Two Prehistoric Enclosures at the Beeches Playing Field, London Road, Cirencester, Gloucestershire

Trans. Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 130 (2012), 31–61

Two Prehistoric Enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field, London Road, Cirencester, Gloucestershire

By Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine1

With contributions by Elaine Morris, Peter Makey, Andrew Clarke and Kath Hunter

Publication drawings were prepared by Lynn Hume from originals by Davina Ware and Vicky Patrick

Introduction

The excavation at The Beeches, carried out in the summer of 1999 in advance of residential development by Bryant Homes (South West) Limited, followed a staged programme of geophysical survey, desk-based study and trial excavation (Erskine 1995b and 1997). The site covers a former playing field on the outskirts of Cirencester, c. 1 km to the east of the city centre (Fig. 1), now Pheasant Way and North Home Way. The project was designed to record fully archaeological deposits previously located, centred at SP 037022, indicating a significant multi-period prehistoric site with episodes of occupation during the Middle Bronze-Age and Early Iron-Age periods and provided secure dating evidence for crop marks first investigated in the 1970s (Reece 1990). Evidence of three periods (six phases) of archaeological activity, from the prehistoric to the modern era, was identified. Four phases in Period I related to prehistoric activity. Throughout the site, the features had been truncated by subsequent ploughing and modern levelling (Fig. 2).

The Prehistoric Activity: Period I

Phase I.1: Mesolithic [c. 10000–4000 BC] A small, but significant assemblage of Mesolithic flints, including scrapers, retouched flakes, a bladelet and an obliquely blunted point, comprising c. 12% of the total flint assemblage (The Flints, below), was recovered, largely from Area A (Fig. 1).

1. The authors acknowledge the generous assistance and advice of Andrew Young and Charles Parry in the preparation of this report.

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 31 19/02/2013 11:16 32 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine ffice. O tationery S SP 022 er Majesty’s er Majesty’s H

London Road B rea A SP 037 A heets by permission of the Controller S rea A urvey S L 100005802. A

rdnance

O umber N

cavation Areas

2 of Ex y 0580 ted Features 00 va

N ca AL 10 • erial Photographic Features er Ex Boundar A mb

te e Nu nc ce The Si Li The Beeches Playing Field, Cirencester 0 100m

• pyright 2004 ite Location Plans. Based on co r S n Cirenceste e Survey © Crow General Crown Copyright Reserved. Licence Ordnanc

Fig.1

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 32 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 33

Fig. 2 a rea A, general view with plough furrows: looking S. Cow burial between Ditches A and B (foreground).

Phase I.2: Late Neolithic/Early Bronze-Age [c. 2000–1600 BC] Late Neolithic/Early Bronze-Age activity was indicated by finds from Area A, including one decorated sherd of Beaker pottery and eight sherds in a grog-tempered fabric from Phase I.3 ditch fills (The Prehistoric Pottery, below). Associated artefacts included a significant proportion of the total flint assemblage, dated to the LaterN eolithic period on stylistic grounds. Although the small, limited, range of tools was less than expected from an occupation site, the presence of debitage, cores and core rejuvenation flakes indicated some knapping had been carried out and, collectively, the ceramics and lithics indicated settlement in the vicinity (The Flints, below).

Phase I.3: Middle Bronze-Age [1400–1000 BC] A third phase of prehistoric occupation was represented by the construction of a rectilinear enclosure, the north-eastern corner of which was defined by ditchesA and B in Area A (Figs. 1 and 2). An animal burial (Figs. 3 and 7) was located inside the enclosure, immediately adjacent to a gap or entranceway between the ditches. Several undated features, including a stone-filled pit and postholes, were attributed to this phase on the basis of stratigraphy. No contemporary activity was identified within Area B. Samples of bone from the ditches and from the associated burial were submitted for AMS radiocarbon dating, which indicated a Middle Bronze-Age date (The Radiocarbon Dates, below), refining the ceramic dates.

