade D-shaped adze

SM 1025 SM 1013a Calkin list

Adze

HMS 1/65/84 PM 91/1968 SM 41/70 MGM PM Nii6

SY89SE19

SZ1391 SZ0993 SU0323 ST931154 SZ154935

Blade ?Seamer Blade Blade

SU9717 SU55255130 SU55255130 ST996148 SU004146 SU602467 SU602467 SU602467 SU602467 SU61454980 SU61454980 ST943163 SU9929 SU0117 SU7200 ST9133 SU8508 41/541248 SU7249 SU5350 SY990907 SU563144 SU4013 SU46821156

SU55SE8 SU55SE8

Willis Willis

SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU64NW9 SU64NW3 SU64NW3

Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

Willis Willis

Blade Centre Blade Centre Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Butt Blade Blade

Butt Blade Butt Centre

SU51SE41 D-shaped adze ?rough Seamer

SU41SE13

SU970362

Blade

SU 7911 ST9618

Rechipped Butt

HMS MGM SM.PRC HMS HMS MGM MGM HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS MGM SM 86/71 SM PRC PCM display SM.RSN CCM WCM 2156.12 HMS HMS PM APCM1978/702 SM 2005 PCM 25/50/59 SM 44/46 SM.PRC PCM 51/1976 SM 2032d

APPENDIX 4:5 SEAMER AXES b) CHIPPED Chipped Seamers Bournemouth, Rush Corner Bussey Stool Dummer Dummer Ellisfield Ellisfield Farleigh Wallop Overton, King Overton Preston Candover Upton Grey,Bidden Water

NGR SZ090926 ST9315 SU5846 SU5846 SU6345 SU6345 SU6246

NMR

Notes Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis Willis

SU6342 SU7151

159

Blade Blade Centre Frag Blade Blade Centre

Museum Calkin 120 MGM HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS HMS

APPENDIX 4:6 LEAF ARROWHEADS

Leaf & Lozenge arrowheads Parish Armsley, Godshill Wood Arreton, IOW Arreton, IOW Arundel, Barkhale Barton Basing, Wellocks Hill Basingstoke, Down Grange Fm Basingstoke, Kempshott Basingstoke, South Ham Bloxworth Bloxworth Bognor Bournemouth Bournemouth Bournemouth, Bear Cross, 350yds W& N of road Bournemouth, Boscombe Bournemouth, Boscombe Bournemouth, Boscombe Bournemouth, Boscombe Cemetery Bournemouth, Boscombe Manor, Grovely Rd Bournemouth, Boscombe Pleasure Gardens Bournemouth, Boscombe, East Cemetery Bournemouth, Boscombe, East Cemetery, 100yds from chapel Bournemouth, Boscombe, nr KeswickRd/Beechwood Ave Bournemouth, Boscombe, Shelley Estate Bournemouth, Branksome Bournemouth, Broadstone, Springdale Rd Bournemouth, Broadway Bournemouth, Broadway Bournemouth, Broadway, Wildown Lane Bournemouth, Carbery Bournemouth, Carbery Bournemouth, Charminster, above Strouden Farm Bournemouth, Charminster, Cecil Ave Bournemouth, Charminster, Indian Hut nr tumulus Bournemouth, Charminster, Strouden farm Bournemouth School football ground/E of North cemetery Bournemouth, Charminster, Uplands Rd Bournemouth, East Cemetery Bournemouth, Ensbury park Bournemouth, Ensbury Park Bournemouth, Highcliffe, Friars Cliff, 300yds from ‘Steamer’ Bournemouth, Hillbrow Bournemouth, Holdenhurst Bournemouth, Hurn Barrow Bournemouth, Hurn Barrow 1, in mound Bournemouth, Iford Bournemouth, Iford, Colemore Rd ar MeonRd end Bournemouth, Iford, nr Corhampton & Warnford Rds Bournemouth, Katterns Hill, Fairmile allotments, SE of Creeds Cross Bournemouth, Kings Park Bournemouth, Kings Park Bournemouth, nr Littledown Bournemouth, Littledown Common Bournemouth, Littledown Common, 175yds SSW of Thistle Barrow & 6yds SW of small barrow Bournemouth, Malton Bournemouth, Malton Bournemouth, Moor Down, King Georges Ave behind CH schools Bournemouth, Moordown Bournemouth, Moordown, 2-300yds from Talbot Inn Bournemouth, Moordown, Waltons brickfield Ensbury Park Rd

NGR SU1616 SZ540871 SZ53548742 SU97581261 SZ2493 SU6653 SU6150 SU5949 SU6151 SY8894 SY8894 SZ9399

NMR No

Notes

Museum Calkin85

SZ58NW31 SZ58NW24 SU91SE31

SZ055968 SZ1191 SZ1191 SZ1191 SZ121926 SZ118915 SZ125913 SZ121926 SZ121926

Calkin1 HMS HMS HMS HMS DCM 1987.33.6 DCM 1987.33.6 CCM Calkin 154 Calkin 155 Calkin 75 RHM 39 Calkin 28 Calkin 123 Calkin 116 Calkin 128 Calkin 156 Calkin 48 Calkin 51

SZ120916

Calkin 57

x3 x3

SZ118914 SZ0592 SZ0095 SZ150919 SZ150919 SZ151913 SZ135917 SZ135917 SZ1094 SZ101936 SZ 1093 SZ101940

Portland Chert x2

Calkin 56 Calkin 158 DCM 1940.2.2&3 Calkin 162 Calkin 166 Calkin 141 Calkin 36 Calkin 90 Calkin 53 Calkin 45 BNHM Calkin 52

SZ100945 SZ121926 SZ078950 SZ078950 SZ196928

Calkin 115 Calkin 102 Calkin 81 Calkin 105 Calkin 82

SZ128927 SZ128953

HMS BM HMS Calkin 76 Calkin 126 Calkin 10 Calkin 9 Calkin 43

SZ1493 SZ131934 SZ148919 SZ148948 SZ122926 SZ122926 SZ1193 SZ119933 SZ113928

SZ19SW22 SZ19SW22 x2

Calkin 127 RHM 68 Calkin 97 Calkin 109 Calkin 64 & 65

SZ090945

BNHM 147 BNHM Calkin 111

SZ0994 SZ0994 SZ0994

Calkin 157 Calkin 2 Calkin 61

160

Bournemouth, Pamphill, Lake, Neo pit Bournemouth, Parley Common, SE end Bournemouth, Pokesdown Bournemouth, Pokesdown urnfield Bournemouth, Pokesdown, Leaphill Rd Bournemouth, Pokesdown, Woodside Rd Bournemouth, Redbreast Bournemouth, Redhill Common Bournemouth, Redhill Common Bournemouth, Sheepwash Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Southbourne Cliff, nr Gordon Hotel Bournemouth, Southbourne Foxholes Rd Twixt Goldhill Rd & Crossways Bournemouth, Southbourne, nr CGS on SE side Bournemouth, Southbourne, nr CGS Bournemouth, Southbourne, nr water tower Bournemouth, Southbourne, Seller Fm, next to cliff Bournemouth, Stourvale Bournemouth, Strouden Farm Bournemouth, Sway Bournemouth, Talbot Woods nr tumulus Bournemouth, Talbot Woods, nr Melville Park Bournemouth, Thistle Barrow Firs Bournemouth, Thistle Barrow GP Bournemouth, Thistlebarrow Bournemouth, West Moors, Three Cross Fm Bournemouth, West Parley Bournemouth, West Parley Bournemouth, West Parley Bournemouth, West Parley Bournemouth, West Southbourne Bournemouth, West Southbourne Bournemouth, Wick Bournemouth, Wick Bournemouth, Wick Farm Bournemouth, Wick Farm Bournemouth, Wick Farm Bournemouth, Wick Farm Bournemouth, Wick Farm Bournemouth, Wick Farm Bournemouth, Wick Farm Bournemouth, Wick Farm Bournemouth, Wick Lane, Barrow Plot Bournemouth, Wick Lane, Barrow Plot Bournemouth, Winton Bournemouth, Winton prob Bournemouth, Winton, Abbott Rd/back of Green Rd Bournemouth, Winton, Lisle Rd Bournemouth, Winton, Ripon Rd Brighstone, IOW Brighstone, IOW Brighstone, IOW Brixton Deverill Brockenhurst Burton Bradstock Bussey Stool Butser Hill Calbourne, IOW Canford Magna, Broadstone Charlton All Saints Chichester Chichester, Trotton Farm Chichester, Trotton Farm Child Okeford Christchurch, Scotts Hills, W of Cameron Rd Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch

SZ9998 SU0999 SZ126923

PPS 30, 359 Antiq J 7, 466

x2

SZ125926 SZ1392 SZ094955 SZ080955 SZ080955 SZ132936 SZ1491 SZ1491 SZ1491 SZ1391 SZ1491 SZ145916 SZ1492 SZ1492 SZ1492 SZ152911 SZ110945 SZ2798 SZ0793 SZ0793 SZ1192 SZ116927 SZ115929 SU090055 SZ0897 SZ0897 SZ09369796 SZ0997 SZ1392 SZ1392 SZ156918 SZ156918 SZ157921 SZ157921 SZ157921 SZ157921 SZ157921 SZ157921 SZ157921 SZ157921 SZ15239210 SZ15239210 SZ0993 SZ0993 SZ0993 SZ0993 SZ40328426 SZ41588381 SZ38928300 ST8438 SU31340057 SY4889 ST930154 SU7120 SZ421921 SZ0095 SU176239 SU863049 SU8322 SU8322 ST84921226 SZ167931 SZ1592 SZ1592 SZ1592 SZ1592 SZ1592 SZ1592

161

x2

SZ09NE58 SZ09NE51

x2 x3

Ground SZ19SE19 SZ19SE19

x2

Calkin 113 Calkin 25 Calkin 37 & 38 Calkin 66 Calkin 106 Calkin 13 HMS Calkin 11 Calkin 12 Calkin 121 Calkin 150 Calkin 151 RHM 135 Calkin 135 Calkin 63 Calkin 67 Calkin 42 Calkin 60 Calkin 49 Calkin 62 RHM 71 Calkin list 20 BNHM RCM Calkin 108 Calkin 100 RHM 187 Calkin 50

DCM 1925.3.3-6 Calkin 32 Calkin 149 Calkin 34 Calkin 89 BirmCM Calkin 29 Calkin 120 Calkin 125 Calkin 143 Calkin 144 Calkin 145 Calkin 146 Calkin 94 Calkin 96 Calkin 98 RCM Calkin 1 Calkin 165 Calkin 129

SZ48SW2 SZ48SW10 SZ38SE6 ST83NW45 SU30SW4 x5

DCM 1958.37.1 MGM PCM

SZ49SW6 DCM 1940.2.1 SU12SE24 SU80SE19 SU82SW16 SU82SW16 ST81SW17

Lozenge Calkin 72 Calkin 152 HMS Calkin 6 Calkin 147 Calkin 30 Calkin 23

Christchurch Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Beaconsfield Rd Christchurch, below recreation ground Christchurch, Grove Farm Christchurch, Grove Farm Christchurch, Grove Farm Christchurch, Grove Farm field 1 Christchurch, Grove Farm field 2 Christchurch, Heng Head Christchurch, Heng Head Christchurch, Heng Head Christchurch, Heng Head, 100yds W of Dyke Christchurch, Heng Head, approach to Warren Hill Christchurch, Heng Head, field at Christchurch, Heng Head, field at Christchurch, Heng Head, field W of Dykes Christchurch, Heng Head, field W of Roebury Christchurch, Heng Head, Golf Links Christchurch, Heng Head, HFS Christchurch, Heng Head, Longfield Christchurch, Heng Head, Longfield Christchurch, Heng Head, Nursury Christchurch, Heng Head, Roebury Christchurch, Heng Head, Rowbury Christchurch, Heng Head, SE end Christchurch, Heng Head, SE top Christchurch, Heng Head, W of summit Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill, E of gully Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill, SE top Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill, top Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill, W of gully Christchurch, Hinton Christchurch, Hinton Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy, E of railway Christchurch, Latch Farm, Higher Close Christchurch, Latch Farm, Mill Plain Christchurch, Little Down Christchurch, Mudeford

SZ1592 SZ174906 SZ1592 SZ1592 SZ138945 SZ138945 SZ138945 SZ1394 SZ1394 SZ1790 SZ1790 SZ1790 SZ162909 SZ1690 SZ1690 SZ1690 SZ162909 SZ1690 SZ163912

Christchurch, St Catherines Hill Christchurch, Wick, Sopers Lane Cockmoore Corfe Castle Corfe Castle Corfe Castle, Bucknowle Farm Corfe Castle, Harmans Cross Corfe Castle, Highways Corfe Mullen, 600yds S of St Huberts Church Corfe Mullen, Hill View Fm Corfe Mullen, Railway Ballast pit Corhampton & Meonstoke Cranborne, Pentridge hill Denny Lodge Dinton Ditchling Common, St Georges Retreat Donhead St Andrew Donhead St Mary Dorchester, Fordington Hill Dorchester, Poundbury Dorchester. Fordington Field Droxford, Sheardley Fm Durrington Walls East Lavington

SZ144955 SZ155924 ST902863 SY96127882 SY9681 SY95458154 SY97708082 SY96288152 SY9797 SY958978 SY9797 SU62721881 SU041169 SU338068 SU01453170

Calkin list 19 Calkin 18 Calkin 110 Calkin 112 Calkin 117 Calkin 118 BirmCM Calkin 58 Calkin 59 Calkin 167 Calkin 172 Calkin 131 Calkin 142 Calkin 41 Calkin 101 Calkin 47 Calkin 74 Calkin 103 HMS NV coll Calkin 55 Calkin 68 Calkin 163 Calkin 119 Calkin 104 Calkin 132 Calkin 133

SZ1690 SZ1690 SZ173908 SZ163912 SZ163912 SZ178905 SZ178905 SZ170907 SZ174906 SZ174906 SZ174906 SZ174906 SZ174906 SZ174906 SZ1790 SZ178905 SZ174906 SZ1790 SZ2195 SZ2195 SZ154945 SZ154945 SZ154945 SZ154945 SZ154945 SZ154945 SZ1594 SZ154935 SZ1293 SZ185922

SU9222 ST9024 SY6688 SY6990 SY6688 SU6015 SU150435 SU94931938

162

x 10

x3 x2

partly ground on both faces

Calkin 22 Calkin 124 Calkin 46 Calkin 33 HMS NV coll Calkin 148 Calkin 169 Calkin 83 Calkin 91 Calkin 170, 1 & 3 Calkin 35 Calkin 2 RHM 30&98 Calkin 99 Calkin 93 Calkin 54 Calkin 69 Calkin 70 Calkin 107 Calkin 73 RHM 147 Calkin 26 Calkin 153 Calkin 95 MGM Calkin list 27 DCM 1933.12.1

SY97NE66 SY98SE64 SY98SE61 SY98SE20

DCM 1933.11.1 Calkin 159 Calkin 7

SU61NW15 SU01NW92 SU30NW38 SU03SW16

x 16 x3 x2

x2 SU91NW37

SM 15/1951 CCM MGM SM DCM 1987.24.29 DCM 1987.23.103 DCM 1987.24.29 Draper SM

East Meon East Meon, Oxenbourne Down East Meon, Salt hill Eastleigh Farleigh Wallop Farlington Marsh Farnham Fawley Fonthill Bishop, Fonthill Down Fordingbridge, Alderholt Fordingbridge, Sandy Balls Gate Fovant Godshill. IOW Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael, Cursus Field Hursley, Stackside Manor Kingsclere Kingsclere Lake, IOW Lake, IOW Lake, IOW Lavant Laverstoke, Freefolk Manor Long Island Lulworth Lyndhurst Lyndhurst Lytchett Matravers, Crumpets Farm Martin, Marin Drove End Milland Milton Nether Compton, Tuckers Cross Newchurch, IOW Niton & Whitwell, IOW Nutley Oakley Old Winchester Hill Old Winchester Hill Overton Overton, Polhampton Lodge Oving Oving Poole Poole Poole, Alderney Poole, Alderney Poole, Canford, nr Hatch Hole Poole, Longfleet Poole, Moortown Poole, Stour Valley Popham Portsmouth Portsmouth, Farlington Marshes Selsey Selsey Sherborne area

SU695192 SU706192 SU673202 SU455211 SU6246 SU679043 ST948163 SU43490316 ST942345 SU1212 SU169145 ST9929 SZ49468168 ST99941456 SU0014 SU4029 SU497565 SU500594 SZ5883 SZ584837 SZ592845 SU8508 SU50754442 SU702402 SY8380 SU2907 SU2907 962965 SU048209 SU82872796 SZ2593 ST5917 SZ58248406 SZ499773 SU6145 SU563504 SU641205 SU641205 SU53435075 SU5350 SU9204 SU923037 SY99819600 SY99959595 SZ031031 SZ0191 ST0497 SZ03089765 SU543441 SU6500 SU679041 SZ8592 SZ8592 ST6316

Sherborne area

ST6316

Shorwell, IOW Shorwell, IOW Shrewton, Robin Hoods Ball Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley, Angle Ditch Sixpenny Handley, Chalk Pit Field Sixpenny Handley, Woodcutts Common Sixpenny Handley, Wor Barrow Slindon Slindon Southampton, Shirley St Mary Bourne Stonehenge Stonehenge environs? Sutton Mandeville Symondsbury, Eype

SZ45798265 SZ47108129 SU10114604 SU012163 SU0117 SU0116 ST966172 SU013173 SU955111 SU95891015 SU4013 SU42485062 SU122422 SU1242 ST98832851 SY4491

SU61NE17 SU71NW27 SU62SE11 SU42SE57

x 2½ x7

SU40SW25 ST93SW27 SU11SE30

Draper Draper Draper WCM HMS Draper MGM SM 115.1974 Calkin 84

x2 SM 15/1951

SZ48SE30 ST91SE106

MGM MGM WCM

SU45NE29 SU55SW63 SZ58SE25 SZ58SE17 SZ58SE29

x2

SU54SW1

x3

CCM PCM Calkin 7 Calkin 17 Calkin 31 Calkin 8 SU02SW43 SU82NW7 x3

Calkin list 24 DCM 1954.75-77

x2

HMS

SZ58SE32 SZ47NE17 SU55SE43 Draper Draper SU55SW38 HMS M Pitts SU90SW17 SY99NE18 SY99NE20 DCM 1935.38.2 DCM 1935.38.3

163

SZ09NW73 SZ09NW75 SU60SE11 SZ89SE40

x2 Lozenge x10 x7 frags

SZ48SE28 SZ48SE9 SU14NW3 SU01NW184

BirmCM PM 34 PM 49 HMS PCM 6.55 Hooper CM DCM 1954.31.107117 DCM 1954.31.118125

x3

ST91NE46 x2

SM MGM MGM PRM UC RU135 UC RU131

SU41SW61 SU45SW17 ST92NE10

SM SM DM DCM 1914,4.2

Tarrant Gunville Tarrant Launceston Tarrant Launceston Tollard Royal Trotton, Furze Reeds Upavon, Casterley Camp Upwey Verwood, barrow G1 Verwood, Pistle Down

ST922156 ST95621064 ST9409 ST9216 SU8322 SU1354 SY6684 SU0909 SU0805

ST91NW43 ST91SE146

Verwood, Three Cross farm Wareham, Bestwall Quarry West Lavington, Strawberry Hill West Parley, N of Woodtown Fm Weston Weston Patrick Wilsford cum Lake Winterbourne St Martin, Maiden Castle Winterbourne St Martin, nr barrow G2a Wood Green, Godshill Wood Wootton St Lawrence, Battledown Wootton St Lawrence, Worting Wood Wyke Regis, nr Ferry Bridge Wyke Regis, nr Ferry Bridge

SU080053 9388 ST995525 094978 SU7221 SU69224500 SU107408 SY6688 SY6688 SU1716 SU6053 SU6053 ST6679 ST6679

SU00NE12

ST91NW46

In skele ribs x3 x2 Lozenge x 4 (long barrow) x4

ST95SE20

NGR SU12244218 SU97581261 SU92050970 SU45855727 SU807179 ST84921226 SY704899 SY69289063 SU807179 TQ00231203 ST80173519 ST80523557 ST98421097 ST911442 SU10114604 SU89761375 SU877110 ST96991402 SU11304052 SY66938848 SU11503667

NMR No SU14SW4 SZ91SE31 SU90NW2 SU45NE39 SU81NW48 ST81SW17 SY78NW67 SY69SE242 SU81NW48 TQ01SW28 ST83NW6 ST83NW8 ST91SE25 ST94SW1 ST14NW3 SU81SE5 SU81SE52 ST91SE111 SU14SW52 SY68NE7 SU13NW44

164

L Ladle DM daybook DCM 1948.23.32 HMS

SU64SE1 SU14SW251 DCM 1936.24.1 DCM 1885.18.1 SU11NE9 x3

APPENDIX 4:7 ENCLOSURES Enclosures Amesbury, Stonehenge Arundel, Barkhale Camp Boxgrove, Halnaker hill Burghclere, Beacon Hill Chichester, Elsted Child Okeford Dorchester, Flagstones Dorchester, Greyhound Yard Harting Houghton, Bury Hill Kilmington Kilmington Long Crichel, Norton Bavant, Scratchbury Shrewton Singleton, Court Hill Singleton, St Roches Hill Sixpenny Handley Wilsford cum Lake Winterbourne St Martin Woodford, Hooklands Plantation

DCM 1945.23.11 SM 195/71 CCM SM DCM 0.86.1 DCM 1889.1.9 Calkin 137-140

Notes Intercutting pits Causewayed Causewayed? Stretch of interrupted ditch Hambledon Hill Causewayed Palisade Possible Whitesheet Hill (a) Whitesheet Hill (b) Causewayed Causewayed-poss Robin Hoods Ball Causewayed Rect ? mortuary enc ?EBA Kite shaped Maiden Castle Sub rectangular

HMS HMS 4341 DCM 1987.60.1 DCM 1987.60.1

APPENDIX 4:8 OVING DISTRICT FIELDWALKING SURVEY

Introduction

Cultural flint material was collected during the early 1970's from the surface of fields on the Sussex Coastal Plain in the vicinity of Oving, near Chichester by Mike Pitts, then a schoolboy resident at Woodhorn Farm. Fields for some distance around the farm were inspected but investigation focussed upon three, in particular, Leach Pond Field NGR SU 924 038, Tote Copse SU 923 049, and SU 924 046, each situated aside the Aldingbourne Rife, a small brook discharging into the sea at Bognor Regis. Details are included here by kind permission Mike Pitts.

Topography, geography and geology

The area lies on the Sussex Coastal Plain a little over 3 km to the east of Chichester and 5km north of Bognor. It encapsulates an essentially flat but locally undulating landscape. Pagham and Aldingbourne Rifes that flow southwards provide some relief while the River Arun lies 9km to the east. The present coastline is 5km to the south. According to the BGS 1:50 000 map (re-surveyed 1982) the drift consists of undifferentiated gravel with a small patch of Brickearth east of Oving village and larger areas of Brickearth to the south-east. Between Tangmere and Boxgrove lies a 300m wide, 4km long strip of Marine Gravel, while the chalk itself is less than 4km to the north.

Method

Prehistoric material was collected from the surface of thirteen fields within the vicinity of Woodhorn Farm and these are referred to by letters A-Y respectively. Most appear to have been walked in a random manner, in some cases with second or third sweeps. An indication of trends of artefact distribution from the wider area is presented in tables 1-4. Where more than one sweep took place in any field the totals are incorporated. A grid was established on three fields subsequently referred to as Fields 201, 216 and 305. According to the site notebook this was established with a dumpy level, divisions north to south being allocated numbers and those west to east allocated letters. At least 16 individuals were involved in artefact collection and so the recognition factor is unknown, but in an attempt to alleviate bias each square was further subdivided into quadrants with each walked by a different individual. Finds from the subdivided squares were bagged together and referred to by the co-ordinate of the central point.

The flint

Basic details of the flint assemblage, which totals 2720 pieces, are given in table 1, and the material is further divided by Site and Grid and details provided in tables 2-10. The assemblage as a whole is not large, too small for meaningful statistical analysis, although no less significant for that. Greater quantities come from the three sites noted above and these are treated separately below. In general the material appears to represent debris from a number of visits, although by far the greater number of pieces appears to be Neolithic. The few blades and blade fragments, for example, could represent Mesolithic background noise but there

165

is little diagnostic Mesolithic material to support such a date, and they could equally easily be considered to be part of the Neolithic tool kit. Platforms are generally narrow, and flakes thin and well knapped. Despite the presence of a number of pieces of later date there are few thick platforms, sturdy pieces, or flaked-flakes present.

Raw material

The greater amount of the raw material appears to have come direct from sources other than the Chalk. Much has the battered cortex of river or beach pebbles and many pieces are stained to various degrees by minerals and in a good number of cases positively ochreous. A few pieces of dense black flint or chert may derive from the Reading Beds.

Tool preparation

The presence of only 99 primary flakes indicates that little in-situ nodule dressing appears to have taken place. Secondary and tertiary flakes are present in greater numbers, over 2200, suggesting that this is essentially a flake industry. Some 64 cores are present mostly for flakes, but in two cases for blades and flakes

Blades

A total of 41 blades of various sizes were recovered. The total includes secondary and tertiary examples with both single and double arrises. Almost all have thin platforms and shallow bulbs of percussion and many might be assigned to the Mesolithic. A number of blade fragments were recovered and while some fractures may have been the result of recent breaks by agricultural tools, some appear to have been ancient. Two have been partly retouched - micro-burin like. Another may have been twisted. One narrow microlith, perhaps best described as an atypical obliquely blunted point, was also recovered and is the best evidence that a small part of the material may be Mesolithic.

Tools

Utilised flakes are by far the most common tools. Few of them received formal retouch, and in most cases nibbling, or pressure detachments on one or more edges indicates use. The use of sturdy pieces, or of platforms, is rare, and the utilised portion is usually the sharp flake edge. Scrapers reach relatively high numbers, although only one thumbnail form is diagnostic (Riley in Richards 1990). The plano-convex knife hints at the presence of activity early in the second millennium. Two ground axe fragments indicate Neolithic presence although the pieces themselves indicate the utilisation of broken axes as cores, whether soon after breakage or centuries later cannot be determined. A small crude chipped axe is undiagnostic. Six arrowheads were recovered, one leaf, two PTD oblique types, two barbed and tanged, and a triangular or perhaps hollow-based example. All or any of these could have been casual losses, or a result of hunting rather than occupation. Although few in number it might be observed that as is sometimes the case elsewhere (e.g. Windmill Hill) all types of arrowhead appear in close proximity.

166

Table 1 The flint assemblage Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Microlith Blade butt Blade segment Blade tip Util flake Util blade Saw Scraper Fabricator Rejuv flake Flake core Blade core Spall Core tool Chipped axe G.axe frag Leaf arrow PTD arrow B&T arrow Other arrow Pl convex knife Gunflint

General 36 444 443 16 0 13 5 3 26 0 0 37 0 2 36 8 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0

Field 201 5 11 25 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Field 216 45 617 659 15 1 5 2 2 65 0 2 37 1 2 16 2 9 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1

Field 305 13 21 17 10 0 7 6 1 11 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

167

Total 99 1103 1144 41 1 25 13 6 108 5 2 78 1 4 53 11 13 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1

Table 2 Initial random collection Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Butt Segm ent Spall Flake core Blade core Chipp ed axe Rejuv flake Scrap er PTD arrow B&T arrow Util flake

Field A 1

Grey flint Ochre ous Mixe d Black

*

Prob Meso E/Neo Lneo/ BA BA

B

C

D

E

F

3

G

H

J

M

2

12

4

20

2

26

1

4

4

8

2

40

2

29

3

5

1

N

O

P

Q

2

2

2

K

1

S

R

T

4

2

6 12 2 13 9 2 6 2

7

12

16

3

1

28

23

2

14

10

3

1

22

13

1

2

1

1 1

U

V

W

X

2

3

2

43

6

6

4

53

10

9

Y

1

1 2

1

1

6

2

3

2

1

3

2

6 1

1

1 1 3

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

12

2

1

1

2

6

1

1 *

1 *

*

*

1

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

1

* *

*

*

*

*

* *

*

* *

*

*

*

* *

*

* *

Notes Field T = 216 B & T arrowhead (ochreous) from Field T at SU 92240488 Scraper from Field S is of the thumbnail type

Table 3 Other material from the area Field at SU 80 NE Flint type Prim flake Sec flake

F1

Ochreous

*

1

168

* *

*

*

* * *

Table 4 Field at SU 90 NW Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Util flake Scraper Flake core Plano-con knife

F1

Grey flint Ochreous

* *

Meso BA

* *

F2 2 2 2

2 3 1 2

F9

F* *

1 1

1 1 *

SU 90 NW F1 = Aldingbourne SU 90 NW F2 = Aldingbourne SU922053 SU 90 NW F* = The Westergate School

Table 5 Field at SU 90 SW Tangmere Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Butts Segments Tip Rejuv flake Util flake Scraper Flake core Spall

F1

F2

1

16 5

Ochreous Meso Neo Neo/BA BA

*

F3 1 4 2

F4

F5

1 1

3

F6

F7

F8

F9

1

1

1

1

F10

F12

4

14 10

F13 8 56 41 6 5 2 2`

F14 1

1

1 2 1

2 1

3 1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

*

SU 90 SW F2 = Aldingbourne SU 90 SW F4 = Bognor SU 90 SW F6 = Oving SU 90 SW F9 = Oving SU 90 SW F13 =Leech Pond Table 6 Field 201 Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Util flake Flake core

1st sq 2 3 8

2nd sq 1 3 10 4 1

3rd sq 2 2 7 2

Ochreous

*

*

*

L/Neo/BA

*

*

*

169

6 3 10 1 * * * *

1

*

Table 7 Field 216 Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Scraper

BA0

M0

1 1 1

Ochreous

*

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Flake core Blade Butt Fabri cator Util flake Scrap er

A1

Gunfl int

1

BA 1

B2

Me/Neo Neo

1 2

1

V0

W0 1

*

E1

F1

FB 1

G1

K1

M 1

N1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

P1

Q1

R1

4

1

1

2

S1

T1

2

U1

W1

X1

1

1

1

1

1

Y1

1

2 1 1 1 2 1

* *

Neo

Ochreo us

U0

*

1

Grey Ochr eous

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Util flake Scraper Arrow

N0

*

*

*

*

* DA2

*

*

* E1

E2

EA2

F2

G2

L2

1 1

1 1

1

2

*

*

N2

1

2 2

S2

1

T2

1

U2

V2

W2

X2

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

*

XA2

Y2

1

1

1 1 *

*

*

M2

1

*

1 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

170

*

*

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Microlit h Util flake Flake core

E3

G3

2

H3

1

J3

K3

L3

2

MB3

N3

2 1

1

1

P3

Q3

1

1

1

3

R3

S3

U3

1

1

1

1

V3

2

1

W3

Y3

1

1

2

1 1

1 1`

Grey flint Ochreou s

* *

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Util flake Scraper Flake core

C4

Grey flint Ochreous Black

*

*

*

E4

F4

FA4

1

1 1

1

1

*

* H4 2 1

*

*

*

*

J4

M4

N4

P4

Q4

T4

1 1 1

3

2

1 2

1

1

* U4

V

W4

Y4

2

2 2

1

1 1

1 1 * *

*

*

1

*

*

*

*

* *

Lneo BA

* *

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Flake core Scraper Ground axefrag Grey flint Ochreous

C5

CA5

E5

EA5

3

H5

L5

2

2

1

M5

N5

P5

Q5

S5

T5

1

4 1

1 2

3

1 3

2

V5

W5 1 3

1 1 1 * *

Neo

* *

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Scraper Flake core Core tool

B6

C6

1 1

1

Ochreous

*

Me/Neo Neo L/Neo

M3

CA6

*

*

*

*

*

*

* H6

J6

2

* L6

M6

N6

P6

Q6

R6

S6

T6

1

1

2

1 1

1 4

3

2 3

4

*

*

2

U6

V6

W6

2

1 3

1

1 1 2 2 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

* *

171

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Util flake Blade core PTD arrow Grey flint Ochreous Black

G7

H7

H7

J7

L7

2

4 2

1 3

2

1

Grey flint Ochreous

NA7

Me/Neo L/Neo

S7

T7

U7

2

3 2

1

1 1 1

3

1

W7 1 1

X7

Y7

1

1

1

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

F8

G8

H8 1

J8

1 1

1

2

1

K8

M8

N8

P8

Q8

S8

T8

V8

1

1 3

3 3

1 1

2 2 1

2

3 6

1

*

*

*

*

W8 1

* *

*

* C9

E9

1 1

EA9

EB9

1

G9

H9

1 1

2 1

* J9 2 1 1

K9

L9

1

1

LA9

M9

N9

1

2

1

1 1 1 * *

Me/Neo L/Neo

Grey flint Ochreous

R7

1

Grey flint Ochreous

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Util flake Blade Scraper Flake core

Q7

2

Neo Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Util flake Blade Scraper Flake core

P7

1

Neo Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Butt

N7 1 1

*

*

*

* P9

PA9

*

Q9

R9

RA9

6

1 2

1

*

*

2

*

S9 1 3

T9

U9

V9

W9

X9

1 1

2

1 1

3

1

1 1 * *

*

*

* *

172

*

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Tip Spall Scraper Grey flint Ochreou s

G10

H10

J10

K10

L10

N10

P10

Q10

R10

1

7

1

S10

T10

V10

W10

X10

Y10

1 2

1

1

1 1

1

3

1

6

2

1

2

1

1 1 1 * *

*

*

*

*

Meso Neo/BA

*

* *

*

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Scraper

H11

K11

N11

2

5

1 1

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

*

P11 1 1

Q11

R11 1

S11

T11

2 1

1

3

2 2

*

*

UA11

W11

X11

3

4

1 *

*

*

*

*

*

Neo

*

E2 Arrowhead + perhaps PTD oblique but bifacially knapped all over and may be a triangular hollow-based arrowhead. Table 8 Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake

AA7

Grey flint

1

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Spall Scraper G.axe flake

1

BB01

BB04 1

1

BB07

BB08

1

1

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Beach gravel Chert

*

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Spall Scraper G.axe flake

BC02

BC03

BC04

1 2

2

1 1

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Beach gravel Chert

* *

BC05 1 1

BC06

BC07

BC08

1 1

1 2

*

*

1 1

*

*

* *

*

173

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Spall Scraper G.axe flake Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Beach gravel Chert

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Spall Scraper G.axe flake Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Beach gravel Chert

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Spall Flake core Scraper Util flake Saw Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Bullhead Beds Beach gravel

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Spall Flake core Scraper Util flake Saw Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Bullhead Beds Beach gravel

BD02

BD03

1

BD04

BD05

BD06

BD07

BD08

2 1

3 8

1

2 1

1

1 1 *

*

*

*

*

* *

BE01

BE02

BE03

BE04

BE05

BE08

5 1

2 2

2 2

1 3

3

3

1 1

*

*

*

* *

BF01 1 4

BF02 1 2 4

1

1

BF03

BF04

6

2 3

BF05 1 1 1

BF06

BF07

BF08

4

2 1

3

1 1

*

*

*

*

*

*

BG01 1 6 1

*

*

BG02

BG03

BG04

BG05

BG06

BG07

BG08

3 4

8 2

4 3

1 3 1

2 2

3

3

1 1 *

*

*

*

*

*

* * *

174

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Butt Tip Spall Saw Util flake Scraper

BH01

BH02

BH03

BH04

BH05

BH06

BH07

BH08

3 4

5 3

3 3

4 1

4 2

2 1

3

2 3

1 1 1 3

Grey flint Ochreous Reading Beds Mixed

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Butt Tip Spall Saw Util flake Scraper Grey flint Ochreous Reading Beds Mixed

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Flake core Util flake Scraper Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Beach gravel

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Flake core Util flake Scraper Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Beach gravel

*

BJ01

BJ02

3 5

2

*

*

*

*

BJ03 2 9 3

BJ05 1 7 3

BJ06

BJ07

BJ08

1 6

1 5

1 2

2

2

1 1

1

* *

*

*

*

*

BK01

BK02

1

4 2

*

BK03 1 5 2

BK04 5 3

BK05 1 1 6 1

BK06 1 2

BK07 1 3 2 1

BK08 1 1

3 1 *

*

* *

*

*

*

BL07

BL08

2 6

4 6

*

BL01

BL02

BL03

BL04

BL05

3 2

1

5

7 4

6 9

1

1

BL06 1 5 1

1 1 1 *

*

*

*

* *

175

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Butt Util flake Scraper

BM01

BM02

4 2

2

BM03 2 9 2

BM04

BM05 1 7 4 1

3 6

BM06

BM07

BM08

5 2

2 5

1 1 1

1

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

*

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Butt Util flake Scraper

BN01

BN02

BN03

BN04

BN05

BN06

BN07

BN08

3 4

4 3

1 2

4 3

7 6

1 4

4

4 3

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Spall Util flake Blade core Scraper Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Spall Flake core Scraper Util flake Saw

*

*

* *

1 1

1 * *

1 1

2

*

*

1

*

*

BP01

BP02

BP03

BP05

BP06

BP07

BP08

2 2

4 4

2 5 1

9 8

3 5

1 5

1 4

2 1

*

1

2

1

1

* *

BQ01

BQ02

BQ03

2 5

2 2

1 6

1

2

BQ04 1 4 5

BQ05

BQ06

BQ07

BQ08

2 1

1 6

5 4

2 4

1 1 3

1

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

*

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Segment Util flake Flake core Scraper

BR01 1 2 2

BR02

BR03

BR04

BR05

BR06

BR07

BR08

1 1

3 4

1 2

1 1

4 9

2

5

1

1

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

*

*

*

* *

1 1 1

1 *

*

*

*

176

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Segment Util flake Flake core Scraper

BS01 1 4 6

BS02

BS03

3 2

4 6

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

*

*

*

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Blade core Util flake

BT01

BT02

BT03

BT04

BT05

BT06

1 3

9 1

1 7

5 3

3 5

3 4

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

*

*

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Blade core Util flake

BU01

BU02

BU03

BU05

BU06

2

4 3

3 4

2 3 1 1

2

BS08

3 6 1 1

4

2 2

1 2

*

*

*

BV01

BV02

BV03

BV04

BV05

BV06

1

2 3 2

3 3

2 3

2 2

2 5 1

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Util flake Scraper

BW01

BW02

2 4

2 3

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Bullhead Beds

BS07

1

*

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Util flake Scraper

BS06

*

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

BS05

*

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Util flake Scraper

BS04 1 7 8

*

* *

* BW03 1 2 4

BW04 2 2 4

BW05

BW06

1 1

1 1

* * *

*

*

BX01

BX03

BX04

BX05

2

5 1 3

2 1

2 3

BX06 1 3

* * *

*

177

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Util flake Scraper Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Bullhead Beds Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Spall Flake core Rejuv flake Scraper Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Spall Flake core Util flake Scraper Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Spall Flake core Util flake Scraper Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Util flake Scraper

BY01

BY02

1 1

5

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

BY04 1 3

BY05

BY06

1 2

2 3

1

1 1

1

1

1

*

*

*

*

* *

BZ01

BZ02

BZ03

BZ04

BZ05

BZ06

2 1 1 1

3

1

1 4

3 3

1 2 1

2 1 *

*

*

*

* *

CA01

CA02 1 1

4

CA03

CA04

CA05

CA06

1 3

1 2

1 1

4

1

* * * CB01

* CB02

CB03

3 4

* CB04

CB05

CB06

2

1

6 3

1 2 1

2

1

1 *

* *

*

*

*

CC01

CC02

CC03

CC04

CC05

CC06

4 1

1

1

1 5

2

*

*

2 4

1

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Util flake Scraper

BY03 1 2

* * CD01

CD02

4

1 1

CD03

CD04

CD06

2

1

3 2

1 *

*

*

*

178

CD

Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Segment Saw Util flake Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Beach Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Segment Saw Util flake Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Beach Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Butt Util flake

CE01

CE02

CE03

2

2 1

2 4

CE05

CE06

2

1

*

*

1 1 * *

CF01

CF02

CF03

CF04

CF05

CF06

1

4 3

1 1

2

1 1

1

1 1 *

*

*

* * *

CG01

CG02

1

1 1

CG03 1 1 2

CG04

CG05

CG06

1 1

1 1

1

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed Flint type Prim flake Sec flake Tert flake Blade Butt Util flake

CE04 2

1

1

*

*

*

* CH01

CH02

1

2

CH03 1 1

Grey flint Ochreous Mixed

*

Table 9 Field 305 Flint type Sec flake Tert flake Segment Spall

AA2 1

AA4

BA1

CA0

1

CA2 1 1

CA8

HA7 1

JA1

KA1 1

1 1

1

1

Pottery Flint type Sec flake Tert flake Util blade

HA5

1 QA1 1

QA2

QA3

1

1

QA4 1

QA17 1

QA18

QA23

1

1

RA12 1

179

RA13 1

Flint type Sec flake Tert flake Blade Butt Segment Tip

SA1 1

Flint type Sec flake Tert flake Util flake Scraper

UA0 1

SA4

SA6

SA19

SA20 1

1

SA23 1

TA18

TA13

TA24

1

1 1

1

1 1

UA7 1

UA9 1 1

UA13 1

UA14 1 1

UA18

UA20 1

UA24

UA26 1

1 1 1

Flint type Sec flake Tert flake Sec blade Tert blade Segment Util blade Util flake Scraper

VA0

Flint type

W A3

Flint type Tert flake Butt Segment Util blade Util flake Scraper

TA2

1

Pottery

Prim flake Sec flake Sec blade Butt Util flake Util blade Scraper Bl/Fl Core

TA1

VA1

VA5

VA6

VA10

VA14

VA15

VA17 1

VA18 2

VA23

2 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

WA4

WA7

WA9

WA1 6

WA2 1

WA2 4

WA2 7

YA4

YA 9

YA11

YA19

YA28

YA 29

1 1

1

1 1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1 XA0

XA4

XA7 1

XA8

XA9

1

XA14

XA16

XA17

XA23

XA27

1

1

1 1 1

1

1 1

Table 10 Field at NGR 92220380 East end of Honeyhoe (Leech Pond Field) Flint type Blade Butt Spall Leaf arrow

NGR SU 92220380 5 3 1 1

Blades = 2 fine sec, 1 fine tert, 1 fine bladelet, 1 thicker piece. All pieces are of similar dark olive flint with mottled creamy patches and a light cortex. It appears to be a homogenous group and might be assigned to the Mesolithic if it weren't for the presence of a very finely knapped leaf arrowhead.