Ditch A Ditch A extended northwards into Area A for a distance of c. 65 m before ending at a squared terminal. The southern end of the ditch was not located. The ditch was investigated in 13 cuttings

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 33 19/02/2013 11:16 34 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine and B, as excavated. A , including Ditches A rea a Fig. 3

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 34 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 35

1 E W

C.7

2 W E

C.10

3 W E

C.14

4 N S

C.20

Fig. 4 Ditch A Selected Sections, Cuttings 7, 10 and 14: Ditch B Cutting 20. Orientation as indicated.

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 35 19/02/2013 11:16 36 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

Fig. 5 Ditch A view towards N. during excavation: scale 1 m.

Fig. 6 Ditch A Cutting 5 after excavation looking N.: scale 1 m

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 36 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 37

Fig. 7 area A Cow burial P2022 after removal of upper skeleton. Orientation as arrow: scale 1 m.

each c. 1 m in width (Cuttings C1, 1b, 2, 4 to14 inclusive, from north to south respectively; Fig. 3), which indicated a uniform width throughout. The ditch did, however, exhibit a varying profile along its length (Fig. 4), changing from an irregular V at the northern end (C1-7) to a more rounded U at the centre, in C 8/9, 10 and 11. Thereafter, the profile sharpened to a V before finally becoming significantly shallower and more rectangular at the southern limit of excavation (C14). The ditch cut the clay and limestone substrate (2010) throughout its length and was filled with a sequence of deposits, the majority of which had accumulated through natural silting over time. Some small to medium limestone rubble was recorded in the primary and secondary fills in most cuttings, possibly indicating fairly rapid and deliberate redeposition of material back into the ditch, or reflecting the collapse or ploughing of an adjacent bank. Pottery sherds were recovered from the ditch, all but one of which dated to the Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze-Age transition. Contemporary pottery was restricted to a single, non-local sherd in a fine, flint-tempered fabric (Fig. 11.2) recovered from the tertiary fill of the northern ditch terminal (C1). This fabric is highly specialised and is particular to Globular Urns of Middle Bronze-Age date (The Prehistoric Pottery, below). Radiocarbon dating of a human skull fragment (The Human Remains, below), also from the ditch terminal, confirmed the Middle Bronze-Age dating for the ditch, providing a calibrated date of 1404 BC to 1121 BC at 2-sigma confidence interval (The Radiocarbon Dates, below: NZA 12280).

Ditch B The northern side of the enclosure was defined by ditch B, partially recut, finally ending 4 m to the west of, and at a right-angle to, ditch A. The ditch was c. 27 m long in its entirety and was investigated in nine cuttings (C16/16 Ext; 16b; 17 to 23 inclusive from east to west, (Fig. 3),

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 37 19/02/2013 11:16 38 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

varying in depth and profile. The earlier ditch in C19-23 was narrower (width c. 1.2 m) than the later recut, and terminated some 13 m to the west of ditch A. Ditch B was later recut or cleaned out and extended to the east, narrowing the gap between the two ditches. The recut was identified in C16 to 23 and was shallower than the original feature. Its width also varied from c. 1.2 m at the western end to a maximum of 1.8 m in C20 at the centre of the ditch. A single sherd of grog-tempered Late Neolithic/Early Bronze-Age pottery was recovered from the tertiary deposit filling the eastern terminal of the ditch and the latest fill yielded one sherd of Middle Bronze-Age date. The majority of the ditch appeared to have silted up, but some rubble had been dumped at the eastern end. This material may have been deposited in order to construct a wider causeway between the ditches at this location, as, interestingly, it lay directly opposite an animal burial (P2022), located a short distance inside the enclosure (Figs. 3 and 7). The Middle Bronze-Age date for the ditches was confirmed by a calibrated date of 1515 BC to 1310 BC at 2-sigma confidence interval (The Radiocarbon Dates, below: NZA 12282) provided by a bovine long bone from the secondary fill of the truncated eastern terminal of the original, shorter, ditch (C19).