180

APPENDIX 5:1 PETERBOROUGH POTTERY Pottery Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Barrow 61a Amesbury Barrow 61a Amesbury, Fargo Amesbury, King Barrow Ridge Amesbury, New King Barrows Amesbury, New King Barrows Amesbury, New King Barrows Amesbury, Stonehenge Andover Arreton, IOW Arundel, Barkhale Barford St Martin Bournemouth Bournemouth, Holdenhurst LB Bramdean, Lamborough LB Brighstone, IOW Chale, IOW Colemore & Priors Dean Collingbourne Kingston Dorchester, Greyhound Yard Durrington Walls Eartham, Long Down Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael, Down Farm Shaft Gussage St Michael, Fir Tree Field Gussage St Michael, Wyke Down, Henge No2 Handley Barrow 24 Handley Hill enclosure Lavant Lavant Lavant `henge' Litchfield & Woodcott Long Island Long Island Micheldever Niton & Whitwell, IOW Normanton Down Overton Overton, Turrill House Pagham Porton Down Portsdown, Bevis Grave Ryde, IOW Selsey Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley Southampton, Bitterne Manor Tilshead Wakefords Copse Wakefords Copse Wakefords Copse West Stoke Clump Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum lake Wilsford cum Lake Winterbourne Dauntsey Winterbourne, Winterslow Winterslow

NGR SU13144204 SU14004227 SU17514232 SU17514232 SU11254280 SU130422 SU13464228 SU13484238 SU13474233 SU12244218 SU35524651 SZ53548742 SU97581261 SU06253317 SZ11699461 SZ116946 SU59272839 SZ43638065 SZ49427605 SU72922971 SU20705544 SY69289063 SU15014375 SU93100932 SU00651485 ST99941456 SU2014 SU00041467 SU00631526 SU014173 SU0117 SU868095 SU86590943 SU865094 SU432549 SU702402 SU702402 SU52533652 SZ4939 SU1140 SU508496 SU8897 SU215355 SU69230642 SZ5992 SZ86209235 SU01281726 SU01221738 SU00991655 SU012163 SU01171632 SU41251335 SU02244762 SU727091 SU727091 SU727091 SU8309 SU11434100 SU11304052 SU11544044 SU107408 SU11464045 SU11494047 SU10784023 SU10794022 SU10754024 SU10764022 SU16803495 SU225329 SU2332

181

NMR No SU14SW6 SU14SW11 SU14SE174 SU14SE174 SU14SW30 SU14SW137 SU14SW366 SU14SW368 SU14SW367 SU14SW4 SU34NE2 SZ58NW24 SU91SE31 SU03SE20 SZ19SW7 SU52NE13 SZ48SW54 SZ47NE28 SU72NW2 SU25NW13 SU69SE242 SU14SE118 SU90NW9 SU01SW143 ST91SE106 SU01SW117 SU01NW142

SU80NE94 SU45SW25 SU53NW25 SZ47NE26 SU54NW26 SU23NW47 SU60NE8 SU59SE19 SZ89SE56 SU01NW15 SU01NW13 SU01NW183 SU01NW184 SU01NW26 SU04NW46

SU14SW144 SU14SW52 SU14SW459 SU14SW251 SU14SW457 SU14SW456 SU14SW461 SU14SW462 SU14SW460 SU14SW475 SU13SE81 SU23SW5

Type Peterborough Peterborough Ebbsfleet Mortlake Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Ebbsfleet Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Ebbsfleet sherds Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Ebbsfleet sherds Peterborough Mortlake Fengate Mortlake sherd Peterborough Mortlake, Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Mortlake Mortlake sherd Mortlake sherd Peterborough Peterborough Ebbsfleet Mortlake sherds Ebbsfleet Peterborough Peterborough ? Peterborough Mortlake sherd Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough Mortlake sherds Peterborough Mortlake

Location

RHM

MGM MGM MGM MGM CCM CCM PCM210.71 PCM73/1012 SM9/1960 HMS679 CCM SM144/1945 PCM75/325

SotonUnit PCM194/68/2 PCM68/194 PCM70/377 CCM

SM45/1961 SM19/1964

Winterslow, Easton Down Worbarrow Wylye

SU234358 SU012173 SU01483939

SU23NW70 SU03NW1

Peterborough Peterborough Peterborough

SM2112.11

APPENDIX 5:2 GROUND EDGE FLINT KNIVES Ground edge flint knives Christchurch, CNB Christchurch, GATW Donhead St Andrew Sixpenny Handley, Down Farm Shaft Southampton

NGR ST9222 SU2014 SU3914

NMR No

Notes x2 Discoidal flake

Location RHM800 RHM361 MGM MGM

SU31SE12

APPENDIX 5:3 MACEHEADS Macehead Amesbury Amesbury

IPG

NGR

W105

?SU1541

Andover

H120

SU350469

H113

SU030057 SU270050 SZ1790

Bournemouth, Holt Wood Brockenhurst Christchurch, Hengistbury Head Donhead Eartham Fareham Gussage St Michael, Down Fm Kimpton Kings Somborne, Furze Down Kings Sombourne, Yew Hill Medstead, n of Goatacre Fm Monxton North Hayling Island, Tye Farm Portsmouth, Hilsea Shipton Bellinger Sixpenny Handley, Angle Ditch St Mary Bourne Steeple Langford Stourton with Gasper Tollard Royal Wickham, n of Castle Fm Winchester, St Giles Hill Winterbourne Stoke, Barrow G13 Wylye, Deptford

Sx162 Dt121

NMR

Type

Rock

Museum

Thames pestle

Quartzite

SM1400

Pyroxene diorite Sarsen

Private Coll

Cushion Or PH

ST926223 SU9309 SU54440494 SU007149

SU50SW3 SU01SW143

SU285470 SU36772903

SU24NE44 SU32NE2

SU348322

SU33SW8

Flint Greywacke Greenstone

H83

SU640365

?

H88

SU315444

Or PH

SU702024

Cushion

H117 H115

SU6503 SU234450 SU0117 SU42414940 SU 0337 ST7734

H86 W62

SU577107 SU4829 SU102419

W206

SU0138

Sandstone

Horneblende schist Ophitic quartz dolerite

Calkin HMS 68.434 B'hamM MGM BM CC 95-67 SCM DCM

HMS HMS PCM 59/6

Quartz dolerite Unknown

BM Private coll

Sandstone

HMS 972.152 SM 88/55

SU01NW115 SU44NW24 ST73SE4

'greenstone' Cushion Or SH Ovoid Thames Pestle

IPG=Implement Petrology Group number

182

Greenstone

SM 37/51 Private coll WCM DM

Group I

SM

Quartzite

APPENDIX 5:4 DISCOIDAL KNIVES a) GROUND Ground discoidal knives ?Broom Hill Amesbury Bournemouth Bournemouth, Southbourne Clay Copse, Sway, Hants Durrington Gussage Down Gussage Down Gussage St Michael Lavant `Henge' Laverstock Newchurch, IOW Redlynch, Hamptworth, Sixpenny Handley, Down Farm shaft Slindon Southampton, Chilworth Ring Southampton, Hampstead Park, Old Portswood Southampton, Shirley Teffont

NGR

NMR

Type

Notes

Chert triangular

?ground

SU135423 SZ1591 SZ2798 SU13804335 ST99841319 ST9913 ST9913 SU86590943 SU1630 SZ5584 SU2419 SU2014 SU96011076 SU4117 SU4314 SU4013 SU31405678

SZ29NE19 SU14SW142

Circular ST91SE65 SU80NE94

triangular

SZ58SE2 SU21NW20

Museum HMS69.208/2/1 DM1453 RHM691 B'hamM SMdisplay DM MGM SMdisplay BM Chich.Unit SMdisplay

`flensing knife' Oval

SU41NW11 SU41SW59

triangular D shaped

SU41SW61

Sem-circ

Only one edge-pol Broken

SMdisplay MGM UptonRU032 SMdisplay SCMA223-69 DM26.1972

APPENDIX 5:4 DISCOIDAL KNIVES b) CHIPPED Chipped discoidal knives Arreton, IOW Beacon Hill, Exton Fifield Bavant Down Upton Grey, Greywell, Bidden Water Knowl Hill Newchurch, IOW Teglease Whitecroft, IOW

NGR SZ53548742 SU6121 SU0125 SU712512

NMR SZ58NW24

Type

SZ58248406 SU6519 SZ498866

SZ58SE32

Semi-circ

SZ48NE55

Triangular x3

Wood Green

SU1716

triangular

Notes

Museum

Chipped Unpol Chipped Rough out

PCM SM213/84 HMS SM Read Coll

Chipped

PCM

Rough out

SM

APPENDIX 5:5 PETIT TRANCHET DERIVATIVE ARROWHEADS PTD arrowheads Parish Amesbury Amesbury, Coneybury Amesbury, Countess Rd Amesbury, Ratfyn Amesbury, Woodlands Arreton, IOW Bournemouth Bournemouth Bournemouth, Boscombe Bournemouth, Boscombe Cemetery Bournemouth, Boscombe Cemetery Bournemouth, Clarence Park Bournemouth, Ensbury Park, Hendford Rd Bournemouth, Foxholes top of Bournemouth, Kings Park Bournemouth, Littledown, nr Sheepwash Bournemouth, Moordown, nr schools Bournemouth, Moordown, nr Talbot Inn Bournemouth, nr Fishermans Walk Bournemouth, Pokesdown, Hillbrow Bournemouth, Pokesdown, Old Vicarage Bournemouth, Redbreast, Hillside Rd Bournemouth, Southbourne nr Bournemouth, Southbourne, E of CGS Bournemouth, Talbot Woods GA

NGR SU121404 SU13424160 SU15204298 SU15944204 SU15174313 SZ53548742 SZ1191 SZ121926 SZ121926 SZ125926 SZ078948 SZ145917 SZ122926 SZ1393 SZ0994 SZ0994 SZ130915 SZ128922 SZ1292 SZ059941 SZ1491 SZ1491 SZ075930

183

NMR No SU14SW247 SU14SW14 SU14SE1 SU14SE11 SU14SE4 SZ58NW24

SZ19SW22

Notes

Museum SM 89, 91/71

RHM 900 Calkin 56 RHM 245 Calkin 92 Calkin 21 Calkin 46 Calkin 130 Calkin 114 Calkin 50 Calkin 88 Calkin 97 Calkin 20 Calkin 94 Calkin 95 Calkin 45 Calkin 133 Calkin 108 Calkin 106 RHM 266a

Bournemouth, Talbot Woods GA Bournemouth, Talbot Woods GA Bournemouth, Talbot Woods GA Bournemouth, Talbot Woods GA Bournemouth, Talbot Woods GA, nr Bournemouth, Thistle barrow nr Bournemouth, Tuckton, nr corner Wick Lane & Belle Vue Rd Bournemouth, Tuckton, Sea view estate, nr water tower Bournemouth, Wick Lane, Barrow Plot Bournemouth, Winton Bournemouth, Winton, nr Plaish House Bradford Peverell, Barrow G30 Braishfield Butser Hill Candover Chaldon Herring, Purbeck Chalton, Windmill Hill Christchurch, beside Mill stream, opp Church Hatch garden Christchurch, Castle Lane Christchurch, Grove Farm Christchurch, Grove Farm, field 1 Christchurch, Grove Farm, twixt farmhouse & Iford Christchurch, Heng Head, field W of Dyke Christchurch, Heng Head, low ground N side Christchurch, Heng Head, Rowbury Christchurch, Heng Head, Rowbury, on high ground Christchurch, Heng Head, top of Christchurch, Heng Head, top SE of Christchurch, Hengistbury Head Christchurch, Hillhead Christchurch, Hurn Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy Christchurch, Latch Farm, Furzy

SZ075930 SZ075930 SZ075930 SZ075930 SZ0793 SZ115929 SZ149921

x2

SZ1492 SZ15239210 SZ0993 SZ0993 SY6592 SU37852608 7120 SU584443 SY783813 715162

Calkin 49 SZ19SE19

x9 (chert)

Draper HMS

SU54SE19 SY78SE5 x2

SZ162909 SZ175908 SZ163912 SZ163912 SZ174906 SZ178905

x3

121956 SZ154945 SZ154945 SZ154945

x4 x3 x13

SZ126923 SZ1793 SU62921897 SU0029 ST927217 SY6990 SU154440 SU15064338 SU706192 SU7019 SU1413 SU70302440 SU00651485 ST97081286 SU000149 ST890132 SU0210 SZ584837 SZ5685 SU593338 SU679041 SU005147 ST966172 SU8011 ST922156 ST9831 095978 SU0508

PTD Chisel arrowheads Parish Amesbury, Avenue Field Amesbury, Ratfyn Amesbury, Woodlands pits

NGR SU147413 SU159420 SU151451

x2

SZ154935

184

Calkin 15-7,63-66,99 Calkin 51 Calkin 86 DCM 1884.9.95

SU32NE16

SZ138945

Christchurch, Latch Farm, Mill Plain Christchurch, nr Heng Head Christchurch, Pokesdown Christchurch, Street Lane, Somerford Nursuries Corhampton & Meonstoke Dinton/Fovant Donhead St Mary Dorchester area Durrington, Larkhill Rd Durrington, Woodhenge East Meon, Oxenbourne Down East Meon, Salt Hill Fordingbridge Froxfield Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael, Barn Field Iwerne Courtney Knowlton circles Lake. IOW Newchurch, IOW Old Alresford Portsmouth, Farlington Marshes Sixpenny Handley, Down Farm Sixpenny Handley, Woodcutts Common Stoughton, Box Hill Tarrant Gunville Teffont Evias West Parley, N of Wood Town Fm Woodlands

RHM 300 RHM 362 RHM 551 RHM 372 RHM 314 Calkin 82 Calkin 57-8

PCM Calkin 87 RHM 753 RHM 361 Calkin 29 Calkin 131 Calkin 47 Calkin 75 Calkin 77,79 Calkin 28 Calkin 134 Calkin 85,100,104 Draper RHM 182 DCM 19891.1 Calkin 109-10,146,148 RHM 8, 52 & 237 Calkin 236,30,48,52,678,93,102,112-3 Calkin 22, Calkin 74 RHM 239 Calkin 70

SU61NW16 SM ST92SW34 DCM 1987.54 SU14SE27 SU14SE6 SU71NW27 SU72SW21 SU01SW143 ST91SE175 SU01SW158 ST81SE14

Draper Draper RHM 34 Private MGM x3 DCM 1987.25.14

SZ58SE17 SZ58NE8 SU53SE44 SU60SE11

x3 x2 Draper MGM MGM CCM

ST91NE46 ST91NW43

x2 (chert)

NMR NO SU14SW178

Notes x2 x2 x3

SM DCM 1948.23.29 DCM 1982.27.14 Museum SM 104.1938 SM 91/50

Basingstoke, Down Grange Fm Basingstoke, Kempshott Basingstoke, Kite Hill Basingstoke, Round Town Bournemouth, Boscombe Bournemouth, Boscombe Cemetery Bournemouth, Broadway Bournemouth, '-----Camp' Bournemouth, Kings Park extension Bournemouth, Littledown Estate Bournemouth, Moortown Bournemouth, Talbot Hill, on way to Wallisdown Bournemouth, Thistle Barrow nr Bournemouth, Tuckton Bournemouth, Wick Farm Bournemouth, Wick Lane, road widening nr Barrow Bradley Bussey Stool Butser Hill Christchurch, Furzy Christchurch, Grove farm, field 3 Christchurch, Heng Head Christchurch, Heng Head, E end nursery Christchurch, Heng Head, Rowbury Christchurch, Heng Head, SE top of Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Latch Farm, Mill Plain Christchurch, Thorney Hill, Hill Fm (E of Ch) Corfe Mullen, Beaucroft, 600ds S of St Huberts Church Deane Down Dinton/Fovant Donhead Donhead St Andrew East Meon, Salt Hill Ellisfield Farleigh Wallop Fleetend, Titchfield Froyle, Yarnhams Fm Lavant Maple Durwell Martin Down enclosure North Binness Island Nutley Poole, Canford Magna Golf Course Poole, Foxholes Popham Sixpenny Handley, Chalk Pit Field Sixpenny Handley, Fir Tree Field Sixpenny Handley, Wyke Down, Henge 1 Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Soberton Verwood, East Chase Wareham Heath Wareham, Bestwall Quarry Weston Wimborne St Giles Wootton St Lawrence, Worting Wood PTD Oblique arrowheads Parish Basingstoke, Down Grange Fm Basingstoke, Kempshott Bournemouth, Broadstone, Plainfield Fm Bournemouth, Kings Park, allottments Bournemouth, Moortown Bournemouth, Wick Farm

SU610520 SU6050 SU6452

x2 x9 x2

SZ1191 SZ121926 SZ150919

x3

SZ122926 SZ119932 SZ0994 SZ067940 SZ115929 SZ1492 SZ157921 SZ152921 SU6341 ST930154 SU7120 SZ154945 SZ1394 SZ1790 SZ173908 SZ163912 SZ178905 SZ174906 SZ154935

x2

x9 x 10 x2 x2 x2 x3 x5 x2

SY9797 SU552513 SU0029 ST926223 ST9222 SU6822 SU6345 SU6246 SU510059 SU7542 SU8508 SU6952 SU043201 SU694046 SU6145 SZ0495 SZ0392 SU5444 SU0116 SU00041467 SU006152 SU95591033 SU98731023 SU958108 SU95961095 SU95601029 SU955106 SU95951013 SU95931013 SU95591026 SU6015 SU025209 SY9188 SY932881 SU7221 ST024109 SU6053 NGR SU6150 SU5949 SZ9994 SZ122926 SZ0994 SZ157921

185

x4 x 16 x3 x2 x2 x2 x2

SU01SW117

x2 x5 x3 x2

x2 x2 x2 NMR No

Notes x5

x2

HMS HMS HMS 4317/8 Calkin 19 Calkin 103 Calkin 185&6&7 Calkin 71 Calkin 89 Calkin 182 PM 34 Calkin 69 Calkin 81,83 Calkin 165 Calkin 60 Calkin 90 HMS MGM Draper Calkin 111,139 Calkin 72-3 Calkin 184,148 Calkin 183 Calkin 76,78,80 Calkin 105 HMS NV coll Calkin 107,138 Calkin 140 Calkin 181 HMS SM 15/1951 MGM MGM Draper HMS HMS PCM 73/993/22 CCM HMS PCM HMS PM 47 HMS MGM MGM UC RU142 UC RU121 UC RU144 UC RU129 UC RU136 UC RU140 UC RU128 UC RU132 UC RU3786 PCM MGM PM 124 L Ladle HMS MGM HMS 4341 Museum HMS HMS Calkin 180 Calkin 98 HMS Calkin 166-7

Bussey Stool Butser Hill Butser, Fegdown Hill Chistchurch, Pokesdown Christchurch, Heng Head Christchurch, Heng Head, Nursery Christchurch, Heng Head, RA Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Deane Down Dinton/Fovant Donhead St Andrew Droxford, Sheardley Fm Durrington, Durrington Walls Durrington, S of Woodhenge Ellisfield Fareham Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop Farnham Fordingbridge, Highfield Froyle, Yarnhams Fm Upton Grey, Greywell, Bidden Water Grimstead, East Grimstead Havant Horley Wood Maple Durwell, Andwell North Binness or Long Island Overton, Polhampton Lodge Oving Penhillsom Poole Portchester Salisbury, Alderbury Sixpenny Handley, Chalk Pit Field Sixpenny Handley, Fir Tree Field Sixpenny Handley, Wyke Down, Henge 1 Slindon Slindon Slindon Slindon Westbourne, Racton Park Fm Woodcutts Common Wootton St Lawrence, Worting Wood

ST930154 SU7120 SU7120 SZ126923 SZ1790 SZ173908 SZ1790 SZ174906 SZ174906 SU5551 SU0029 ST9222 SU6015 SU150435 SU151433 SU6345 SU5706 SU6149 SU6246 ST948157 SU133134 SU7542 SU712512 SU22442729 SU702040 SU00151310 SU6851 SU702402 SU511539 SU9204 ST563488 SZ03089765 SU6204 SU1826 SU0116 SU00041467 SU006152 SU959106 SU95761090 SU95371931 SU96001023 SY0690 ST966174 SU6053

x4

x 11 x2 x7 x58 x7 x2

ST91NW64 SU11SW29

x2 x3 x2

SU22NW26 SU70SW1

MGM Draper Draper RHM 34 Calkin 147 Calkin 179 HMS NV coll Calkin 168 HMS NV coll HMS SM 15/1951 MGM Draper SM Cunnington 1929 HMS PCM 25/50/136 HMS

HMS HMS

x2 x2 x2

SZ09NW75

MGM HMS Draper HMS M Pitts PM 47 PCM 25/50/132 DM MGM MGM MGM CCM UC RU137 UC RU143 UC RU134 Kenny 1989 SM PRColl HMS 4341

SU12NE87 SU01SW117

APPENDIX 5:6 FLINT EDGE GROUND AXES Edge ground flint axeheads

NGR

NMR

Aldwick Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury, Avenue Field Amesbury, King Barrow Ridge Arreton, IOW Basingstoke,ViablesFm Cottages Bembridge, IOW Bemerton Berwick St John, Woodlands Down Bishopstone Bishopstone Bishopstone Botley, Hants Bournemouth Bournemouth Bournemouth, Pokesdown, Harewood Ave Bournemouth, Redhill Common

SZ90149923 SU13624245 SU13554218 SU147413 SU130422 SZ511863 SU631503 SZ622869 SU1131 ST948235 SU0725 SU0725 SU0725 5512 SZ0891 SZ0891 SZ116934

SZNW11

Collecti on

T y p e

Notes

Museum

Blade

DM 72.1976.1 DM 74.1976.1 SM 104/38 DM

Blade

HMS

B SU14SW583 SU14SW178

B B

SZ58NW57 Willis SZ68NW13 ST92SW41

B B B B B

SZ0895

Chisel

SM 1034 SM 111.1975 SM display SM 1013 SM 1182 PCM 10/68/49 SM 2007 RCM Calkin list RCM

186

Bournemouth, Rush Corner, Cemetery junct Wimborne Rd Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Southbourne, Cranleigh Rd Bournemouth, Talbot Woods Bournemouth, Talbot Woods Bournemouth, Talbot Woods Bournemouth, Thistle Barrow, gravel pit Brockenhurst, Vinney Ridge Brockenhurst, Vinny Ridge, New Forest Bussey Stool Christchurch, Hengistbury Head, Nursury Clarendon Park Cliddesdon Compton Corfe Mullen, East End, pit s of Lambs Green chapel Curdridge Deane Dinton/Fovant East Knoyle Ellingham Elstead, Treyford Hill Fareham, Cams Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Farley Farnham Farm Fovant Fratton, Guildford Road Gurnard, IOW Hayling Island Kingston Lacy, new house/towards church Little Langford, L Langford Down Netton Niton & Whitwell, IOW Niton & Whitwell, IOW Niton & Whitwell, IOW North Waltham, Waltham Trinleys Nursling Pentridge Poole, Hamworthy, Lake Clay Pits Popham Popham Popham Preston Candover, Budds Hill Rhinefield, Vinney Ridge Rookery Rookery Farm Ryde, IOW Ryde. IOW Salisbury, Camp Hill Sandown, IOW Sandown, IOW Slindon Southampton, Sholing Stourpaine, Hod Hill Tollard Royal Tolpuddle Upton Grey, Bidden Water/Springhead Upton Lovell, Barrow G2a Wilsford Wilsford Winchester City Winterbourne Monkton Woodcutts Common, RB village Wylye Down Wylye, nr.BilburyCamp

SZ090926 SZ1391 SZ137926

Rechipped

Calkin 119

Chisel

PM Nii Calkin 108

B

SZ084932 SZ084932 SZ116927 SU2605

ST952162 SU0028 SU65450018 SZ47669577 SU7200 ST7509 SU0436 SU1336 SZ50047661 SZ5077 SZ5077 SU0436 SU3716 SU 043172 SY990907 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU54364413 SU6342 SU2605 ST942166 ST942166 SZ565930 SZ60909162 SU1133 SZ630855 SZ61568595 SU96210916 SU46821156 ST8510 ST9216 SY7884 SU712502 ST95864277 SU4013 SU4013 SU4829 SY6787 ST961177 SU001353 SU010361

Blade

B B

dim/chisel

SU20NE3

ST992154 SZ173908 SU1830 SU6349 SU4625 SY9798 SU5213 SU55855142 SU0029 ST871309 SU12680768 SU82651748 SU596055 SU61454980

B

RCM RCM HMS 1/65/L Calkin 82

B Willis B B

SCM A725.63 HMS SM 15/51 SM

SU55SE7 B ST83SE12 SU10NW13

Adze B

SU50NE9 SU64NW3

PM 34/1970 MGM Calkin 173 SM 71/61 HMS WCM 2183

Willis

Chisel B C B B

SU60SE15 SZ49NE7

CCM Barnet Mus HMS HMS 69.196/1 SM .PRC SM 15/51 PCM 1965/57 PCM display Calkin 83 DM 1833 SM 1057

B SZ57NW3 SZ57NW2 SZ57NW2

Frag (a) Frag (b) Willis

HMS SCM 964.80 MGM Calkin113 HMS HMS HMS HMS RHM A34/70 SM.PRC SM.PRC

B B B SU54SW18 SU54SW18 SU54SW18

Willis Willis Willis Willis

SU20NE3 B B SZ59SE30 SZ69SW15

Butt B B

SZ68NW21 SZ68NW16

Rechipped

SU41SE13 ST81SE30 ST91NW9 SU75SW17 ST94SE6

B B

UC RU023 SCM A646.63

B B B

DM DCM1987.47.1 HMS DM 1411 SM.RSN DM 1911.19 SCM A9.65 DCM1987.24.45-7 SM.PRC MGM SM.RSN

Willis

x3 SU03NW66

187

SM1009

B B B

Blade

APPENDIX 5:7 GROUND AXES OF ROCK TYPES FOREIGN TO CENTRAL SOUTHERN ENGLAND Ground axes stone ?Highfield Aldingbourne Allington,Boscombe Down West Arreton, IOW Barford St Martin, Hamshill Ditches Basingstoke Berwick St John, Rotherly Down Bishopstone,Watercress Beds Boscombe Down East Boxgrove Chichester Chichester, West Thorney Chilcomb Christchurch Clanfield, Hants in floor of Ro villa Dinton Beeches Dorchester

NGR

NMR

SU923050 SU191386 SZ511863 SU060330

SU90NW30

SU60885112 ST949195 SU072256 SU2337 SU92100845 SU8704 SU75610322 SU523286 SU7117 SU0034 SY6990

Dorchester

SY6990

Enford, R Avon Fareham Fareham Fyfield, Chapel Close Hart, Odiham Hinton Ampner Hordle, Golden Hill Hordle, Gorley Hill Itchen Stoke & Ovington Itchen Stoke & Ovington Kings Worthy Littleton Minchington New Milton, Barton Newport, IOW North Waltham Offham Oving Romsey, Ashfield Salisbury Plain Salisbury, nr Shalfleet, IOW Silchester, Three Ashes Sixpenny Handley, Woodcutts Sixpenny Handley, Woodcutts, RB village Pit 25 SixpennyHandley,Woodcutts Common SixpennyHandley,Woodcutts, RB village South Wanborough, Ford Farm South Wonston Stockbridge Stockbridge Sturminster Newton Tollard Royal, Tollard Green Wilsford,Springbottom Fm Wisborough Green Worthy Down Wylye Ridge(Teffont Side) South Wonston Swanwick Upton Lovell, Barrow G2a Upton Grey, Greywell, Bidden Water Totland, IOW Iwerne Courteney, Hambledon Hill

SU141515 SU5009 SU50270994 SU293487 SU72094839

IPG

Ty pe B

Notes

A

Frag

SM 30/51

Frag

SM 42/81

Frag

SM 151/72 SM 1091

SZ58NW57 SU03SE59 SU65SW40 ST91NW11 SU02NE44

B B

Rock

Museum SM display

SU90NW78 SU80SE41 SU70SE4 SU52NW33 D A A

HMS NL62 SM display SM 117/53

B

DM 1488 PCM 21/63/2

SY69SE83( 1) SY69SE83( 2) SU50-W1 SU24NE27 SU74NW8 WCM 2233

SZ262955 SU1611 SU557328 SU557328 SU481334 SU4531 ST9517 SZ2493 SZ50848922 SU55354665 TQ02850870 SU8805 SU36661935 SZ40148537 SU6461 ST9617 ST9617

SZ29NE22 SU11SE13 SU53SE33 SU53SE33 SU43SE33 SZ29SW4 SZ58NW41 SU54NE16 TQ00NW2 SU80NE2 SU31NE18

HMS Butt

SZ48NW9 SU66SW28

A

ST9617

ST994349 SU47173606 SU4913 ST95864277 SU712502

WCM 2144.48 SM 109/88 SM 19/62

A A B

ST962178

SU4736 SU3535 SU3535 ST7813 ST928168 SU12084013 TQ02812160

WCM 2232 SM PRC

A

B

Blade Butt

SM PRC SM PRC

Frag

MGM(R208)

Blade

SM PRC

Frag

HMS WCM 2225 WCM 2221 WCM 2222 DCM SM 87/71 SM 117/53

Frag Butt Frag

WCM 2217 SM 117/534 WCM 3254 WCM 2224

A ST71SE6 ST91NW46

A A

TQ02SW2 ST93SE18 SU43NE18 ST94SE6

Wi64 Frag

SZ323873 ST850123

H99 Dt137

188

Frag

?Greenstone ?Greenstone ?Greenstone ?Langdale Altered shale Altered amhibolite

HMS CCM DCM

Iwerne Courteney, Hambledon Hill

ST850123

Dt138

Frag

Altered amhibolite Altered amphibolite Altered gabbro Altered gabbro Amphibole Amphibole Amphibolite Amphibolite Andesite Barton grey septaria Basalt Basalt Basalt Biotite cordierite hornfels Black stone Blade Blade Calcareous sandstone Calcareous sandstone Chalk Chalk Chalk Chert Chert

Iwerne Courteney, Hambledon Hill

ST850123

Dt136

Frag

Iwerne Courteney, Hambledon Hill

ST850123

Dt144

Frag

IwerneCourteney, Hambledon Hill

ST850123

Dt145

Flake

Iwerne Stepleton, nr Stepleton Enc Norton Bavant, Scratchbury Camp ?Basingstoke Ringwood, Burley Knook, nr Knook Castle Southampton, Shirley

ST855115 ST912443 SU6351 SU2203 ST959447 SU4013

Dt160 W72 H126 H67 W70

Berwick St John, Rotherley Down Lake, IOW Shalfleet, IOW Bentworth

ST949195 SZ5883 SZ39968513 SU6640

ST91NW11 SZ58SE19 SZ38NE35

Broad Chalk Salisbury, London Rd Vindocladia Christchurch, Mudeford

SU01972694 SU1531

SU02NW37

SZ1992

H100

North Mundham, Runcton

SU8802

Sx 112

Durrington, Woodhenge Durrington, Woodhenge Westbury Christchurch, Church house Christchurch, Heng Head, 1st field W of Dykes Christchurch, Latch Farm, Mill Plain Christchurch, Latch Farm, Mill Plain Ellingham, Ellingham Farm West Stafford, Mount Pleasant Christchurch, Heng Head, 1st field W of Dyke Christchurch, Heng Head 1st field W of Dykes Down Farm pit 29 Walderton

SU15064338 SU15064338 ST87055052

DM 1355a DM 1355b DM Calkin 44 Calkin list 37

SZ154935

Chert

Calkin list 22

SZ154935

Chert

Calkin 155

Chert Chert Chert (Greensand) Chert(greens and) Close to GPI Cordiorite hornfels Core taken Cornish Cornish Greenstone Cornish type Cornish, prob Cornish, prob Decomposed dolerite Decomposed dolerite Diorite Diorite Diorite Dolerite Dolerite

Private DCM Calkin 157

ST94SE32 SU41SW65

D H65

C A

SU14SE6 SU14SE6 ST85SE19

W235

Frag

SZ162909

SU15080838 SY709899 SZ164910

Blade

SU10NE1 Dt113

SZ164910 SU000146 SU790106

A Sx172

Gussage St Michael Grovely Hill, Burcombe Without Sparsholt, Moor Court

ST98551168 SU079328 SU4231

A A

Eldon Bransgore, Burley Road

SZ19389858

SZ19NE14

Hambledon (HA)

SU64481460

SU61SW18

Christchurch

SZ1791

H73

Wilsford, Lake

SU1339

W344

East Dean Fernhurst Woodlands, Barrow G5 Bournemouth, Boscombe Briant's Puddle, Oakers Wood

SU9013 SU895307 SU023096 SZ1292 SY8091

Southampton Stockton, Stockton earthworks Teffont Wilsford Winterbourne Stoke, nr LB Basingstoke, Buckskin Fm Bosham shore Bournemouth, Richmond Park, Pineholme

SU4213 ST972361 ST9931 SU103418 SU10154170 SU609511 SU803045 SZ0993

A

Sx166

Frag

SU83SE19 Dt142 H28 Dt16

Frag

SU41SW55 ST93SE24 SU14SW35 SU65SW40

189

W388 W237 W195 H12 Sx 80 H43

Frag Frag A A

Dolerite Dolerite Dolerite Dolerite Dolerite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite

DCM DCM DCM DCM SNHS DM 1415 Unknown Private Coll DM 1922

HMS SM 55/60 SM 1884 SMPRC HMS CCM 78

Calkin list 36 MGM CCM 5033 MGM SM 24/1971 HMS 196/207

Private coll BM95,7-23,16 BM DCM Private coll DCM1936.83. 1 Private DM DM 5/56/233 SM SM 117.53 HMS Lewes 42.2 BM1908,4-25

Bowerchalke, Stone Down Fareham, Titchfield Godshill, Armsley Itchen Valley Kings Somborne, Furze Down Lymington? North Waltham Penton Grafton, Weyhill St Helens, IOW Stockbridge, Peat Holes Stouhgton, Manor Fm West Dean Winchester Okeford Fitzpaine,Okeford Hill

ST996196 SU5406 SU1616 SU545322 SU36772903 ?SZ3296 SU551464 SU310489 SZ63419034 SU35253328 SU801113 SU 835124 SU4829 ST815095

Wonston

SU471360

H96

Wimborne

SZ0199

DT85

Burley, Burley Lawn

SU21950365

Allington, Boscombe Down East Bishopstrow Winchester, Garnier Rd Swanage

SU232372 ST8943 SU479283 SZ0278

Beaulieau

SU3802

H101

Durrington, Durrington Walls

SU150437

W349

Norton Bavant, nr Long Barrow

ST918459

Alderholt, Warren Fm Amesbury Barford St Martin Bournemouth, Branksome, Bourne Valley Collingbourne Kingston, barrow G6 Corfe Castle Durrington, Woodhenge Enford, River Avon Fareham Fareham Fareham, Carver's Gravel Pit Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Fawley

SU122114 SU16754115 SU06163324 SZ0692

SU11SW26 SU14SE318 SU03SE29

SU21555194

SU25SW10 1

Gussage All Saints Gussage St Michael, Down Farm Gussage St Michael, Down Fm Hurstbourne Priors, New Barn Farm Iwerne Courtney, Hambledon Hill Iwerne Courtney, Hambledon Hill Iwerne Stepleton, Stepleton Enc Langton Long Blandford New Milton, Ashley Manor Farm North Waltham, West Wood Orcheston St George Pewsey, nr Pewsey Hill Fm Pewsey, White Hare Farm Salisbury, London Rd Southampton Southampton, Bitterne, Deepdene, Cobden Ave St Mary Bourne Sutton Mandeville, Harris Hill Swanage Tarrant Launceston Wareham. Nr West Stafford, Mount Pkeasant West Stafford, Mount Pleasant

SY9681 SU151434 SU141515 SU55360142 SU50270994 SU53120286 SU61454980 SU457032 or 444620 ST998101 Su000146 SU000146 SU4446 ST850123 ST850123 ST856115 ST90690484 SZ25509380 SU551464 SU06984680 SU167569 SU156580 SU150306 SU4213 SU4314 SU4250 ST98402877 SZ0278 ST9409 SY9287 SY710900 SY710900

SU32NE2

SZ69SW1 SU33SE6

W396 H95 H75 H134 H92 H81 H80 H44 A H62 Sx 91 Sx 142 H116 Dt66

SU20SW7

ST84SE24 SZ07NW5

SU14SE6 SU15SW20 SU50SE1 SU50NW1 SU50SW6 SU64NW3

Frag

A

C W104 W68 H133 Dt58

Half

Flake

Dt49 W336 Dt54

Frag

W216

Frag

Dt64 W210 W222

Flake

A DT120 Dt152 Dt155

Frag A

ST90SW4 SZ29SE25 SU54NE22 SU04NE3

Dt126 Dt134 Dt149 Dt63

Flake Flake Willis

W342 W365 W103

Frag Frag

SU41SW54 A

190

MGM WCM Private Coll Private Coll WCM Private Coll HMS SM 14/49

Greenstone

DM

Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone

AshM1955.98 DM DM 1488

WCM Private Private SM 1091 DM WCM 3766 AshM 41.1087

SM DM23.1969.1 Private Coll Private Coll BM40,7-1,582

WCM HMS A77.6-8 DCM MGM MGM HMS 65.895

Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone

DCM DCM DCM BM92,9-1,89

Dt50 Dt59 Dt118 Dt117

Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone

Frag

WCM CCM 1409 CCM AshM Private coll

Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone

Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone

ST92NE57 ST90NW49 SZ98NW45

Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidiorite Epidotised tuff Epidotised tuff Fine grained ultra basic Foliatedhorn eblende schist Gabbro Gabbro Gabbro Garnet granulite Garnet pyroxenite Glauconitic quartzite Greensand Chert Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone

HMS SM 48/61 Private Coll Private coll SM 1081 SCM GHT2/255 HMS65.896 HMS Redhouse Private AshM27.3466 DCM DCM

Weymouth, Preston Wilsford, Rox Hill Winterborne Houghton Winterslow, Middleton Road Beaulieu

SY70668292 SU122386 ST8104 SU240330 SU3900

Badbury Rings Farnborough Gussage St Michael, Down Fm Selsey Stoughton Amesbury, Stonehenge

SU965030 SU8754 SU000146 SZ 872940 SU8011 SU122422

H87 Dt153 Sx 113 Sx 107 W112

Amesbury, Stonehenge Amesbury, Stonehenge Basingstoke, Down Grange Basingstoke, Wellocks Hill Blandford, Launceston Fm Bournemouth, ?Talbot Woods Bournemouth, Kings Park Bournemouth, Winton Braishfield, Hawks Fm Carisbrooke, IOW Carisbrooke, IOW Cherford Hale, Hants Christchurch, Winton/Barton Cranborne, Holwell Marsh

SU122422 SU122422 SU614498 SU6552 ?ST9409 SZ0793 SZ122926 SZ0994 SU3825 SZ48068794 SZ48068794

SZ48NE41 SZ48NE41

W220 W239 H11 H10 Dt62 H106 H29 H23 H89 H70 H71

SZ1693 SU06591302

SU01SE15

H30 Dt13

Durrington, Woodhenge Firsdown, Thorny Down

SU151434 SU20293382

SU14SE6 SU23SW13

W209 W48

Fordingbridge, Charford Froxfield Gussage St Michael, Down Fm Havant Havant, Highfield Avenue Idmiston, Boscombe Down Itchin Row, s off IwerneCourteney, Hambledon Hill IwerneCourteney, Hambledon hill Kings Somborne Linkenholt Milton Abbas Near Stonehenge Popham Romsey, Abbey Water SixpennyHandley,Woodcutts Common SixpennyHandley,Woodcutts Common SixpennyHandley,Woodcutts Common SixpennyHandley,Woodcutts Common SixpennyHandley,Woodcutts Common Steventon, Oakley Park Stonehenge Stonehenge, pit within ditch Tisbury, Chicksgrove Wilsford, nr Starveall Winkton, Iddesleigh Road Winkton, Jopp's Corner Woodyates, Bokerley Junction Wylye Amesbury, Stonehenge Priory Bay, IOW Amesbury, Stonehenge Amesbury, Stonehenge Odiham, n of Down Fm Preston, Jordon Hill

SU1719 SU6726 SU000146 SU7109 SU687101 SU191366 SU561487 ST850123 ST850123 360279 SU3658 ST8001 SU1242 SU5444 SU351212 ST965178

Stonehenge Swanick, Porickfields Whitchurch

SU122422 SU5010 SU491458

SU13NW56 ST80SW9 SU23NW69 SU30SE27

W54 Dt61 W377 B

SZ19SW22

Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag

A

Frag

Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I

DCM Private coll BM92,9-1,85 SM115/70 WCM PM11 HMS MGM CCM 79 Lew31.15.61 SM138/71089a DM SM HMS HMS BM92,9-1,88 HMS HMS HMS WCM2220 CCM CCM SM2012 HMS DCM 1886.5.1 DM SM188/461092 SM 2102 HMS MGM PCM PCM SM HMS DCM DCM HMS Private Coll DCM 0.16.1 SM138/37 HMS

Dt123

Half Blade Frag Adze Frag

Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I

Dt127

Frag

Group I

MGM

ST963177

Blade

Group I

MGM

ST965177

Blade

Group I

MGM

ST965177

Butt

Group I

MGM

Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group I Group Ia Group Iia Group III Group III Group III Group III

HMS SM 27/63 SM 27/1963 SM 60/48 SM 117/53 PM Niii1 PM Nii26 SM SM 117/53 SM 4841 Private Coll SM 4840a SM 225 HMS DCM85.16.11 0 SM 4840GV WCM HMS

SU61SE11

Frag Frag Fragh Flake

H9 SU32SE34

ST965177

SU56174874 SU122422 SU122422 ST97033006 SU121404

H39 H64 Dt157 H135 H129 W189 H13 Dt146 Dt147 H121 H82 Dt2

Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone /Jade Grey stone Greywacke Greywacke Greywacke Greywacke Group I

SU54NE2 Frag Butt ST93SE36

W101 W128

Frag A A

SU032198 SU0037 SU122422 SZ6391 SU122422 SU122422 SU722494 SY7082

SU74NW7

Dt91 W129 W106 H14 W107 W110 H8 Dt12 H17 H107

191

Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Frag Blade Frag

Group III Group III Group III

MGM

Fordingbridge, East Railway Station Salisbury, East Harnham Salisbury, East Harnham Wimborne St Giles (barrow G9) East Meon Iwerne Courtney, Hambledon Hill Piddlehinton Teffont Warminster, Dirtley Wood Tarrant Gunville, nr Bussey Stool Cp Ringwood Ringwood Salisbury, nr Old Sarum Amesbury, Stonehenge Avenue Bloxworth, se of Oak Hill Bournemouth, Pokesdown Bournemouth, Pokesdown Bournemouth, Redhill Bournemouth, Winton, Stokewood Rd Exton Gillingham, Common Mead lane Itchen Stoke and Ovington Iwerne Courteney, Hambledon hill Overton, Willesley Warren Poole, Broadstone Sherbourne St John Southampton, Old Shirley Amesbury, Woodlands Dinton, nr Grovely Wood Froxfield Gussage St Michael, Down Fm Gussage St Michael, Woodcutts Lee-on Solent Shapwick, nr Badbury Rings Stockbridge, Peat holes Sway, North Sway Bournemouth, Kings Park Downton, Castle Meadow Dummer, Dummer Clump Gussage St Michael, Wyke Down Gussage St Michael, Wyke Down Iwerne Courteney, Hambledon hill Bournemouth, Moordown Bournemouth, Moordown Shirley Bournemouth Headbourne Worthy, Worth Down Stockton, Stockton earthworks Worthy, Worthy Down Odiham, w of Down Fm Wilsford, Wilsford Down Bournemouth, ?Talbot Woods Burcombe Without, nr Grovely Hill Iwerne Courtney, Hambledon Hill Iwerne Courtney, Hambledon Hill Fordingbridge, Gorley Fordingbridge, Gorley Hill Southampton, St Michaels Square Wylye Willesley Warren Wylye Bournemouth, Kings Park Down Farm Neo pit 7 Gussage Down North Sway, Hants Wyke Down, Henge Lymington St Mary Bourne

SU1414 SU1428 SU145290 SU018172 SU706192 ST850123 SY7197 ST995350 ST895485 ST9315 SU1505 SU1505 SU141325 SU126425 SY887932 SZ1312 SZ1292 SZ089956 SZ0994

H27 SU12NW27

SZ0995 SU4014 SZ0994 SU458349 ST972361 SU4835 SU7250 SU1040 SZ0794 SU077327 ST850123 ST850123 SU1611 SU165115 SU41871132 SU009376 SU5052 SU009376 SZ122926 SU000148 ST987141 SZ2898 SU00661529 SZ2692 SU4250

HMS SM 1082 SM 1082 DM1070-1076 PCM DCM DCM 1913.2.1 SM 117/53 SM 30/67 DCM1927.14. 1 PM 63/1963 HMS SM 1088 SM DCM1965.13 HMS RHM PM Nii18 BM40,7-1,608 Bury Mus

SY79NW7

W119 Dt44 H128 Dt125 Dt10

Flake Frag

Group IIIa Group IIIa Group IIIa Group IV Group IV Group IV

ST84NE38 ST91NW32

W127 W346 Dt17

Frag Butt Frag

Group IV Group IV Group IVa

H105 W122 W238 Dt115 H25

Frag

H42 H22

Frag Frag

H130 Dt141 H91 Dt140 H2 Dt46 H98 H55 W98 W66 H63 Dt154

Frag

SZ19SW33

SU609208 ST802263 ST850123 SU50825408 SY992947 SU625578 SU3914 SU15174313 SU025350 SU6726 SU000146 ST99121413 SU5601 ST95800308 SU35253328 SZ286980 SZ122926 SU18042114 SU6046 SU006152 SU006152 ST850123 SZ0995

Blade Half Frag

Group IIIa

SU55SW9 SY99NE19 SU14SE4

Flake Frag

Blade

ST91SE63 ST90SE70 SU33SE6 SZ29NE14 SZ19SW22 SU12SE20

H20 Dt67 H61 H35 H31 W300 H3 Dt163 Dt163 Dt139 H26

Frag Flake A

H49 H41 SU43SE13

SU03SE43

SU41SW16

W118 H47 H6 W53 H40 W374

Blade

Dt124 Dt133

Frag Half

H36 H48

A Butt

SU55SW21 SU03NW31 SZ19SW22

W102

Butt B A Butt

H112 H108

192

Group IX Group IX Group IX Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VI Group VII Group VII Group VII Group VII Group VII Group VII Group VII Group VII Group VII Group VIII Group VIII Group VIII Group VIII Group VIII Group VIII Group X Group X Group X Group XIII Group XIII Group XIII Group XIII Group XIX Group XIX Group XVI Group XVI Group XVI Group XVI Group XVIII Group XVIII Group XVIII Group1 GroupVI GroupVI GroupVII GroupVII GroupVII GroupVII GroupVIII GroupXVII Hornblend pyroxene