The Animal Burial The animal burial (2034 in P2022) contained two articulated cattle skeletons, deposited one upon the other in a wide oval pit sited in the northeast corner of the enclosure (Figs. 3 and 7). The pit had been disturbed by later ploughing, truncating the feature and partly removing the upper skeleton. The cattle were both adult, one possibly female, and aged approximately five years. No dating evidence was recovered from the pit fills which showed signs of burning, butA MS radiocarbon dating of bone from the undisturbed (lower) skeleton provided a calibrated date range of 1395 BC to 1117 BC at 2-sigma confidence interval (The Radiocarbon Dates, below: NZA 12281).

Other Features A small number of aceramic cut features within Area A (Fig. 3) have been included in this phase on the basis of stratigraphy, as each was sealed by the subsoil (2001) and cut 2010, the natural substrate. The features included a truncated pit entirely filled with flat-lying limestone rubble (2134) sited adjacent to ditch A inside the enclosure and isolated postholes located both within (2044; 2128; 2130; 2136; 2141; 2143) and outside the enclosure (2008; 2054; 2075; 2095).

Phase I.4: Early Iron-Age [700–500 BC] Evidence of Early Iron-Age occupation was confined to Area B (Figs. 1 and 8) and represented by two subphases of activity (Phases I.4a and I.4b). Evidence of activity during the first subphase (I.4a), was limited to a single substantial posthole (6050) later truncated by a deep ditch (Phase I.4b ditch C). The ditch defined part of the northern side of an enclosure seen on aerial photographs (Erskine 1995, Fig. 5) within which a number of features, including several postholes, was sited.

Phase I.4a – Posthole 6050 A single sherd of Early Iron-Age pottery was recovered from the silted postpipe (6052) in posthole 6050. The truncated posthole had a flat base and near-vertical sides packed with mixed clay and limestone rubble (6051).

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 38 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 39

Phase I.4b – Ditch C Ditch C crossed Area B on an approximate east-west alignment and extended beyond the excavation in both directions, giving a minimum length of 31 m. The ditch had been identified previously during research in the neighbouring Beeches Nursery Field (Reece 1990, 11) in a trial trench sited in the extreme west of the present site. Ditch C was investigated in five cuttings each c. 1.5 m in width (C25 to 27; 29; 30, Fig. 8) revealing a consistent form overall. In profile, the ditch had a broad upper shoulder (width c. 4 m) which narrowed gradually to 1.5 m, before dropping very steeply to a rounded base (Fig. 9). The full width of the ditch was not seen in the westernmost cuttings (C29 and 30), as it extended beyond the north baulk, but the exposed (S) upper side appeared to be more steeply graded. The ditch cut the clay and limestone substrate (6010) throughout its length and was filled with a sequence of deposits accumulated by silting. The base of the ditch was permanently flooded during excavation and the composition of the primary fill, a deep alluvial deposit, indicated that it had been similarly waterlogged when open. In C25-27, a discrete deposit of mixed charcoal-rich and fine silty material (e.g. 6171 in Fig. 9.2) sealed the primary deposits. The mixed fill appeared to taper out to the west, as no evidence of the deposit was noted in the adjacent cutting (C29). The fill also appeared to be thinning to the east, as it survived as only a narrow lens of fine silts in C25 (6199). The remainder of the ditch was largely filled with a sequence of silted fills, interrupted, in C26 and 27 only, by a discrete deposit of charcoal-rich silty clay (e.g. 6103 in Fig. 9.2). This contained a high percentage of the small, closely related, assemblage of diagnostic Early Iron-Age pottery (The Prehistoric Pottery, below) from the later ditch fills.O ther finds included animal bone and residual flints.

Fig. 8 area B, including Ditch C, as excavated

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 39 19/02/2013 11:16 40 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine rientation as indicated O ections, Cuttings 25 and 27. S elected S rea B Ditch C, a Fig. 9

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 40 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 41

Fig. 10 area B Ditch C, Cutting 26 after excavation looking S. scale 2 m

Other Features Three larger features (6009; 6011; 6032), probably representing double post settings and three irregular linear pits (6092; 6123; 6195) were also included, as each was filled with a similar silty clay deposit to that filling the postholes. A small collection of features (6077; 6082; 6096; 6115; 6126; 6173, Fig. 8) revealed the same limited stratigraphy, but was grouped on the basis of a different fill. Of these, three were postholes (6082; 6096; 6173) and the remainder probably represented small pits, each with a charcoal-rich fill.I t is possible that these represent a slight boundary or fencing structure.