WCM Private Coll WCM DCM Private Coll DCM1937.60 Private coll SCM SM DM 1421 HMS MGM MGM Private Coll PM WCM SM 2001 HMS SM43/61 HMS Private Coll MGM DCM HMS Redhouse PM Nii28 SCM BM40,7-1,591 SM1080 WCM1.1950 HMS Private coll BM40,7-1,589 SM 24/71 DCM DCM SM 23/14 SM 2002 SCMA65.630 SM 117/53.7 Newbury Mus SM 1085 PM Nii61 MGM MGM SM 2001 MGM HMS HMS

Amesbury, E of Seven Barrows

SU14194264

SU14SW17

W297

Milford-on-sea, Vidle Van Farm Hambledon, Hants

SZ307917 SU64481460

SZ39SW3

Iwerrne Steepleton Yapton Amesbury, nr Stonehenge Chistchurch, Hengistbury Head Southampton, Old Shirley Hambledon (Hants), Denmead

ST888127 SU980038 SU1242 SZ1791 SU3914 SU637130

Bournemouth, Southbourne

SZ1591

Cowes, IOW

SZ50999480

Swanwick

SU4909

H15

Fareham, Locksheath Iwerne Courtney, Hambledon Hill Iwerne Stepleton

SU515075 ST850123 ST856115

H127 DT93 Dt162

Iwerne Stepleton, Stepleton enc

ST856115

Dt162

Ellisfield, n of Ellisfield Camp

SU629455

Durrington, Durrington Walls

Butt B

Sx149 W197 H32

Flake

H131

Frag

SU31SE13 H34 SZ59SW28

SU64NW23

H7

Frag

SU150437

W350

Frag

Poole, Creekmoor

SZ001933

Dt55

Old Sarum, Castle Inn Beaulieu

SU137327 SU3900

Itchen Stoke and Ovington

SU5632

H90

Whitehill, Borden

SU7934

H66

Stourpaine Wareham, Worgret Amebury, Stonehenge Liddington, N Wilts North Newnton, Hilcott St Mary Bourne Chichester Harbour Broade Chalke

ST8609 SY9086 SU122422

SY98NW1

SU115582 SU42485062 SU838040 SU013266

SU45SW17 SU80NE9

Corfe Mullen, on common IwerneCourteney, Hambledon Hill Bournemouth, Boscombe Southampton', in or near Aldingbourne

SY997985 ST850123 SZ1292

Fordingbridge, Gorley Hill

SU1611

?Gillingham Alton, Kings Rd area (Hants 125) Fordingbridge Greywell, W of Spring Head Iwerne Courteney, Hambledon Hill Oakley, Battledown Fm Overton, Willesley Warren Overton, Willesley Warren Salisbury, Milford Manor Fm Shroton, Ranston Hill Studland, Ballard Down Sutton Mandevill, Harris Hill KingsWorthy Christchurch, Heng Head

?ST8126 SU724394 SU210139 SU7149 ST850123 SU55605040 SU5153 SU5052 SU154299 ST870127 SZ045813 ST984287 SU486354 SZ1790

SU30SE27

Dt116 Dt47 W225

Flake

W71

SY99NE16

Sx 7 W307

C

Dt53 Dt148 H24

Frag flake

A SU923050

Sx153

Frag

SU11SE13

SU55SE30

Dt98 H125 H122 H5 Dt143 H4 H1

Frag Half Frag Frag

SU55SW21

SU43NE41

193

W390 Dt128 Dt150 W395 H132 PPS196 2,231

Half

diorite Hornblende diorite Igneous Igneous leached stone Irregular Kyanite Limestone Limestone Limestone Metamorpho sed porphyry Metamorpho sed siltstone Micaceous Schist Mudstone from Wales Nephrite Nephrite Nr Group XVII Nr Group XVII Olivine dolerite Ophitic greenstone Ophitic quartz dolerite Porcellanite Pyroxenite ?Jade Quartz analusite mica schist Quartz glauconite limestone Quartzite Quartzite Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone Schist Silicified slate Siltstone Siltstone Slate Sliced Spotted slate Tertairy Ironstone Tuff Tuff Tuff Tuff Tuff Tuff Tuff Tuff Tuff Tuff Tuff Unidentified Unknown Volcanic Ash

SM 70/57 PM 1978/713 MGM CCM 89/75 Private Coll HMS SCM WCM HMS

WCM 2223 Private Coll Private Coll DCM DCM HMS SM BM92, 9-1, 87 SM1088 WCM WCM HMS BM92,9-1,101 DCM 0.231.1 DM SM117/1953.8 DM Reading Mus Lewes M SM 55/60 BM40,4-5,1 DCM HMS RDHM SCMA657.63 Inst Arch, London SM 23/1914 BM11,10-9,2 HMS73.103 HMS HMS DCM HMS Private Coll Newbury Mus SM 62/1973 Private Coll DCM Private Coll WCM Calkin list 35

APPENDIX 5:8 FLINT SICKLES Sickles Durrington Walls East Knoyle Fareham, Carvers Gravel Pit Lurgashall Old Shirley Preston Candover Shedfield Slindon South Wanborough, Ford Fm

NGR SU150435 ST871309 SU53120286 SU92053040 SU3914 SU6342 SU5613 SU96091042 SU7149

NMR No

Notes Possible frag

ST83SE12 SU50SW6 SU93SW1

Possible Or bifacial knife Possible Small

Location SM SM SCMA295.64 HMS4065 PCM UC RU057 HMS

APPENDIX 5:9 FLAT COPPER AND BRONZE AXES Flat Bronze Axes Parish Bere Regis Bournemouth, Ellingham Bournemouth, Sway Broom Gravel Pits Dorchester, Mount Pleasant Hengistbury Head Barrow 10 Preston, Jordon Hill Selsey Winterbourne Stepleton Wyke Regis, Smallmouth

NGR SZ8494 SU1407 SZ2798

NMR No

Notes

SY70998992 SZ 1790

SY78NW4

Decorated Gardiner 1987, 52

SY7082 SZ8692

Museum DCM 1:51.1 RHM447 RHM452 DCM1920.2.1 DCM1976.1.1 DCM 1882.16.2

Curwen 1937, 160 DCM DCM 1:52:1

SY6679

APPENDIX 5:10 BEAKERS FROM KNIGHTON FARM SITE Knighton Farm Context

Pottery

Flint

10

Beaker sherds, decorated base of Beaker

18 flakes, 2 scrapers (1 thumbnail) arrowhead

Other

(missing) 11

?W/MR sherds, handled Beaker, Rusticated Ware

17 flakes

12

Beaker sherds, Rusticated Ware, other unidentified

14 flakes

13

Beaker bases, Beaker handle (see 11), Rusticated

sherds 55 flakes, 1 scraper

sherds 15

Beaker sherds

18

Beaker sherds

4 flakes (tendency to Neo)

194

potboilers

APPENDIX 5:11 EASTON DOWN IN CONTEXT: THE PROBLEM OF DOMESTIC BEAKER ACTIVITY ON THE HIGHER DOWNLAND

Introduction

During the late 1920's, J F S Stone, a meteorologist employed at the Chemical Research Establishment and based at Porton Down, Wiltshire, investigated both extant and levelled archaeological features around the southern part of Salisbury Plain. Air photographs supplied by his colleagues assisted him in mapping local archaeological features and among these were the linear ditches that could be traced from Quarley Hill, 6km to the north. These formed a major feature of interest and a converging series of such ditches in the Easton Down area aroused his curiosity. Two of them formed a T-junction on the high ground between the Bourne valley in the north and a series of combes, part of a southern facing drainage package to the south. Investigation of the area led to the discovery of an extensive series of flint mine shafts, subsequently excavated by him and dated to the Neolithic period, and around which lay some 24ha of funereal, settlement and other activity, of dates that extended from the 3rd to 1st millennium BC. The data was published in a series of articles in the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine (Stone 1931a; 1931b, 1932; 1933; 1934; 1935) although Stone unfortunately failed to bring together a final concluding account in the way that he had done for the nearby site of Thorny Down (Stone 1941) and it will remain unknown as to whether some of his earlier views might subsequently have been modified. Situated around the flint mines were a series of depressions, pits and stake holes, evidently associated with Beaker potsherds, that were variously interpreted as huts or pit dwellings and which were linked to the activity at the flint mines. More recent authors have been more cautious about this and Simpson (1971, 135-6), for example, saw no reason to believe that the pits themselves represented houses, although a more convincing 5m long trench with stake holes along it remained undated. In the immediate vicinity, Stone recorded funereal activity in the form of an undated round barrow and a shallow cairn of flint nodules that covered a series of urned and unurned cremations set in a linear fashion (Stone 1932-4; 1934).

Topography, Geology and Landscape History The site occupies the marginal higher chalk downland of a southern facing drainage pattern on the northern outskirts of the parish of Winterslow and some 3m distance from the village itself. The area was considered 'bleak' when discovered by Stone being quite exposed, although the flint mine itself lies in and around a small combe or re-entrant which provides some protection from the elements. This is just one of a series of three such landforms that opens in the southwest on to a more significant and wider, currently dry, valley that led ultimately to the Avon at Alderbury, though the drainage has been captured by the River Dun at some point in the distant past to discharge into the River Test. Beyond the ridge to the north lies the broad valley of the River Bourne, a tributary of the Avon, along which medieval villages cluster and where permanent water can still be found. Today the combe is dry, but tabular flint seams around the head of the valley form an impervious layer which probably contributed to a local perched water table. Formerly with a higher water table, the combe may have supported a small stream. The geology around the site consists of Upper Chalk, soft rock with abundant seams of both tabular and nodular flint, some of which outcrop close to the surface. On the knolls and interfluves are traces of Clay-with-flints and close to the site patches of pea-sized gravel were noted, perhaps the residue of Reading Beds deposits. Early maps of East Winterslow dated 1822 and 1843 (Wiltshire Record Office 135/36 and Tithe Apportionment) indicate that enclosures were being made on the Higher Down during the 19th century and that the site was being farmed from Gutteridges Farm, the buildings of which lay to the south of the Salisbury to London Highway, and while the mine site itself then lay in pasture, the surrounding area was under cultivation. Stone recognised that cultivation of the mines in the combe itself had not

195

taken place, but that the surrounding area had seen at least one episode of ploughing and this factor featured in subsequent investigations on site. Analysis of the flora on anthills indicated that much of the surface had been undisturbed or little disturbed (Wells et al 1976) and, in the face of a proposed battle run, the significance of such a fragile and relatively undamaged archaeological landscape was successfully impressed upon CDE Porton by H C Bowen and D Bonney of the RCHME in 1979 (RCHME archives).

Archaeological background As noted above, Stone's first visit to the site resulted in the observation of a series of depressions coupled with an accumulation of large flint flakes and broken flint tools (Stone 1931a, 350). He quickly realised that this represented the remnants of flint extraction. For purposes of description he used the linear ditch system to divide the area into four zones, labelled A to D. The first of these, A, was located immediately east of the junction of linear ditches. It contained a round barrow, but was also strewn with Beaker potsherds, burnt flints and animal bones. The second area, B, was on the combe floor and sides and comprised the bulk of the mineshafts of which he had located 90 at that time. Not all of these were extant, some shafts evidently being discovered by observing changes in vegetation colour and by 'bosing' (banging the ground with a hammer and recording the difference in sound) as advocated by Curwen at Whitehawk in Sussex. Further Beaker potsherds were collected from the area to the west of the shafts and since the Beaker settlement appeared to extend across the area, Stone indicated that only by excavating could there be certainty as to whether all of the pits were mines or not. Although not investigated by Stone in detail, Area C, to the south of the linear ditch is considered to have been levelled by cultivation, although mining was said to have taken place extensively across the area. To the east of the north-south linear, Area D, another settlement location or perhaps a continuation of that located in Area A was indicated by the presence of surface finds. Stone commenced excavations in 1930, by investigating one of the depressions on the combe floor in Area B, Pit B1. This was felt to be a mineshaft with a working floor alongside it (Stone 1931a). He subsequently opened four others, B49, B19, B45 and B67, the last three not reaching the flint layer (Stone 1933, 225). He also begun investigation of the adjacent settlement, excavating three pits, two in Area A, which he labelled A1 and A2 and one in Area B, termed B82. He felt that the greater amount of Beaker pottery found on the surface came from Area A in the vicinity of the round barrow, but there were also numbers of sherds recovered from Area B and his plan depicted these as being located on the slopes of the re-entrant to the west of the mineshafts. Stone also thought that ‘pit dwellings’ existed in the south east corner of the down in Area C, i.e. towards a further junction of linear ditches, where he had commenced excavation of a trench like pit, C1 (Stone 1931b, 367). He noted, however, that the pottery from here, as well as from the adjacent area D, was cruder and thicker than the Beaker pottery from Areas A and B. Closer inspection of the area coupled with trial trenches, indicated to Stone, that the mined area B, was in fact completely surrounded by ‘pit dwellings’ (Stone 1933, 229) and in order to investigate these further he opened a larger trench, 15m by 15m, some 182m to the west of Pit 82. This revealed ten pits, each surrounded by a series of stakeholes and each of which was considered to represent a dwelling, the stakes perhaps supporting thatched roofs. Most were of relatively small dimensions, being little more than 1.5m in diameter and in one case reached just 0.7m in diameter by 0.7m in depth, this latter full of ashes (ashpit a). Today these features would be recognised as simple pits utilised for other purposes, although the stake arrangements enclosing slightly larger areas might be interpreted in other ways. The trench was subsequently extended to the west 15m by 3m and encountered a further 'dwelling pit' (hut 11) and two further ashpits (b & c) (Stone 1935, 72). A flint axe from one pit was thought to be from the flint mine and was the first artefact that allowed a link between the mining process and the settlement. A furrow or shallow trench 5m in length with stake holes situated along it ran between 'huts' 7 and 8 was thought to represent part of a wattle fence that formed one side of a building, which Stone compared to Neolithic examples on the continent at Goldberg. Sherds from a cordoned and finger nail decorated vessel were recovered and as this was in a coarser fabric to the fine Beaker material, was thought to be Windmill Hill ware and consequently reconstructed as a round based bowl (Stone 1933, pl V1). However, there is no reason to believe that it had other than a flat base and it might easily be at home in a beaker context. Clarke (1970, 36-7 & fig VI) indicated that cordoned rims are a feature of Beakers that he suggests are more frequent in domestic

196

than burial assemblages. The fingernail decoration is consistent with this (Clarke 1970, 70-3). Whether the slot is considered an archaeological feature or not, archaeological chronology is not the problem that it might have seemed at the time.

There were evidently further explorations. About 15m to the east of 'hut 8’, Stone mentions that another elongated 'pit dwelling' was excavated (here named hut 12) from which a fragment of Beaker together with sherds of a bowl with rows of 'Peterboroughlike vertical 'maggot' decoration. This too was reconstructed with a round base, though with a little uncertainty concerning the detailed nature of barbed wire as opposed to whipped cord decoration (Clarke 1970, 130), this too could be a Beaker bowl. Three further pits, all elongated and shallow, were excavated in Area A (Stone 1935, 71). Stone observed that the pits in Area A contained slightly different pottery to those in Area B, decoration being more profuse, while in area B, there was a greater rusticated ware component, which he observed, could reflect either cultural or chronological variation (Stone 1935, 71). Stone also described the discovery below the turf of what is evidently a Deveril-Rimbury bucket urn found just 45m to the east of the mined area. By this he presumably means the extant mined area i.e. the floor and sides of the coombe. Thus the urn must have been recovered from the rising ground a little to the west of the north-south linear. Stone had clearly been digging here though he noted that that there was no evidence of burial.

The earthworks A modern plan of the flint mine prepared by RCHME (Barber et al 1999, 46: Field & Barber nd) hinted at the presence of traces of non-extraction earthworks within the vicinity. The area to the south of the mine depressions was subsequently targeted as part of this project and in September 2003 surveyed in greater detail (with the kind assistance of D Ride) and the plan incorporated here (Fig 5:9). The earthworks are extremely shallow and fragile, none reaching more than 0.2m in height, having evidently received an episode of cultivation in the historical past. In Stone's Area A, recoverable features, including the small round barrow excavated by Stone, were of a curvilinear nature. Two embanked circles to the south of the barrow, could have been further ceremonial monuments, but given the amount of Beaker sherds noted by Stone in this area may equally represent the location of huts. Similar quantities of potsherds were not readily noticed, although a decorated base sherd was recovered from just north of the east-west linear that divides that site from Area D, and which serves to confirm Stones assertion of a decorated beaker element here. Just a few metres northeast of the barrow three smaller mounds and depressions cluster in a group. The position of the two pits, A1 and A2 excavated by Stone close to this point was not located on the ground. Earthworks in Area C comprised a series of extremely shallow linear banks and lynchets forming parts of a rectangular 'Celtic' field-like arrangement. One ‘field’, comprising more prominent banks than the rest, could represent an enclosure, with the circular embanked depressions within marking the location of dwellings. Proximity of the flint mines, however, encourages caution as they could equally represent levelled flint mines. Parts of at least eight fields can be identified, with indications that others may have underlay the north to south linear. However, there are two prominent alignments which may indicate that the earthworks represent two distinct phases of activity. Neither phase, is extensive and neither is well-engraved or well-established on the land. While flint debitage can be found across the area, nothing particularly diagnostic was noted. Stone did not note this as an area of Beaker pottery and the only sherd recovered as part of the present work was a single sherd of coarse dark brown fabric, heavily flint tempered and probably attributable to the Middle Bronze to Early Iron Age. An isolated and unrecorded round barrow 10m in diameter by c1m in height was surveyed to the north of the site, 200m to the north of that excavated by Stone and just a few metres to the west of the north-south linear ditch. It adds to the the inventory of funereal monuments on the down, but lies a considerable distance from the main barrow group in the vicinity, that to the southwest at East Winterslow.

197

Discussion Antler recovered from a gallery in a mine shaft at the head of the combe provided a date of 3630-3040 cal BC (Barber et al 1999, 81), although it is by no means clear how or when such extraction here began and investigation has not been extended to adjacent combes to investigate the potential extent of such works. The loose arrangement of shafts indicates that intensity of activity on the site nowhere near matched that at other flint mine sites Surface evidence is often extremely slight and Stone recorded that many features were discovered merely by the colour of surface vegetation. Intermittent extraction may have continued for centuries and could have provided the initial reason for visits by Beaker using communities late in the 3rd or early in the 2nd millennium. Presence of a flint axe at the base of Pit B11 was used by Stone to provide a link. Despite the suggestions that flora and anthills imply an area of uncultivated downland (Wells et al 1976), there is some indication that the area was used for agriculture both during prehistory and in more recent times. Aerial photographs show that steam ploughing has occurred across the area and prior to this some of the very slight earthworks may have been more significant. Stone identified two scatters of Beaker potsherds some 400m apart from each other. The first lay on the interfluve between two coombes just north of the east to west linear ditch, while the second was on higher and slightly rising ground to the east of the Tjunction of the linear ditches. Each site comprised a scatter of pottery, coupled with excavated pits and in one case a number of surface undulations. Using Stone's terminology to differentiate them, more is known of site B i.e. that in Area B, as more extensive excavations were conducted there. The precise location of Stone's trench remains uncertain, but a rectangular area of ground disturbance appears most likely to represent the spot, in which case the trench was oriented slightly off of the northern alignment depicted by Stone in his report. At least three elements can be detected in the published plan. First the amorphous hollows thought by Stone to be 'pit dwellings'. A minimum of nine of these are present, the maximum measurements reaching 3m by 1.8m, with depth often quite shallow though in some cases reaching a maximum depth of 0.45m. None of these were described in detailed and only a 'typical' section was recorded having: a layer of sterile earthy chalk dust and angular flint at the base; a 'habitation layer' of similar earthy chalk dust but containing molluscs, potsherds, burnt flint, struck flint and animal bones lying between 0.15 and 0.2m in depth; all covered by a layer of 'undisturbed mould'. A tenth hollow, recorded as Pit 11 by Stone (he had used 10 for an arrangement of stakeholes), differs in form from these being little more than 1.5m in length and just 0.45m in width and approximates to some of the smaller pits here mentioned as category 3. However, a chipped flint axe was found at the base of this, together with a hammerstone and large numbers of flint flakes, all of which provided a link to the flint mine. Secondly, a series of some 160 stakeholes, said to be between c0.1 to 0.15 in diameter and no more than 0.15m in depth were recorded, some of which appear to closely follow the perimeter of the hollows, though others are more freely arranged. Thirdly, a series of smaller pits of which three appear to overlie or cut into the hollows and which Stone felt to be of unknown significance, the three most circular of which were described as 'ashpits'. The nature of the hollows remains uncertain. With no section drawings it is impossible to determine whether the edges were deliberately cut or whether they were simply natural hollows or tree throw holes within which domestic debris accumulated, perhaps in a similar manner to those at Downton. Most of the Beaker pottery, some 210 sherds are mentioned, appears to derive from the 'pit dwellings' and so there is no question that there was some occupation of the site. No dating material appears to come from the stakeholes themselves, although there does in some instances appear to be a correlation between the position of stakeholes and the edges of the hollows. No hearths were recorded in or around these features, and the descriptions do not mention copious quantities of charcoal, potboilers or other burnt material. Stone's plan indicated that Beaker sherds were found scattered right along the ridge here in which case the excavated area formed only a part of a much larger site. He evidently explored elsewhere in the area, for he recorded that the presence of 'patches of burnt flint and earth, some 0.45m in thickness, lie in well-defined areas on the down near the pit dwellings' and that he had cut a section into one of these, which 'yielded some Beaker sherds mixed up with the burnt

198

material' (Stone 1933, 231-2). Location of these trenches is unfortunately lost and there is no further mention of them amongst Stone’s notes. Only the small pits A, B and C, described as 'ashpits' have a little more form to them, coupled with a little more detail. All were near circular, between 0.7 and 0.9m in diameter and, 0.7, 0.4 and 0.9m in depth respectively, and all contained Beaker sherds. The first, ashpit A, cut into one of the hollows. The oval pits in area A were compared by Stone to a ‘pit-dwelling’ found cut into gravel, close to the coast at Lymore, Milford on Sea (Clay 1928). At c1.5m length the sub-rectangular pit at Lymore shared the characteristic of having one vertical side and the other angled. It also had a ramp leading into it at one corner. In contrast to the fragmented material at Easton Down, a complete Beaker placed in one corner allows the possibility that it was a grave pit where skeletal material had been destroyed by the acidic soil. A thick layer of charcoal on the base of the pit and inside the Beaker also indicates different activity. Contextual details that can be reconstructed at Easton Down are as follows:

Site

Layer

Pottery

Pit A1

Habitation

Beaker

Animals (illus)

Rusticatedware

+

Small

Flint Bos/small

sheep/pig

Leaf

arrow/14

thumb

scrapers/5

core

scrapers/end scraper/12 knives/6 flakes

Pit A2 Pit A3

?