Geological Features A large number of depressed features, probably periglacial in origin, were recorded within Area B. Prior to excavation, these features occurred as isolated patches of soil or stone and resembled man-made pits or postholes. Several were investigated accordingly, but were considered to be geological on the basis of their morphology, or the nature of their fills, all archaeologically sterile.

The Romano-British Activity: Period II

Phase II.1: [1st-5th centuries AD] No structural evidence of Romano-British activity was recorded. However, limited local activity was indicated by a few non-diagnostic sherds, a copper alloy pin and fragments of a stone roof tile from unstratified deposits withinA rea B.

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 41 19/02/2013 11:16 42 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

Modern Activity: Period III

Phase III.1: [19th-20th centuries AD] In Area A, evidence of modern activity was restricted to two stone-filled land drains (2024 and 2030) crossing the area on a northwest-southeast orientation and broadly parallel with the numerous plough furrows that scarred the surface of the limestone substrate (Fig. 2). These indicated a period of historic ploughing of the site, but no secure dating for this activity was determined. The shallow remnants of two north-south orientated field drains (6131 and 6190) were recorded in Area B.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The Prehistoric Evidence

Mesolithic and Neolithic/Beaker Periods The flint assemblage contains a number of objects of Mesolithic type whose presence indicates transient local activity. Similarly, evidence for activity during the Neolithic period is represented by artefacts alone, although here the presence of significant numbers of LateN eolithic and early Bronze-Age grog-tempered and Beaker pottery sherds, in association with a petit tranchet arrowhead, provides stronger evidence for nearby settlement. However, all the finds were residual in context and no evidence of any contemporary structures was found.

Bronze-Age The earliest structural evidence for settlement is the L-shaped enclosure in Area A formed by two ditches representing the north-east corner of a feature of unknown overall size. Evidence from the geophysical and aerial photographic surveys (Erskine 1995 Fig. 5; this paper Fig.1) raises the possibility that two further enclosures of broadly similar form were located nearby. Dating was originally based on two sherds of an imported Deverel-Rimbury style globular urn from the latest ditch fills.H owever, the presence of Beaker and Late Neolithic grog-tempered pottery in the earlier ditch silts raised the possibility that the enclosure was of earlier origin. Bone samples from primary ditch silts have provided two closely comparable AMS radiocarbon dates (NZA 12280 and NZA 12282), the calibrated dates spanning the period 1400 – 1000 BC. These independent dates support a Middle Bronze-Age date for use of the enclosure, which is further corroborated by a final Middle Bronze-Age radiocarbon age (NZA 12281) obtained from one of the cows buried at the north-east corner. The purpose of the enclosure is uncertain. The apparent absence of structural features inside it suggests, at least for the area examined, that it was either part of a simple field system, or an enclosure for stock management. Certainly, there is good evidence for sheep and cattle husbandry on the site, whilst the animal burial provides an additional hint that cattle were particularly significant at this time. Other evidence for foodstuffs such as hazelnuts and fruit suggests that natural resources were utilised alongside cultivated wheat. Hazel, hawthorn and wild cherry also make good hedging plants associated with a ditch. Together, the data suggest the Middle Bronze- Age settlement of the area was based on a mixed economy, not unexpected in view of the light fertile soils that occur in the area. The finds recovered, in particular the pottery and three quern