4knives/PConvex knife/awl/fabricator/prism tool

Pit A4

?

Pit A5

?

Pit B82

Habitation

Hut 1

?

Hut 2

?

Hut 3

?

Hut 4

?

Hut 5

?

Hut 6

?

Beaker (illus)

Hut 7

?

Beaker/Windmill Hill

Huts 8

?

Beaker/Windmill Hill

Hammerstone/flakes/burnt flint

Hut 9 Hut 11

?

Hut 12

?

Beaker+?Petrbro

Pit B11

Beaker sherds

Chipped axe/ hammerstone

Pit C Ashpit A Ashpit B

BB Ash Bone

5 Beaker frags &

Pig and ox

16 Beaker frags

44 flakes/4 thumbscrapers/potboilers Flakes

wood ash Ashpit C

Bone

&

wood ash

3 Beaker frags

3 pieces sandstone/split

Flakes (total 90 in 2&3)/chipped coretool/ 3

animal bone/ dog

thumb scrapers

The presence of sheep/pig and cattle in Pit A1, and pig and cattle in Ashpit A might be taken as indicating a mixed farming regime, although this would be on extremely slender grounds. Unfortunately, except by proximity, the partly levelled surface evidence cannot be used with certainty to provide a link between Beaker occupation and fields. Without doubt the system underlies the linear ditch arrangement and appears to extend into the area of Beaker occupation, but it is possible that it is chronologically later in date. The discovery of a Collared Urn sherd from a rabbit burrow in the barrow excavated by Stone

199

implies at least some later activity and coupled with the Collared Urn burials in the cairn a little to the west; imply a lengthy sequence of Early Bronze Age activity. None of this is deeply engraved and the impression is more of transient visits. Even the embryo-fields might be conducive with the presence of a field barn, summer pasture arrangement. Although situated at the extreme margin of the medieval parish and poorly situated for robust settlement purposes, an important palimpsest of extant archaeological features betray a lengthy but perhaps intermittent interest in the area. The very distance from historical settlement has undoubtedly contributed to its survival, though only just. The earlist visible presence is that of the Neolithic extraction pits and these entry points into the earth are likely to have been perceived in a sacred/symbolic manner with due ceremony accompanying the extraction process. The importance of this was not lost on successive communities, who marked the location with burials, but settlement may have been of an ephemeral nature, even the fields did not develop into a full system and may represent little more than gardens or paddocks for keeping animals in during summer pasture.

APPENDIX 6:1 BELL BARROWS Bell Barrows East Dorset Affpuddle Affpuddle Affpuddle Arne Arne Bere Regis Broadmayne Chaldon herring Christchurch Christchurch Church Knowle Colehill Coombe Keynes East Lulworth East Stoke East Stoke Ferndown Town Ferndown Town Long Crichel Moreton Poole Steeple Stinsford Studland Studland Studland Studland Turners Puddle Tyneham Wareham Town West Lulworth Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Winterbourne Kingston

SY 7892 SY 8092 SY 8493 ST 9384 SY 9384 SY 8296 SY 70 85 SY 7984 SZ 1495 SZ 1593 SY 9282 SU 0201 SY 8684 SY 8681 SY 8987 SY 8785 SZ 0699 SZ 0798 ST 9611 SY 7987 SY 9997 SY 9083 SY 7094 SZ 0082 SZ 0182 SZ 0083 SZ 0182 SY 8291 SY 8784 SY 9087 SY 8180 SU 0117 SU 0116 SY 8498

SY 79 SE 19 SY 89 SW 7 SY 89 SW15 SY 98 SW40 SY 98 SW40 SY 89 NW SY 78 NW SY 78 SE 32 SZ 19 NW28 SZ 19 SE 11 SY 98 SW 6 SU 00 SW15 SY 88 SE 27 SY 88 SE 4 SY 88 NE 20 SY 88 NE 24 SZ 09 NE 38 SZ 09 NE 41 ST 91 SE 57 SY 78 NE 10 SY 99 NE 12 SY 98 SW37 SY 79 SW33 SZ 08 SW 3 SZ 08 SW 15 SZ 08 SW 78 SZ 08 SW 14 SY 89 SW25 SY 88 SE 28 SY 98 NW 5 SY88 SW 18 SU 01 NW19 SU 01 NW56 SY 89 NW46

Bell Barrows West Sussex East Dean Graffham Stoughton Stoughton Treyford West Dean

SU 9214 SU 9116 SU 8111 SU 8010 SU 8217 SU 8215

SU 91 SW 2 SU 91 NW 21 SU 81 SW 16 SU 81 SW 26 SU 81 NW 14 SU 81 NW 32

Bell barrows Isle of Wight Freshwater Shalfleet Shalfleet

SZ 3585 SZ 3985 SZ 3985

SZ 38 NE 14 SZ 38 NE 26 SZ 38 NE 28

200

Five Mary's Possible

Water barrows

Bell Vue Barrow

x 3 bells

`Five barrows' Oakley Down x 2 bells

Devil's Humps Twin Bell Devil's Jump

Afton Down Group

Bell Barrows Hampshire -----------Basingstoke and Deane Bishops Waltham Blackwater and Hawley Boldre Bramshaw Bramshott and Liphook Bramshott and Liphook Broughton Burghclere Burley Burley Copythorne Denny Lodge Denny lodge Denny Lodge Denny Lodge Denny Lodge Denny Lodge Eccinswell and Sydmonton Eccinswell and Sydmonton Eccinswell and Sydmonton Fawley Hambledon Hythe and Dibden Langrish Laverstoke Litchfield and Woodcott Long Sutton Micheldever Petersfield Rockbourne Rockbourne Sway Wonston Bell Barrows South Wiltshire Amebury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Broad Chalke Bulford Bulford Downton Figheldean Figheldean Figheldean Figheldean Idmiston Idmiston Idmiston

SU 5044 SU 6051 SU 5517 SU 8258 SZ 3099 SU 2816 SU 8535 SU 8435 SU 2932 SU 4655 SU 2001 SU 2302 SU 3115 SU 3608 SU 4005 SU 4103 SU 4202 SU 4103 SU 3308 SU 4856 SU 4956 SU 4956 SU 4204 SU 6619 SU 4105 SU 7120 SU 4944 SU 4652 SU 7545 SU 5336 SU 7523 SU 1021 SU 1020 SZ 2998 SU 4740 SU 1841 SU 1439 SU 1742 SU 1740 SU 1442 SU 1541 SU 1742 SU 1142 SU 11 SU 1242 SU 1242 SU 1342 SU 1342 SU 1342 SU 1342 SU 1841 SU 1841 SU 1142 SU 1142 SU 1142 SU 1142 SU 1741 SU 1742 SU 1742 SU 17 SU 1740 SU 0424 SU 1642 SU 2045 SU 1622 SU 1445 SU 1447 SU 14 SU 14 SU 2236 SU 2235 SU 2137

SU 54 SW 3 SU 65 SW 41 SU 51 NE 9 SU 85 NW 2 SZ 39 NW 2 SU 21 NE 9 SU 83 NE 19 SU 83 NW 16 SU 23 SE 8 SU 45 NE 31 SU 20 SW 12 SU 20 SW 13 SU 31 NW 4 SU 30 NE 3 SU 40 NW 5 SU 40 SW 1 SU 40 SW 13 SU 40 SW 8 SU 30 NW 10 SU 45 NE 14 SU 45 NE 20 SU 45 NE 20 SU 40 SW 17 SU 61 NE 4 SU 40 NW 8 SU 72 SW 9 SU 44 SE 7 SU 45 SE 4 SU 74 NE 11 SU 53 NW 19 SU 72 SE 18 SU 12 SW 38 SU 12 SW 43 SZ 29 NE 12 SU 44 SE 22 SU 14 SE 239 SU 13 NW 36 SU 14 SE 14 SU 14 SE 68 SU 14 SW 11 SU 14 SE 94 SU 14 SE 34 SU 14 SW 57 SU 14 SW 104 SU 14 SW 90 SU 14 SW 425 SU 14 SW 368 SU 14 SW 367 SU 14 SW 364 SU 14 SW 363 SU 14 SE 246 SU 14 SE 240 SU 14 SW 429 SU 14 SW 428 SU 14 SW 427 SU 14 SW 426 SU 14 SE 181 SU 14 SE 178 SU 14 SE 177 SU 14 SE 175 SU 14 SE 68 SU 02 SW 38 SU 14 SE 16 SU 24 NW 84 SU 12 SE 6 SU 14 NW 43 SU 14 NW 81 SU 14 NW 83 SU 14 NW 82 SU 23 NW 34 SU 23 NW 14 SU 23 NW 20

201

Seven barrows Money Hills Barrows x 2 bells x 2 bells

Triple Twin Ratfyn Barrow Monarch of the Plain

Giants Chair

x 2

Idmiston Idmiston Idmiston Kilmington Landford Maiden Bradley Milston Milston Redlynch Shrewton Shrewton Shrewton Shrewton Shrewton Shrewton Shrewton South Newton South Newton Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke

SU 2235 SU 2235 SU 2235 ST 7435 SU 2618 ST 8038 SU 1846 SU 2045 SU 2418 SU 0944 SU 0844 SU 0844 SU 0844 SU 0944 SU 0844 SU 0844 SU 1036 SU 1036 SU 1139 SU 1240 SU 1241 SU 1241 SU 1040 SU 1241 SU 1139 SU 1140 SU 1140 SU 1140 SU 10 SU 1141 SU 1041 SU 1041 SU 1041 SU 0943 SU 0943 SU 1044 SU 0943 SU 1041 SU 1041 SU 1043 SU 1041 SU 1041 SU 1042 SU 1142 SU 1044 SU 0943

SU 23 NW 22 SU 23 NW 5 SU 23 NW 22 ST 73 NW 8 SU 21 NE 13 ST 83 NW 28 SU 14 NE 7 SU 24 NW 72 SU 21 NW 5 SU 04 SE 86 SU 04 SE 109 SU 04 SE 108 SU 04 SE 96 SU 04 SE 87 SU 04 SE 99 SU 04 SE 97 SU 13 NW 22 SU 13 NW 22 SU 13 NW 33 SU 14 SW 382 SU 14 SW 391 SU 14 SW 449 SU 14 SW 464 SU 14 SW 450 SU 13 NW 98 SU 14 SW 473 SU 14 SW 471 SU 14 SW 470 SU 14 SW 466 SU 14 SW 442 SU 14 SW 325 SU 14 SW 330 SU 14 SW 324 SU 04 SE 10 SU 04 SE 28 SU 14 SW 296 SU 04 SE 134 SU 14 SW 325 SU 14 SW 324 SU 14 SW 491 SU 14 SW 334 SU 14 SW 330 SU 14 SW 318 SU 14 SW 317 SU 14 SW 298 SU 04 SE 70

APPENDIX 6:2 DISC BARROWS Disc Barrows Dorset Bloxwirth Fontmell Magma Gusssage St Michael Gussage St Michael Iwerne Minster Poole Shapwick Tarrant Launceston Tarrant Launceston Wimborne St Giles

SY 8796 ST 8818 SU 0014 SU 0013 ST 8814 SZ 0195 ST 9403 ST 9511 ST 9511 SU 0117

SY 89 NE 22 ST 81 NE 32 SU 01 SW 6 SU 01 SW 8 ST 81 SE 9 SZ 09 NW 35 ST 90 SW 14 ST 91 SE 7 ST 91 SE 7 SU 01 NW 19

Poss. site of double disc Possible

Oakley Down Group

202

Jack's Castle

Risbury Hill

Twin

Disc Barrows Hampshire Ashley Basingstoke and Deane Bishops Waltham Bramdean Broughton Bullington Burghclere Burghclere Chilcomb Denny Lodge Eeast Boldre

SU 3929 SU 6051 SU 5418 SU 6226 SU 3133 SU 4743 SU 4756 SU 4655 SU 5128 SU 3308 SU 3300

SU 32 NE 4 SU 65 SW 41 SU 51 NW 4 SU 62 NW 14 SU 33 SW 14 SU 44 SE 14 SU 45 NE 16 SU 45 NE 31 SU 52 NW 21 SU 30 NW 10 SU 30 SW 17

Ellingham Harbridge and Ibsley Exton Grately Grately Horndean Itchen Valley Laverstoke Litchfield and Woodcott Littleton and Harestock Longparish Nether Wallop Odiham Overton Petersfield Quarley Quarley Rockbourne Whitehill

SU 1710 SU 5724 SU 2440 SU 2440 SU 7015 SU 5035 SU 5044 SU 4756 SU 4531 SU 4545 SU 2735 SU 7250 SU 5243 SU 7523 SU 2442 SU 2442 SU 1020 SU 7931

SU 11 SE 11 SU 52 SE 2 SU 24 SW 20 SU 24 SW 90 SU 71 NW 17 SU 53 NW 8 SU 54 SW 3 SU 45 NE 24 SU 43 SE 15 SU 44 NE 17 SU 23 NE 32 SU 75 SW 21 SU 54 SW 13 SU 72 SE 18 SU 24 SW 81 SU 24 SW 81 SU 12 SW 37 SU 73 SE 45

Disc barrows Isle of Wight Freshwater Shalfleet Disc barrows South Wiltshire Parish Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Bulford Bulford Bulford Bulford Bulford Bulford Bulford Durrington Durrington Durrington Durrington Durrington Figheldean Figheldean Miston Idmiston Laverstock Milston Milston Milston Milston Milston Milston Milston

SZ 3585 SZ 3885 NGR SU 1642 SU 1141 SU 17 SU 1241 SU 1741 SU 1841 SU 1142 SU 1739 SU 1342 SU 1942 SU 1741 SU 1742 SU 2024 SU 20 SU 1944 SU 1944 SU 1943 SU 1944 SU 1944 SU 1143 SU 1144 SU 1144 SU 1044 SU 1044 SU 1949 SU 1445 SU 2047 SU 2236 SU 1534 SU 1947 SU 2046 SU 1845 SU 1946 SU 1846 SU 2047 SU 1947

SZ 38 NE 14 SZ 38 NE 25

Possible Seven barrows ?Enclosed cremation cemetery Grateley Down Group Probable

Possible-crop mark Popham Barrows Possible Possible Spring Pond Group Three discs

Afton Down Group

Notes SU 14 SE 12 SU 14 SW 37 SU 14 SE 174 SU 14 SW 89 SU 14 SE 180 SU 14 SE 248 SU 14 SW 513 SU 13 NE 57 SU 14 SW 377 SU 14 SE 182 SU 14 SE 179 SU 14 SE 178 SU 24 NW 83 SU 24 SW 60 SU 14 SE 236 SU 14 SE 235 SU 14 SE 228 SU 14 SE 200 SU 14 SE 199 SU 14 SW 84 SU 14 SW 417 SU 14 SW 418 SU 14 SW 210 SU 14 SW 293 SU 14 NE 62 SU 14 NW 43 SU 24 NW 90 SU 23 NW 7 SU 13 SE 12 SU 14 NE 53 SU 24 NW 48 SU 14 NE 127 SU 14 NE 147 SU 14 NE 123 SU 24 NW 90 SU 14 NE 162

203

Twin

Milston Milston Milston Newton Tony Shrewton Winterbourne Stoke Shrewton Shrewton Shrewton Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke

SU 1947 SU 1947 SU 1645 SU 2040 SU 0944 SU 0944 SU 1044 SU 1044 SU 0844 SU 1241 SU 1141 SU 1141 SU 1141 SU 1139 SU 1239 SU 1239 SU 1139 SU 1139 SU 1139 SU 1140 SU 1140 SU 1141 SU 1241 SU 1241 SU 1241 SU 0741 SU 1044 SU 0944 SU 1041 SU 1041 SU 1043 SU 1044 SU 1044 SU 0741 SU 0741 SU 0742 SU 0942 SU 1043 SU 0944

SU 14 NE 164 SU 14 NE 163 SU 14 NE 208 SU 24 SW 33 SU 04 SE 84 SU 04 SE 92 SU 14 SW 499 SU 14 SW 500 SU 04 SE 94 SU 14 SW 387 SU 14 SW 437 SU 14 SW 448 SU 14 SW 438 SU 13 NW 128 SU 13 NW 113 SU 13 NW 112 SU 13 NW 111 SU 13 NW 109 SU 13 NW 108 SU 14 SW 478 SU 14 SW 477 SU 14 SW 434 SU 14 SW 388 SU 14 SW 389 SU 14 SW 392 SU 04 SE 23 SU 14 SW 297 SU 04 SE 92 SU 14 SW 336 SU 14 SW 335 SU 14 SW 321 SU 14 SW 300 SU 14 SW 299 SU 04 SE 79 SU 04 SE 80 SU 04 SE 78 SU 04 SE 41 SU 14 SW 83 SU 04 SE 44

APPENDIX 6:3 SAUCER BARROWS Saucer Barrows Hampshire Basingstoke and Deane Bramdean Broughton Clanfield Corhampton and Meonstoke Droxford Eastleigh Eecchinswell and Sydmonton Eellingham Harbridge and Ibsley Eellingham Harbridge and Ibsley Eexton Grately Grately Grately Grately Itchen Stoke and Ovington Itchen Stoke and Ovington Itchen Valley Itchen Valley Litchfield and Woodcott Overton Overton Preston Candover Rockbourne Winslade

NGR

NMR No

Notes

SU 5948 SU 6226 SU 2932 SU 7117 SU 6420 SU 5819 SU 4222 SU 4856 SU 1710 SU 1710 SU 6022 SU 2440 SU 2440 SU 2440 SU 2440 SU 5427 SU 5534 SU 5229 SU 5035 SU 4756 SU 5243 SU 5053 SU 6240 SU 1020 SU 6550

SU 54 NE 11 SU 62 NW 14 SU 23 SE 8 SU 71 NW 13 SU 62 SW 26 SU 51 NE 3 SU 42 SW 13 SU 45 NE 14 SU 11 SE 11 SU 11 SE 48 SU 62 SW 5 SU 24 SW 20 SU 24 SW 92 SU 24 SW 91 SU 24 SW 95 SU 52 NW 14 SU 53 SE 3 SU 52 NW 6 SU 53 NW 8 SU 45 NE 24 SU 54 SW 13 SU 55 SW 13 SU 64 SW 17 SU 12 SW 37 SU 65 SE 30

204

Grateley Down Group Possible Possible Probable

Popham Barrows x 3 saucers Spring Pond group

Suacer Barrows East Dorset Bincombe Bournemouth Wimborne St Giles

NGR

NMR No

Notes

SY 68 86 SZ 06 95 SU 01 17

SY 68 NE 85 SZ 09 NE 18 SU 01 NW 19

Oakley Down Group

Saucer Barrows West Sussex Findon Harting Lavant Singleton Wiston

NGR

NMR No

Notes

TQ 1309 SU 7822 SU 8309 SU 8911 TQ 1412

TQ 10 NW 16 SU 72 SE 1 SU 80 NW 18 SU 81 SE 34 TQ 11 SW 9

x 2 Possible saucers

Saucer Barrows South Wiltshire Amesbury Berwick St John Bulford Bulford Bulford Durrington Durrington Durrington Durrington Durrington Durrington Figheldean Figheldean Idmiston Maiden Bradley

NGR

NMR No

Notes

SU 1741 ST 9521 SU 2044 SU 1944 SU 1944 SU 1143 SU 1243 SU 1243 SU 1144 SU 1243 SU 1144 SU 1949 SU 1947 SU 2137 ST 8135

SU 14 SE 244 ST 92 SE 28 SU 24 SW 60 SU 14 SE 201 SU 14 SE 202 SU 14 SW 84 SU 14 SW 311 SU 14 SW 309 SU 14 SW 415 SU 14 SW 312 SU 14 SW 416 SU 14 NE 62 SU 14 NE 168 SU 23 NW 27 ST 83 NW 35

x2

APPENDIX 6:4 POND BARROWS Pond Barrows Parish Amesbury Amesbury Amesbury Broadmayne Corehampton and Meonstoke Durrington Durrington Durrington Durrington Durrington Durrington Durrington Figheldean Figheldean Gussage St Michael Mere Milston Milston Milston Milston Stoughton Swanage Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum Lake Wilsford cum lake Wilsfore cum Lake Winterborne Came Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke

NGR

NMR No

Notes

SU 1439 SU 1442 SU 1343 SY7085 SU 6420 SU 1244 SU 1343 SU 1144 SU 1243 SU 13 SU 1243 SU 1243 SU 1948 SU 1947 SU 0014 ST 8034 SU 2046 SU 19 SU 2146 SU 2045 SU 8111 SZ 0381 SU 1041 SU 1041 SU 1139 SU 1139 SU 1139 SU 1139 SU 1139 SU 1239 SY 7086 SU 1041 SU 1835

SU 13 NW 12 SU 14 SW 236 SU 14 SW 600 SY 78 NW 9 SU 62 SW 24 SU 14 SW 58 SU 14 SW 274 SU 14 SW 81 SU 14 SW 284 SU 14 SW 339 SU 14 SW 287 SU 14 SW 283 SU 14 NE 28 SU 14 NE 52 SU 01 SW 83 ST 83 SW 29 SU 24 NW 77 SU 14 NE 148 SU 24 NW 96 SU 24 NW 78 SU 81 SW 16 SZ 08 SW 22 SU 14 SW 485 SU 14 SW 153 SU 13 NW 132 SU 13 NW 129 SU 13 NW 126 SU 13 NW 125 SU 13 NW 103 SU 13 NW 35 SY 78 NW 23 SU 14 SW 323 SU 13 NE 56

205

Down Farm

Devil's Humps Group

Possible

Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke

SU 0741 SU 1042 SU 1042 SU 1041 SU 1041 SU 0741

SU 04 SE 23 SU 14 SW 99 SU 14 SW 512 SU 14 SW 323 SU 14 SW 333 SU 04 SE 82

APPENDIX 6:5 RING DITCHES Ring ditches recorded in East Dorset, Hamphire, West Sussex and the Isle of Wight to 2000 Ring Ditches East Dorset Bere Regis Bere Regis Bere Regis Blandford St Mary Burleston Burleston Burleston Charlton Marshall Cheselbourne Chettle Chettle Chetttle Christchurch Cranborne Cranborne Cranborne Dewlish Dorchester Dorchester Gussage All Saints Gussage All Saints Gussage All Saints Gussage All Saints Gussage All Saints Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage Str Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael Gussage St michael Gussage St Michael Hinton Martelll Horton Horton Long Crichel Long Crichel Milborne St Andrew Milborne St Andrew Milborne St Andrew Pamphill Pentridge Pentridge Pentridge Pentridge Pentridge Pentridge Pentridge Pentridge Piddletrenthide Piddletrenthide Piddletrenthide Pimperne Puddletown Puddletown Shapwick

NGR SY 8296 SY 8296 SY 8396 ST 8705 SY 7896 SY 7896 SY 7896 ST 8804 SY 7699 ST 9513 ST 9513 ST 9513 SZ 1593 SU 0414 SU 0413 SU 0414 SY 7697 SY 7089 SY69059065 SW 0112 ST 9612 ST 9712 ST 9712 ST 9811 ST 9914 ST 9712 ST 9712 ST 9612 ST 9510 ST 9813 ST 9914 ST 9913 ST 9813 ST 9812 ST 9713 SU 0005 SU 0208 SU 0108 ST 9510 ST 9512 SY 8097 SY 8298 SY 8097 ST 9602 SU 0317 SU 0119 SU 0318 SU 0318 SU 0216 SU 0318 SU 0318 SU 0216 SY 7298 SY 7298 ST 7202 ST 9109 SY 7494 SY 7796 ST 9502

NMR No SY 89 NW 15 SY 89 NW 29 SY 89 NW 38 ST 80 NE 27 SY 79 NE SY 79 NE 21 SY 79 NE 21 ST 80 SE 34 SY 79 NE 65 ST 91 SE 114 ST 91 SE 115 ST 91 SE 116 SZ 19 SE 50 SU 01 SW 89 SU 01 SW 92 SU 01 SW 90 SY 79 NE 33 SY78 NW67 SY69SE79 SW 01 SW 2 ST 91 SE 117 ST 91 SE 118 ST 91 SE 119 ST 91 SE 110 ST 91 SE 107 ST 91 SE 175 ST 91 SE 174 ST 91 SE 166 ST 91 SE 162 ST 91 SE 123 ST 91 SE 106 ST 91 SE 136 ST 91 SE 122 ST 91 SE 121 ST 91 SE 120 SU 00 NW 71 SU 00 NW 19 SU 00 NW 20 ST 91 SE 15 ST 91 SE 125 SY 89 NW 55 SY 89 NW 86 SY 89 NW 56 ST 90 SE 87 SU 01 NW 49 SU 01 NW 119 SU 01 NW 129 SU 01 NW 88 SU 01 NW 57 SU 01 NW 120 SU 01 NW 77 SU 01 NW 57 SY 79 NW 34 SY 79 NW 35 ST 70 SW 67 ST 90 NW 118 SY 79 SW 46 SY 79 NE 62 ST 90 SE 89

206

Notes x2 Ring Ditches Group of ring ditches Group Group Group

Ring Ditches Ring Ditches Flagstones enclosure

Ogden Down Ogden Down

Down Farm

Group of ring ditches Ring ditches

Salisbury Plantation x 3 ring ditches Salisbury Plantation

x3 x2

Shapwick Shapwick Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley Sixpenny Handley Stinsford Tarrant Hinton Tarrant Hinton Tarrant Keyneston Tarrant Launceston West Compton West Stafford Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Wimborne St Giles Winterbourne Kingston Winterbourne Kingston Winterbourne St Martin Winterbourne Whitchurch Winterbourne Whitchurch Winterbourne Abbas Winterbourne Steepleton Witchampton Witchampton Witchampton Woodlands Woodlands Woodlands Woodlands Woodlands

ST 9502 ST 9502 ST 9614 ST 9614 SU 0015 ST 9714 ST 9816 ST 9915 SY 7092 ST 9411 ST 9612 ST 9105 ST 9409 SY 5494 SY 7289 SU 0114 SU 0311 SU 0114 SU 0312 SU 0114 SU 0312 SU 0117 SU 0312 SU 0313 SU 0313 SU 0312 SU 0411 SU 0216 SU 0116 SY 8599 SY 8696 SY 6487 ST 8601 SY 8399 SY 6090 SY 6390 ST 9604 ST 9504 ST 9705 SU 0209 SU 0109 SU 0110 SU 0210 SU 0209

ST 90 SE 91 ST 90 SE 90 ST 91 SE 126 ST 91 SE 140 SU 01 NW 121 ST 91 SE 127 ST 91 NE 69 ST 91 NE 70 SY 79 SW 58 ST 91 SW 105 ST 91 SE 189 ST 90 NW 117 ST 90 NW 119 SY 59 SW 36 SY 78 NW 62 SU 01 SW 20 SU 01 SW 116 SU 01 SW 113 SU 01 SW 111 SU 01 SW 94 SU 01 SW 86 SU 01 NW 124 SU 01 SW 88 SU 01 SW 87 SU 01 SW 98 SU 01 SW 85 SU 01 SW 118 SU 01 NW 123 SU 01 NW 122 SY 89 NE 47 SY 89 NE 48 SY 68 NW 114 ST 80 SE 40 SY 89 NW 96 SY 69 SW 76 SY 69 SW 78 ST 90 SE 94 ST 90 SE 118 ST 90 NE 50 SU 00 NW 2 SU 00 NW 70 SU 01 SW 91 SU 01 SW 76 SU 00 NW 65

Ring Ditches Hampshire Barton Stacey Barton Stacey Basingstoke and Deane Breamore Breamore Breamore Bullington Bullington Burghclere Crawley Damerham Damerham Damerham Damerham Ellingham Harbridge & Ibsley Ellingham Harbridge & Ibsley Ellisfield Hale Houghton Itchen Valley Kings Somborne Kings Somborne Kingsclere Laverstoke Laverstoke Litchfield and Woodcott Litchfield and Woodcott Martin

NGR SU 4242 SU 4140 SU 6051 SU 1420 SU 1420 SU 1402 SU 4542 SU 4743 SU 4655 SU 4033 SU 0717 SU 0917 SU 1017 SU 0815 SU 1608 SU 1509 SU 6244 SU 1919 SU 3333 SU 5033 SU 3633 SU 3630 SU 5256 SU 4846 SU 4945 SU 4756 SU 4753 SU 0820

NMR No SU 44 SW 20 SU 44 SW 27 SU 65 SW 41 SU 12 SW 53 SU 12 SW 71 SU 12 SW 70 SU 44 SE 5 SU 44 SE 13 SU 45 NE 31 SU 43 SW 44 SU 01 NE 13 SU 01 NE 53 SU 11 NW 43 SU 01 NE 51 SU 10 NE 26 SU 10 NE 31 SU 64 SW 21 SU 11 NE 32 SU 33 SW 18 SU 53 SW 25 SU 33 SE 23 SU 33 SE 49 SU 55 NW 6 SU 44 NE 24 SU 44 NE 26 SU 45 NE 9 SU 45 SE 10 SU 02 SE 30

207

Minchington

Ring ditches

x7 x2 Ring ditches + pit circle Ring ditches

x2

Group of 6 x2

Hemsworth Down Knowlton Circles Group Ring ditches Ring ditches Ring ditches

Notes

Great Reids Copse Group

Group of 9

Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Micheldever Monk Sherborne Mink Sherborne North Waltham Nutley Oakley Old Basing Overton Overton Popham Quarley Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne Rockbourne South Wonston St Mary Bourne West Tisted Wherwell Whitchurch Whitchurch Whitchurch Whitchurch Winchester Winchester Wootton St Lawrence Wootton St Lawrence

SU 0620 SU 0818 SU 0818 SU 0818 SU 0819 SU 0819 SU 0820 SU 0720 SU 0720 SU 0820 SU 0820 SU 0821 SU 0821 SU 0621 SU 0617 SU 0519 SU 0420 SU 0419 SU 0419 SU 5237 SU 6055 SU 6055 SU 5445 SU 6145 SU 5950 SU 6553 SU 5351 SU 5050 SU 5444 SU 2341 SU 1120 SU 0919 SU 1019 SU 1018 SU 0920 SU 0919 SU 1120 SU 1121 SU 1121 SU 1020 SU 1022 SU 1121 SU 1021 SU 1021 SU 4535 SU 4254 SU 6429 SU 3540 SU 4748 SU 4849 SU 4846 SU 1022 SU 5033 SU 4930 SU 5851 SU 5854

SU 02 SE 33 SU 01 NE 61 SU 01 NE 60 SU 01 NE 59 SU 01 NE 58 SU 01 NE 57 SU 02 SE 65 SU 02 SE 64 SU 02 SE 63 SU 02 SE 62 SU 02 SE 61 SU 02 SE 60 SU 02 SE 59 SU 02 SE 58 SU 01 NE 56 SU 01 NE 54 SU 02 SW 47 SU 01NW 126 SU 01NW 125 SU 53 NW 78 SU 65 NW 21 SU 65 NW 22 SU 54 NW 34 SU 64 NW 34 SU 55 SE 28 SU 65 SE 35 SU 55 SW 37 SU 55 SW 62 SU 54 SW 19 SU 24 SW 15 SU 12 SW 28 SU 01 NE 63 SU 11 NW 44 SU 11 NW 45 SU 02 SE 52 SU 01 NE 64 SU 12 SW 74 SU 12 SW 75 SU 12 SW 84 SU12 SW 106 SU 12 SW 77 SU 12 SW 85 SU 12 SW 79 SU 12 SW 78 SU 43 NE 49 SU 45 SW 34 SU 62 NW 26 SU 34 SE 27 SU 44 NE 22 SU 44 NE 46 SU 44 NE 25 SU 12 SW 80 SU 53 SW 2 SU 43 SE 72 SU 55 SE 21 SU 55 SE 35

Ring Ditches Isle of Wight Isle of Wight Shorwell Yarmouth

NGR SZ 4587 SZ 4581 SZ 3788

NMR No SZ 48 NE 74 SZ 48 SE 37 SZ 38 NE 48

Ring Ditches West Sussex Boxgrove Bury Lavant Shoreham by Sea

SU 8909 SU 9914 SU 8509 TQ 2206

SU 80 NE 64 SU 91 SE 45 SU 80 NE 93 TQ 20 NW 7

208

Group

Cowdreys Down

x4

Ring ditches

Ring ditches Exc - Early Neo

Notes

APPENDIX 6:6 FLINT DAGGERS NGR

NMR No

Notes

Location

Flint daggers Amesbury, Barrow G54 Amesbury, Stonehenge Botley Bournemouth, Bingham Rd, Charmouth Pk estate Bournemouth, Fernside Rd, Boundary Lane Bournemouth, Moor Down Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Winton Chilmark Donhead St Andrew Durrington Four Marks Grimstead, East Grimstead Fm Lydiard, Langton Matravers Melchet Park Purbrook Sherborne St John

SU1541 SU1541 SU5112 SU0891

DM478 Grimes 1931 WCM BNHM

SU0891

Small

SZ0994 SZ1391 SZ0893 ST9732 ST926223 SU1544 SU6634 SU22552783 SY9978 SU271203 SU6707 SU63675430

Calkinlanceheads1

Tip ST93SE16 SU63SE24 SU22NW8 With button & whetstone

HMS31/1978 Calkinlancehead2 RHM SM MGM DM1343 HMS1984/5.59 SM RHM420

SU22SE8 Grimes 1931 SU65SW54

APPENDIX 6:7 FLINT KNIVES Plano Convex flint knives Bakers Island Basing, Wellocks Hill Basingstoke, Down Grange Fm Basingstoke, Worting Rd Bilbury Camp Bournemouth, Broadstone, nr Roman Rd Bournemouth, Broadway, Sunnyland Ave Bournemouth, Carbery Bournemouth, Clarence Park Bournemouth, Foxholes Bournemouth, Hillbrow Bournemouth, Holdenhurst Rd, bottom Tip Hill Bournemouth, Iford Bournemouth, Kings Park Bournemouth, Littledown Estate Bournemouth, Mannington Bournemouth, Moordown, Highfield Rd Bournemouth, Pokesdown, allottments Bournemouth, Pokesdown, Leaphill Rd Bournemouth, Southbourne, Church Rd Bournemouth, Southbourne, on cliffunder blown sand Bournemouth, Southbourne, Priory Rd Bournemouth, Southbourne, Southern Rd Bournemouth, Strouden nurseries Bournemouth, Thistle Barrow GP Bournemouth, Thistle Barrow nr Bournemouth, twixt Littledown & Sheepwash Bournemouth, Wick Lane, Barrow Plot Bournemouth, Winton Bournemouth, Winton, Struden Rd Bournemouth, Winton, Trokes GP prob Edgehill Rd Bournemouth, Wychwood School Bournemouth, Wychwood School Bussey Stool

NGR

NMR No

Notes x2

SU6653 Frag SU

Scale flaked

SZ0195

SZ1493 x2

SZ1393 SZ15239210 SZ0993 SZ0993 SZ0993

ST932156

Christchurch, CMCP Christchurch, Furzy, Latch Farm

x2

Scale flaked x 11

Christchurch, Grove Farm

209

Location Draper HMS HMS HMS SM Calkin 58 Calkin 75 Calkin 63 Calkin 60 Calkin 46 Calkin 54 Calkin 21 Calkin 18 Calkin 44,53 Calkin 70 Calkin 56 Calkin 20 Calkin 30 Calkin 42 Calkin 41 Calkin 29 Calkin 23 Calkin 22 Calkin 31 Calkin 32 Calkin 33 Calkin 43 Calkin 14 RHM NV22 Calkin 64 Calkin 34,5 RHM 925 Calkin 13 MGM RHM 412 Calkin 1-3,3740,47,57,59,62 Calkin 28

Christchurch, Heng Head, Nusury garden Christchurch, Heng Head, SE top of Christchurch, Heng Head, top of Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Latch Farm, prob Lower Close, Christchurch, Mill Plain Christchurch, Tuckton Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Donhead St Andrew Easton Down Donhead St Andrew Fareham, Cams Farleigh Wallop Fleetend, Titchfield Gussage St Michael Gussage St Michael, Fir Tree Field Holt Lavant Linwood Lone Barn Oving Poole, Stour Valley Portsdown, Southwich Ringwood, Hangersley Hill Salisbury, St Martins Church Slindon South Wanborough, Ford Fm Southbourne Steventon Walkford Wootton St Lawrence, Worting Wood Slug knives Chichester, Sheet Common Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Oakley Portsmouth Teglease Down Bifacial knives Amesbury, Avenue Field Amesbury, Totterdown Badbury Rings Cranborne Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Dinton/Fovant Overton, Polhampton Lodge Plaitford Poole, White's Pit Wakefords Copse Wareham Heath

x2 x2

x5 x2 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 ST9222 SU237357 ST926223 SU5905 SU6246 SU510059 SU00651485

SU01SW143

SU06220561

SU00NE11

Calkin 71&72 Calkin 36,45 Calkin 16 HMS NV coll Calkin 17 Calkin 15,24-7 Calkin 19,66 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 MGM Stone 1931b MGM PCM 25/50/38 HMS PCM 73/993/21 MGM

Scale flaked

RHM 18/63 HMS M Pitts PM49 Draper

9204 Prc Dor 103 SU6906 SU1706 SU1429 SU959103

SU10NE14 SM UC RU5663 HMS RHM NV10 HMS RHM NXI 1 HMS 4341

SU5648 SU6053 NGR

NMR No

SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU5650 SU6500 Broken NGR

NMR No Frag

SU1543 ST965030 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU0029 SU511539 SU727091

210

CCM

Frag

Location CCM SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 220/1984 PCM 6.55 Draper Location SM 104/1938 SM PMA131 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 SM 15/1951 HMS SCM A14.65 PM 39.85 PCM 68/194 PM A124

APPENDIX 6:8 TRIANGULAR, TANGED, AND BARBED AND TANGED ARROWHEADS

Triangular arrowheads Parish Badbury Rings Bournemouth, Boscombe Cemetery Bournemouth, Castlemain Rd, GP at top Bournemouth, Holdenhurst LB Bournemouth, Kings Park Bournemouth, Sellars Fm Calbourne, IOW Christchurch, Friars Cliff Estate, twixt Bure Lane & sea Christchurch, Furzy Christchurch, Heng Head, top of SE end Dinton/Fovant East Meon Ellisfield Fareham Farleigh Wallop Fawley Havant Havant, N Binness Island Lake, IOW Lavant Micheldever Newchurch, IOW Newchurch, IOW Niton & Whitwell, IOW Poole Portsdown Sherborne area Woodcutts Common Wootton St Lawrence, Worting Wood Tanged arrowheads Parish Basing, Wellocks Hill Basingstoke, Down Grange Fm Basingstoke, Kempshott Bournemouth, Hurn, Filleybrook Fm Bournemouth, Thistle Barrow Burton Bradstock, Burton Cliff Christchurch, Heng Head, top at SE end Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Tuckton, Christchurch, Tuckton, field nr Fareham, Cams Farleigh Wallop Milland Millbrook Rockford Common Salisbury Studland Tidcombe & Fosbury Wareham, Bestwall Quarry West Parley, N of Woodtown Fm Wootton St Lawrence, Worting Wood Barbed & tanged arrowheads Parish ? Dorchester ?Dorchester Aldingbourne Alfpuddle, N of Rogers Hill Fm Amesbury, Boscombe nr Barrow 85 Amesbury, Stonehenge Andover Arne Heath Arreton, IOW

NGR ST965030 SZ121926

NMR No

x2

SZ116946 SZ122926

SZ19SW22

SZ421921 SZ188924

X2

Museum Calkin 3 Calkin 2,17 Calkin 6 Calkin 11 Calkin 4&5 Calkin 18

SZ49SW6 Calkin 16

SZ154945 SZ178905 SU0029 SU695192 SU6345 SU5706 SU6246 SU42720358 SU702040 SU694046 SZ5884 SU8508 SU5138 SZ5784 SZ5685 SZ51577631

X3 SU61NE17 x4 SU40SW36 SU70SW1 SU60SE1 SZ58SE31

Calkin 1&14-5 Calkin 7 SM 15/1951 Draper HMS PCM 25/50/03 HMS Private

x 10 CCM WCM

SZ58SE33 SZ58NE8 SZ57NW9

SU6906 SY6316 ST966174 SU6053

X2

x2

NGR SU6653 SU610501 SU6050 SZ1298 SZ115929 SY4889 SZ178905 SZ174906 SZ1492 SZ1492 SU5805 SU6246 SU82872796 SU3913

NMR No

Notes

Calkin 23 PCM 25/50/139 DCM 1954.31.126-128 SM PRColl HMS 4341

x2

Museum HMS HMS HMS Calkin 175 Calkin 116 DCM 1952.11.1 Calkin 150 HMS NV coll Calkin 1 Calkin 2 PCM 50/25/134 HMS

x3

SCM A661.63 PM 157 SM DCM 1973.30.1 DM L Ladle DCM 1948.23.33 HMS 4341

SU82NW7

SU1429 0283 SU2958 SY932881 095978 SU6053

NGR SY6990 SY6990 SU923050

Notes

SU25NE27

NMR No

Notes

SU90NW30

x2

SU122422 SU3945

SU34NE52

x4

SZ511863

SZ58NW57

Museum DCM 1893.3.1 DCM 0.54.1 DCM 0.55.1 SM SM 2153 Calkin 13

211

Arreton, IOW Badbury, Kingsdown Basingstoke & Deane Basingstoke, Kempshott Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Bentworth Blandford Bournemouth Bournemouth, Redhill Common Bournemouth, above Strouden Farm Bournemouth, Boscombe Bournemouth, Boscombe Bournemouth, Boscombe Cemetery Bournemouth, Boscombe Cemetery Bournemouth, Boscombe, Ashley Rd Bournemouth, Branksome Park Bournemouth, Broadstone, Clarendon Rd Bournemouth, Broadstone, Spring Hill Bournemouth, Broadway Bournemouth, Broadway, Sunnylands Ave Bournemouth, Canford, Baddens Pit, sand at base Bournemouth, Carbery Bournemouth, Clarence Park Bournemouth, Ensbury Park Bournemouth, Hadden Hill Bournemouth, Highcliffe Bournemouth, Hillbrow Bournemouth, Hillbrow, Pokesdown Bournemouth, Hinton Bournemouth, Hinton Admiral Bournemouth, Hurn Bournemouth, Hurn Aerodrome Bournemouth, Hurn, Fullybrook Fm, Hodges Cottages Bournemouth, Iford, Durrington Rd Bournemouth, Iford, nr Sheepwash Bournemouth, Jumpers Common Bournemouth, Kings Park Bournemouth, Kings Park Bournemouth, Kings Park, allotments Bournemouth, Kings Park, Pools Common Bournemouth, Littledown Common, nr Thistle Barrow Bournemouth, Littledown, Pick Purse Bournemouth, Parkstone Bournemouth, Parkstone Bournemouth, Pokesdown Bournemouth, Pokesdown Hill Bournemouth, Pokesdown, allotments SW of Durrington Place Bournemouth, Pokesdown, Leaphill Rd Bournemouth, Queens Park Bournemouth, Redhill Common racecourse Bournemouth, Redhill Common, W side of Bournemouth, Redhill Drive Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Southbourne, B'mouth side of lane below CGS Bournemouth, Southbourne, Church Rd, on cliff Bournemouth, Southbourne, nr Gordon Hotel Bournemouth, Southbourne, twixt Gordon Hotel & St Catherines Home Bournemouth, Southbourne, Westfield Rd Bournemouth, Southbourne, White Pits near cliff Bournemouth, Southbourne,S of CG station Bournemouth, Southbourne,twixt Gordon Hotel & crossroads Bournemouth, Strouden Farm, allotments above