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 42 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 43

stones, point to the presence of a settlement in the vicinity, but probably not located within the bounds of the area examined. Local settlement and ritual sites of the Neolithic and Beaker periods have been located immediately north of The Beeches at Kingshill North (Mullin et al, 2009) represented by 17 Neolithic pits, some only 160 mm deep, containing Grooved Ware pottery, flints and stone axe fragments. A ring-ditch was also located containing a Beaker burial (ibid., 7). At Cotswold Community, Somerford Keynes, ditched and fenced enclosures, some L shaped, with associated round houses and waterholes dating to the Middle Bronze-Age (Powell et al. 2010) have been found, together with both human and animal burials, some considered to be within a ritual space (ibid., 40). A small group of round houses within a ditched enclosure has been located at Blenheim Farm, Moreton in Marsh (Darvill 2006, Fig.10A). Further to the south in the county, a small settlement with round and sub-rectangular houses associated with a cremation burial was located at Savages Wood, Bradley Stoke (Erskine 1995a), dated to the Early to Middle Bronze Age. The reason for the double animal burial is unclear although its position appears deliberate and significant and the fact that it was located adjacent to a point of entry may reflect some ritual purpose. The age of one of the beasts provides some conflicting evidence, as the animal was mature, around five years old, and possibly of low value.A low value offering is not usually an indicator of ritual action, which is more commonly represented by the slaughter of young prime animals. It is possible therefore that the burial simply represents the disposal of unusable stock. Similar cattle burials have been located near Middle Bronze-Age enclosures at Cotswold Community (Powell et al. 2010, 42), but these have not been individually dated. Slight burning seen in the burial fills could represent either a ritual or a measure of hygiene.

The Iron-Age Iron-Age activity is proven by ditch C in Area B. On crop-mark evidence (Erskine 1995), the ditch represents the northern side of an enclosure, although the precise extent remains unknown. The ditch was larger and deeper than those defining the earlier Bronze-Age enclosure, although whether this is significant in terms of its function remains unclear.I t appears likely that the lower part of the ditch would have been persistently wet (cf. Reece 1990, 22 for mollusc evidence) and that it filled by natural, possibly prolonged, silting.N o evidence of an associated bank was preserved, although a bank equivalent to the excavated ditch material would have formed a substantial and possibly defensive obstacle. The use of the ditch is dated to the Early Iron-Age by the pottery, the majority of which appears to have been deposited in a single episode when the ditch was partly filled. This stratigraphic position therefore raises the possibility that the ditch was dug at an earlier date. The pottery had been manufactured using local clays and decorated with regionally distinct motifs characteristic of the period (The Prehistoric Pottery, below). A number of scattered postholes inside the enclosure (Fig. 8) points to the presence of related, possibly fencing, structures, although they remain largely undated. Other finds from ditch C indicate a settlement with a mixed agricultural base exploiting a similar range of crops and animals to that identified for the Bronze-Age settlement.

The Economy Deposits dating from the Middle Bronze-Age and Early Iron-Age provide an opportunity to compare and contrast evidence concerning the natural environment and the economic base of each settlement phase. The preservation of organic remains was poor but sufficient evidence was recovered to suggest that there was little change in the resources exploited. The bone

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 43 19/02/2013 11:16 44 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

assemblage reflects a standard range of domesticates (The Faunal Remains, below) dominated by cattle plus sheep/goat and pig. A single deer antler hints at limited exploitation of wild animals. Environmental analysis has identified a typical range of cereal crops dominated by spelt wheat (The Environmental Remains, below), processed using querns. The absence of barley, a common Bronze-Age and Iron-Age crop, appears significant. Hazelnut shells and a hawthorn nutlet could represent wild plants exploited as a seasonal food source. Cherrywood charcoal suggests that this was used for food and fuel during the Middle Bronze-Age period.

The Romano-British Evidence Cirencester sits over the ruins of Corinium Dobunnorum, a Romano-British provincial and regional centre. It is therefore surprising that only a trace of R/B activity was identified at The Beeches, the finds being a few pottery sherds, a bronze pin, a tessara and a roof slate fragment. Reece (1990, 23) comments on a similar lack of R/B evidence immediately west of The Beeches, whereas Mullin et al. (2009) at Kingshill North, adjacent to The Beeches, recovered large amounts of 1st to 4th century pottery.

The Local Perspective: The Upper Thames Valley The last 25 years have seen major, mainly developer funded, archaeological work in this area. For a comprehensive summary, see Yates 2007 on MBA Field Systems (Chapters 2 and 5), and for the whole of the historic county of Gloucestershire, including Bristol, see Holbrook and Juřica (eds.) 2006, especially the chapters by Darvill (Early Prehistory) and Moore (The Iron Age). The results are all surprisingly consistent, with a sequence consisting of Mesolithic traces, for example at Kingshill Lane and the A417 road line, (Gloucestershire HER 2 12642–3), followed by Late Neolithic/Beaker period finds e.g. Duntisbourne Grove, Trinity Farm, and Norcote Farm (Mudd et al. 2000) with Neolithic flints, a segmented ditch and a Neolithic/Early Bronze-Age quern. Bronze-Age occupation has been found, including enclosures, round houses and ring-ditches and barrows (the unproven Tarbarrows) (Mudd et al. 2000). At Kingshill North, exactly opposite The Beeches (Bashford 2006: Mullin et al. 2009), an Early Bronze-Age burial with a further ring-ditch and burial, possibly a cemetery, have been found. Blenheim Farm, Moreton in Marsh (Holbrook and Jurica 2006 Fig.10) located round-houses and an enclosure ditch with an entrance. The local Early Iron-Age is represented by enclosures (Yates 2007, 41). Activity appears to decrease again until the Romano-British period, possibly caused by cultural change, the development of ditched oppida (Bagendon), although Kingshill North presents Late Iron-Age post holes and semi-circular enclosure ditches (Mullin et al. 2009, 70). The lack of Romano-British material both from the evaluation exercise (Erskine 1997) and the excavation (this paper) may be explained as follows. Firstly, graveyards were traditionally placed outside the city walls, and many such burials have been located in the vicinity of London Road (GHER, passim), possibly restricting any other use. It is also possible that the land was originally allocated in, say, the 2nd century AD for a larger city than was actually later walled. This land, in effect ear-marked and government owned, could be used as intermittent common land by the urban dwellers, who would not risk capital (or even efforts in manuring) in work on public land.

2. From 2010, the County Sites and Monuments Record has been renamed Historic Environment Record.

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 44 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 45

Regional Perspective: Greater Gloucestershire The Middle Bronze-Age activity at The Beeches was established during a period of major change in the culture and organisation of prehistoric society. The importance of monumental landscape features, as expressions of group identity and kinship appears to have diminished towards the end of the Early Bronze-Age (Parker Pearson 1993, 14), and thereafter the emphasis shifted towards the household and the individual. The laying out of settlements and field systems, often enclosed by ditches, and sometimes accompanied by unmarked burials in small cemeteries close to the homestead e.g. Savages Wood (Erskine, 1995) led to possible local rivalry, for example the multiple burials of homicide victims in a short-lived boundary ditch at Tormarton (Osgood and Bell, in press). At Kingshill North (Mullin et al. 2009), one burial was associated with a partial sheep/goat burial, paralleled by a similar, undated, burial at The Beeches (Erskine 1997, 6). At Cotswold Community, L-shaped enclosures, possibly ritual in nature, have been dated as Middle Bronze-Age, also with animal burials (Powell et al. 2010). Changes in material culture included the development of regional variants in metalwork and increasing diversity in local pottery styles and the distribution of burials and artefacts suggests that much of the county was settled by this time. The Beeches site lay in an area of prime agricultural land on the Cotswold plateau, with a reasonably fertile, if thin covering of light soil easily ploughed at shallow depth and suitable for cereal cultivation and pasturage of cattle and sheep. Deverel-Rimbury style pottery from this period has been associated with several burials in the county, including a group of secondary cremations at Bevan’s Quarry, Temple Guiting (O’Neil 1967), and also some settlements have been identified of certain Middle Bronze-Age date including Blenheim Farm (Darvill 2006, 42). A rhomboid crop mark at Scotsquarr Hill, Harescombe (Darvill 1987) has been suggested as a possibility. At Holm Castle, Tewkesbury (Hannan 1976), a second enclosure was inferred from a Middle Bronze-Age pit and adjacent linear ditch with a central gap or entranceway. Traces of Middle Bronze-Age occupation have also been recorded on sites at Hucclecote Villa (Clifford 1933), where a curvilinear gully, possibly the eavesdrip for a roundhouse, yielded pottery and flint, and at Slade Barn, Hawling (Herdman 1933) where quarrying revealed a pit or ditch containing a small Deverel-Rimbury pot. Elsewhere, an oak post found in a large pit or shaft at Frocester Villa (Darvill 1987) provided a radiocarbon date of c. 1200 BC. At Sandy Lane, Charlton Kings (Saville ed. 1984), pottery, flint and a fragment of clay mould for a bronze socketed spearhead were recovered alongside a mound of burnt limestone fragments, possibly identifying an industrial site adjacent to the stream. For a comprehensive summary of all aspects of contemporary evidence in Gloucestershire see Darvill 2006. By the Early Iron-Age the landscape still appears to have been characterised by ditched enclosures, with a local economy founded on mixed agriculture, exploiting similar crops and animals to their Bronze-Age predecessors. Pottery was now manufactured locally and new regional styles had been adopted, but overall, activity in the area remained largely unchanged. Some enclosed hillfort settlements were also occupied during this period. The Beeches pottery closely parallels examples from a large pit occupation layers at Crickley Hill hillfort (Elsdon 1994), some 15 km to the northwest, and finds of Early Iron-Age pottery have been made at other hillforts in the county including Shenberrow, Burhill (Marshall1989) and Cleeve Cloud. The Beeches represents one of a small group of non-hillfort Early Iron-Age settlements in Gloucestershire. The absence of defined boundaries is consistent with evidence from the Thames Valley and Oxfordshire, where open settlements are typical. Few of the Early Iron-Age settlements identified in the county are directly comparable with The Beeches site, as little evidence of field systems has been recorded, but see Yates 2007 passim. The contemporary sites are generally linked by common finds of distinctive decorated pottery