SZ53548742

SZ58NW24

SU64515278 SU6050 SU6050 SU670403 ST8806

SU65SW17

x3 X2 X3

X4

SZ135917 SZ125926 SZ078950 SZ1194 SZ2193 SZ128927 SZ128922 SZ2195 SZ207960 SZ120980 SZ1298 SZ1298

SZ122926 SZ122926 SZ1292 SZ119932

Calkin 11&12 HMS HMS

SU64SE20

SU0895 SZ111944 SZ 1191 SZ 1191 SZ 1191 SZ 121926 SZ 114922 SZ 062912 SY992954 SY9995 SZ150919 SZ149919 SY029965

SZ125930 SZ132936 SZ145938 SZ122926

X2 x2 x2 x2

X2

X2 X2

SZ19SW22

X7

SZ19SW22

x4

Calkin 52 Calkin 278 BNHM Calkin 7 RHM 43&374&376 Calkin 42,265 Calkin 149,264&6 Calkin 75 Calkin 26 Calkin 282 Calkin 296 Calkin 1 Calkin 286,7,9&90 Calkin 292 RHM 685 Calkin 260-1 Calkin 22 Calkin 72 RHM 717 Calkin 273-4 Calkin 148 Calkin 49 Calkin 276-7 Calkin 275 Calkin 284 Calkin 229 Calkin 51 RHM 750 Calkin 115 Calkin 20 Calkin 9,47,55,143,2679 RHM58&74&370&380 Calkin 119 Calkin 28 Calkin 74

SZ119934 SY0491 SZ0491 SZ1292 SZ126923 SZ126929

Calkin 21 Calkin 281 RHM 392 RHM 83 Calkin 262 Calkin 168

SZ125926 SZ110930 SZ080955 SZ085953 SZ082948 SZ1491 SZ1491 SZ1491

Calkin 60 Calkin 291 Calkin 155 RHM 223 RHM 490 HMS Calkin 35,257-8 Calkin 152

X3

SZ147913

Calkin 226

SZ144913

Calkin 45

SZ144913

Calkin 68

SZ145916 SZ162908

Calkin 43

SZ1491 SZ1491

Calkin 46 Calkin 173

SZ110946

RHM 684

212

Bournemouth, Strouden Farm, B'mouth School football pitch Bournemouth, Sway Bournemouth, Talbot Ave Bournemouth, Talbot Woods, Keith Rd Bournemouth, Thistle Barrow GP Bournemouth, ThistleBarrow nr Bournemouth, ThistleBarrow Rd, formerly Baldwin Rd Bournemouth, twixt Ensbury Pk Rd & Oswald Rd, Moordown Bournemouth, Up Parkstone, Beresford Rd Bournemouth, Up Parkstone, Wolesey Rd Bournemouth, Wallisdown Rd Bournemouth, West Cliffe Bournemouth, West Parley Bournemouth, West Parley Bournemouth, West Parley, Parley Crt Farm, Twelve Acres Bournemouth, West Southbourne Bournemouth, Wick Farm Bournemouth, Wick Lane, Barrow Plot Bournemouth, Winton Bournemouth, Winton Bournemouth, Winton, Bigham Rd Bournemouth, Winton, nr Trokes Fm/Talbot Inn Bournemouth, Winton, Somerley Rd Bournmouth, Southbourne, cliff Bournmouth, Southbourne, prob nr CGS Boxgrove Boxgrove Bradford Peverill, Whitfield Fm Bradley Braishfield, Broom Hill Bratton Brockenhurst Burley Bursledon, Park Gate Bussey Stool Canford, nr Hatch Hole Cashmoor Castletown, Lards Bush Chalton, Windmill Hill Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch, 50 Riverway Christchurch, Cameron Rd, N end Christchurch, Crouch Hill Christchurch, Friars Cliff Estate, twixt Bure Lane & sea Christchurch, Friars Cliff nr Highcliffe, 300yds in from `the Steamer' Christchurch, Furzy Christchurch, Grove Farm Christchurch, Grove Farm, field 1 Christchurch, Grove Farm, field 4 Christchurch, Heng Head Christchurch, Heng Head Christchurch, Heng Head, CG lookout Christchurch, Heng Head, E end of field Christchurch, Heng Head, E of gully Christchurch, Heng Head, E of gully ie ironstone quarry Christchurch, Heng Head, field W of Dyke, nr sea Christchurch, Heng Head, HF Christchurch, Heng Head, low ground on N side Christchurch, Heng Head, RH WA Christchurch, Heng Head, Rowbury Christchurch, Heng Head, SE top Christchurch, Heng Head, SE top

SZ110942

Calkin 54

SZ2798 SZ083931 SZ075930 SZ116927 SZ115929 SZ113929

X3

Calkin 1-3 BNHM Calkin 130 Calkin 24 Calkin 177 Calkin 140

SZ085946

Calkin 73

SY046925 SY046926 SZ055945 SZ082905 SZ0897 SZ0997 SZ097971

Calkin 158 Calkin 63 Calkin 48 Calkin 271

SZ1392 SZ157921 SZ15239210 SZ0993 SZ0993 SZ091934 SZ0993 SZ091935 SZ150911 SZ1491 SU92100845 SU91240775 SY6592 SU6341 SU38542614 ST90655127 SU2902 SU226015 SU4809 ST932155 SZ031031 SE904867

SZ09NE58 DCM 1925.3.2 Calkin 64

SZ19SE19

X3 X2 X4 x2

Calkin 154 Calkin 153 Calkin 179 SU90NW78 Woodward ed 1997 DCM 0.88.1 HMS SU32NE8

x2

DM1967.75 Calkin 8 MGM WCM MGM

SZ09NW73

715162 SZ1592 SZ1592

X6 x5

SZ136940 SZ167930 SZ188924 SZ19369297

Calkin 259 Calkin 254-6 Calkin 136-7 Calkin 56,98,270,295 RHM 301+406 Calkin 23 Calkin 44

SZ19SE32

MGM DCM 1954.21.28 PCM Calkin 242&244-8 RHM 6&337&354&356&358 Calkin 297 Calkin 53 Calkin 298 Calkin 162 Calkin 135

SZ154945

X8

SZ138945 SZ1394 SZ1394 SZ1790 SZ1790 SZ172906 SZ172908 SZ176905 SZ176905

X2

Calkin 17-19,234,26,37,57 Calkin 159,253 Calkin 66 Calkin 67 Calkin 300 PCM Calkin 302 Calkin 50 Calkin 303 Calkin 299

SZ162909

Calkin 163

SZ175908

HMS NV coll Calkin 29

SZ163912 SZ178905 SZ178905

HMS NV coll Calkin 71 RHM 930 Calkin 174,236

X2

213

Christchurch, Heng Head, SE top Christchurch, Heng Head, top Christchurch, Heng Head, top Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Heng Head, Warren Hill Christchurch, Hillhead Christchurch, Junipers House Christchurch, Latch Farm, Lower Close nr ditch of barrow Christchurch, Littledown Christchurch, Mill Plain Christchurch, Mudeford Christchurch, Mudeford Christchurch, Mudeford Christchurch, N of Castle lane opp Haddon Hill Christchurch, Somerford Estate Christchurch, St Catherines Hill Christchurch, Water Ditch Fm Christchurch, Wick Church Knowle, Purbeck Clanfield Collingbourne Ducis Compton & Shawford Copythorne Corfe Castle Corfe Castle, Harmans Cross Corfe Mullen, Draglens Dinton/Fovant Donhead Dorchester, Barrow G8 Downton Droxford, New Down East Grimstead Easton Lane interchange Ellingham Ellisfield Ellisfield Fareham Farleigh Wallop Farnham Fawley Figheldean Fovant Horndean Horsham Iwerne Courtney Kingston Russell, Barrow Lake, IOW Lake, IOW Lake, IOW Laverstoke, Roundwood Fm Lurgashall Lymington Lytchet Matravers Lytchet Matravers Milland Nether Compton, E of village Netley Over Wallop Martins Clump, bustard enclosure Overton, Pilgrims Farm Overton, Polhampton Lodge Oving Pentridge Hill Petersfield Poole Poole, Moortown Poole, White's Pit Portsmouth Portsmouth, Farlington Marshes Rainbow Bar, Hillhead Salisbury

SZ178905 SZ174906 SZ174906 SZ174906 SZ174906 SZ174906

X5 X5

SZ1493 SZ152939

X2

SZ1293 SZ154935

X6

SZ185922 SZ185922 SZ185922 SZ117945 SZ1793 SZ144955 SZ180955 SZ157918 SY92977971 SU718155 SU2453 SU469249 SU29381383 SY96037890 SY97758075 SY9797 SU0029 ST9222

X2 x2 SY97NW74 SU71NW53 SU25SW12 SU42SE36 SU21SE49 SY97NE66 SY98SE61

SU51954652 SU51175390 SU 9204 SU0317 SU76212418 SY99819600 SZ0994

Calkin 301 Calkin 27,139 Calkin 142 RHM 364&365

Private

x8

Calkin 294 SM 15/1951 MGM DCM 1884.9.44

SU12NE24 Draper SM x5 SU10NW7 SU64NW23 x3

HMS HMS

x2

HMS MGM

x3

DM

SU50SW12 SU40SW23 SU14NE11 ST92NE10 SU61SE3 TQ01NW34 ST81SE14

x3 DCM 1988.7.1.29

SZ58SE25 SZ58SE31 SZ58SE29

x 10 HMS

SU92NW6 Calkin 7 Calkin 10 SY99NE40 SU82NW7 DCM 1954.31.72 SCM Porton M HMS SU55SW11 SU72SE17 SY99NE18

x2

M Pitts MGM

X2

Calkin 279&80 PM 34 PM 39 PCM 6.55 Hooper PCM SM

x2 SU6500 SU679041 SU5501 SU1430

RHM 10 Calkin 25&312&33,151,227 Calkin 272 Calkin 283 RHM 383 Calkin 76

DM

x5 SU18352506 SU6015 SU2227 SU4932 SU146076 SU629455 SU6345 SU52040322 SU6246 ST9516 SU42920376 SU15564800 ST99762876 SU6914 TQ04901520 ST890132 SY5891 SZ5883 SZ5884 SZ592845 SU4948 SU922285 SZ3295 SY9596 SY956964 SU82872796 ST5917 4508 SU252388

Calkin 69-70 Calkin 285 Calkin 176 Calkin 249-252 RHM 59 HMS NV coll RHM320 Calkin 61&62 Calkin 160

SU60SE11

214

Salisbury, Stratford sub Castle Sandown, IOW Shawford Sherbourne Sherbourne area Shorwell, IOW Sixpenny Handley, Down Farm Shaft Sixpenny Handley, Down Farm, Home Field Sixpenny Handley, Handley Common South Newton South Wanborough, Ford Fm St Mary Bourne Steep Studland Sutton Mandeville Sway Symondsbury, Eype Teffont, Ley Farm Teglease Farm Tidworth, North Tidworth Titchfield Tollard Royal Tollard Royal Wareham Wareham Camp Wareham, Bestwall Quarry West Lavington, Strawberry Hill Westbourne Weymouth Weymouth Wilsford cum Lake Winterborne Monkton nr church Winterbourne Stoke Winterbourne Stoke30 Wool, nr Bovington Camp Wool, Wool Heath Wootton St Lawrence, Battledown Fm Wootton, St Lawrence, Worting Wood Wyke Regis Wyke Regis, Corporation Rd Wylye

SU1332 SZ626855 SU4724 ST6316 ST6316 SZ47108129 ST2014 ST9914 ST979174 SU0834 SU 7149 SU42485062 SU7225 SY0382 ST98832851 SZ2798 SY4491 ST98983094 SU650193 SU2349 SU5405 ST9216 ST9216 SY9287 SY9287 SY932881 ST995525 SZ0690 SY6778 SY6778 SU10794022 SY6787 SU10314345 SU11014292 SY8389 SY8389 SU596504 SU6053 SY668794 SY6677 SU0037

SM SZ68NW20 WCM DCM 1974.1.1 DCM 1954.31.106 SZ48SE9

x2 MGM MGM

ST91NE47 x2

MGM SM HMS

SU45SW17 SU72SW27 ST92NE10 x2

Calkin 6 DM RHM 350&451 DCM 1914.4.1

ST93SE37 x2 ST91NW9 ST91NW46

x2 x2

ST95SE20

Draper DM PCM DM SM 92/71 DCM 1973.30.2 Calkin 5 L Ladle DM daybook RHM 355 DCM 1987..65.1 DCM 198765.13

SU14SW462 DCM 0.89.1 SU14SW487 SU14SW317

X4 with skele

x4

DCM 1916.2.1 DCM 1892.31.2 HMS HMS 4341 DCM 1987.59.1 DCM 1987.59.1 SM

APPENDIX 6:9 OTHER ARROWHEADS Arrowheads Amesbury, Countess Road, Woodlands Pits Basingstoke, Kempshott Lane Basingstoke, South Ham Berwick St John, Rotherley Down Bradley, Southwood Farm Butser Hill Chalton, Windmill Hill Christchurch area Cliddesden Colden Common Compton & Shawford Compton Chamberlayne Deane, Deane down Dummer Dummer Ellisfield Farleigh Wallop Farleigh Wallop, Hatch Hill Froyle, Holbourne Down Hart, Odiham Hurstbourne Priors Iwerne Minster MapleDurwell, Painesworth Field Micheldever North Binness Oakley, Battledown Farm

NGR SU1242 SU599493 SU61755160 ST949195 SU632428 SU7120 SU715162 SZ1592 SU643477 SU46782155 SU469249 SU035307 SU55255130 SU57974648 SU602467 SU629455 SU622479 SU61454980 SU723436 SU722494 SU432490 ST8614 SU69035211 SU530384 SU694046 SU596504

NMR No SU54NE10 SU65SW20 ST91NW11 SU64SW8

SU64NW20 SU42SE27 SU42SE36 SU03SW10 SU55SE8 SU54NE23 SU64NW9 SU64NW23 SU64NW15 SU64NW3 SU74SW1 SU74NW7 SU44NW6 ST81SE7 SU65SE16 SU53NW72 SU55SE30

215

Type Arrowhead Arrowheads x 50 Arrowheads x 20? Arrowheads Arrowheads x 19? Arrowhead Arrowhead x 3 Arrowheads x 40 Arrowheads x 12 Arrowheads Arrowheads x 7 Arrowheads Arrowheads x 29 Arrowheads x 3? Arrowheads x 44? Arrowheads x 23? Arrowheads x 23 Arrowheads x 23 Arrowheads x 5 Arrowheads x 9 Arrowhead Arrowheads Arrowheads x20 Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowheads x 74

Museum SM 20/1949 HMS HMS HMS Draper Draper RHM HMS

HMS HMS HMS HMS

Draper

Old Basing, Wellocks Hill Pentridge Poole, Knighton Farm Popham Southampton, Sholing Titchfield, Brownwich Fm Upton Grey, Bidden Water Upton Grey, NE of Privet Copse Warsash, St Johns Rd Winslade, Hen Wood Wootton St Lawrence, nr Wortingwood Farm Arrowheads-other types Parish Arreton, IOW Bakers Island Bournemouth, Broadstone, New Albert Rd Bournemouth, Bure Bournemouth, Talbot Woods, GA Bournemouth, Talbot Woods, GA Bournemouth, Hillbrow, Pokesdown Bournemouth, Kings Park Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Southbourne Bournemouth, Talbot Woods Bournemouth, Wallisdown Brading, IOW Brading, IOW Brading, IOW Christchurch Christchurch, CRTW Christchurch, Heng Head Cowes, IOW Dinton/Fovant Downton Droxford, New Down East Meon East Meon, Roakham Lodge Fm Fordingbridge Havant, N Binness Island Horsham IOW Lake, IOW Oving Poole, Stour Valley Poole, White's Pit Portsmouth Sutton Mandeville Wareham, Bestwall Quarry

SU654518 SU0417 ST0497 SU54364413 SU4511 SU5405 SU713496 SU704470 SU4905 SU6647 SU60415330

SU65SE26 SU01NW109 SU54SW18 SU41SE17 SU75SW17 SU74NW12 SU65SW6

NGR SZ511863

NMR No SZ58NW57

SZ0195 SZ184925 SZ084932 SZ084932 SZ128922 SZ122926 SZ 1391 SZ 1391 SZ184932 SZ0694 SZ579867 SZ5785 SZ5986 SZ1592

SZ58NE15 SZ58NE16 SZ58NE17

SZ1790 SZ49429522 SU0029 SU17752050 SU6015 SU650193 SU688226 SU1414 SU69020443 TQ0518 SZ488867 SZ5884 SU9204

SZ49NE15 SU12SE39 SU61NE14 SU62SE27 SU60SE1 TQ01NE32 SZ48NE53 SZ58SE31 DorPro103

SU6500 ST9829 SY933882

ST92NE37

Arrowheads x 14 Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowheads x 28 Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowheads x 23 Arrowheads x 15 Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowheads x 36

Notes Neolithic Late Neolithic Like miniature EBA flint dagger Hollow based Hollow based Hollow based Tanged Hollow based Hollow based Hollow based Hollow based Hollow based Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic Lop sided tanged x2 Single barb Hollow based Neolithic Hollow based Neolithic Late Neolithic BA arrowhead Hollow based Lop-sided tanged BA arrowhead Neolithic x 2 BA arrowhead Hollow based Hollow based Hollow based Lop sided tanged Hollow based Neolithic Barbed

PM50 88 PCM PCM Draper

Museum Draper Calkin leaf 80 Calkin 87 RHM 356 RHM 357 Calkin 146 Calkin 12 HMS Calkin 1 Calkin 11 RHM 901

Calkin 241&243 RHM 311 RHM 753 SM 15/1951 Draper Draper WCM 3176 Calkin 4 Draper

M Pitts PM 49 PM 5088 PCM 6.55 L Ladle

APPENDIX 6:10 SHAFTHOLE ADZES Shaft-hole adze Basingstoke

IPG H72

NGR SU6157

NMR

Notes

Steeple Langford, nr Hanging Langford Camp Wylye

W125 W126

ST994356

Frag

Earnley, Bracklesham Bay Winchester, St Giles Hill West Broad Chalke Teffont, nr Dinton Beeches Bournemouth, Wick Lane Bulford, Beacon Hill Marnhull Alderholt, Bullhill

Sx 92 H104 W120 W345 H33 W202 Dt29 Dt122

SZ 818955 SU495288 SU0425 SU003348 SZ1592 SU2044 ST7718 SU111143

Frag

Frag SU11S W23

216

Rock Biotite cordierite andalusite Decomposed dolerite Decomposed quartz dolerite Epidiorite Epidiorite Greenstone Greenstone Greywacke Group I Group XIX Group XVII

Museum HMS Willis SM117/531405 SM 117/53 CCM 265 WCM SM 58/1935 SM 78/1966 HMS DM 1423 Private Coll Private Coll

Brockenhurst

H119

SU270050

Titchfield Dummer, SE of Long Sutton Madehurst, nr Barkhale Camp Wylye, Bilbury Rings

H56 H53 H54 Sx145 W124

SU5406 SU6046 SU7447 SU 978124 SU008361

Alderholt, Warren Farm Isle of Wight, Carisbrooke Tilshead, East Down

Dt51 H69 W203

SU1211 SZ4988 SU0549

Frag

Horneblende pyroxene diorite Micaceous sandstone Microgranite Quartz dolerite Quartzite Quartzite Sandstone Sandstone Tuff

SU04NE 22

HMS SCM HMS Willis HMS Private Coll SM 117/531404 DCM1884.5.1 CCM DM 1418

APPENDIX 6:11 BATTLEAXES Battleaxes Upton Lovell, Barrow G2a

IPG W64

NGR ST95864277

Selsey

Sx124

SZ 8693

Bournemouth, 42 Wimbourne Rd Codford St Peter, Barrow G4 Amesbury, Barrow nr Stonehenge Tyneham, South Egliston Wilsford, Barrow G58 Ellingham Shirley Shrewton, Barrow G27 Wilsford, Barrow G54 Codford St Peter, Barrow G5 Collingbourne Kingston, Barrow G6 Bulford, Barrow G27 Kilmington, Barrow G1 Salisbury, nr Old Sarum Tisbury, Castle Rings Upton Lovell, Barrow G2a

H46 W79 W362 Dt86 W77 H109 H51 W81 W302 W80 W299

SZ0696 ST979428 ?SU1242 SY8979 SU117398 SU156067 SU4014 SU093441 SU115404 ST979428 SU215519

W383 W75 W231 W115 W86

SU193444 SU746354 SU1431 ST963283 ST95864277

Tidworth (north) Botley, Cobbetts Fm

W116 H59

SU2349 SU5113

Hamble Hengistbury Head Harting, Beacon Hill North Symondon, Eccinswell Durrington, Barrow G67

H52 Dt159 Sx 19 H58 W76

Su4807 SZ172908 SU806187 SU5062 SU151432

Type III

NMR ST94SE 6

III V(S) V(S)

V II V I IV(S) III(S) III

ST94SE 6

IV(S)

I

Rock ?greenstone

Museum

Dark fine grained rock Dolerite Dolerite Greenstone Greenstone Greenstone Greywacke Group XII Group XII Group XIII Group XIV Group XIV

? RCM 29.131 DM774 BM CC St 157 DCM1892.31.1 DM 663 SM SCM DM 292 DM 12/64 DM 775 DM

Group XVIII Group XVIII Group XVIII Group XVIII Group XVIII

BM 02,6-16,12 DM 772 BWM SM 1300 DM 1403

Horneblende dolerite Horneblende pyroxene diorite Horneblende schist Olivine dolerite Quartz dolerite Quartz mica schist Tourmaline granite

SM 1301 Private SCM RCM ? Private Coll DM 447

APPENDIX 6:12 AXE HAMMERS Axe-hammer Blashford Stouton with Gasper Ebbesbourne Wake, Fifield Down Ropley Isle of Wight, Chale Green Christchurch

IPG W133 H94 H68 H111

NGR SU1506 ST7734 SU002256 SU6431 SZ4880 SZ190924

NMR ST73SE4 SU02NW1

217

Rock

Museum RHM424

Group XIII Group XIV Quartz syenodiorite Unknown

Private WCM CCM SCM