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 45 19/02/2013 11:16 46 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

types, but associated structures are confined to pits and/or postholes representing settlement or funerary features as opposed to agricultural activity. At The Loders, Lechlade (Darvill et al. 1986), Early Iron-Age activity was defined by a single inhumation and a cluster of probable storage pits backfilled with rubbish. The pits yielded animal bone and clay loom weights alongside c. 500 sherds of pottery, with a similar number of unstratified sherds. No enclosure ditch was found. A second, unenclosed, settlement, and pits and gullies associated with a roundhouse, were found at nearby Roughground Farm (Allen et al.1993). Work at Farmington Quarry (Vallender 1997), some 16 km to the northeast of Cirencester, identified an unenclosed EarlyI ron-Age settlement represented by pits, postholes and curvilinear ditches.

L-Shaped Enclosures L-shaped enclosures, either ditched or fenced, seem to have little practical purpose apart from wind-breaks. At Cotswold Community (Powell et al. 2010, 35) the writers seem to consider that enclosure 2986 has lost its completing bank, but add no explanation for several further L-shaped enclosures on the same site. Enclosure 3239 is considered to be ‘ritual’ and is associated with a cattle burial, as is 2986, although outside the structure. In addition to the Area A enclosure, The Beeches also has at least two similar, though unexcavated, L-shaped enclosures seen on the aerial photographs (Erskine 1995, Fig.5: this paper Fig.1), extending into the adjacent Kingshill School playing field to the east. The significance of the fragments of human skull found inA rea A should not be over-emphasised. Possibly further work should be pursued on the topic of L-shaped enclosures.

SPECIALIST REPORTS

Copies of the full archive specialist reports, including technical, quantitative, and qualitative data and tables, can be obtained from the Project Archive deposited with the Corinium Museum, Cirencester, accession number 1997/24.

The Prehistoric Pottery by Elaine L. Morris A total of 294 handmade sherds, weighing 684 gm, was recovered, with 12 sherds (25 gm) from Area A and 282 (659 gm) from Area B. The mean sherd weight is very small at 2.1 gm and 2.3 gm respectively. Despite this small sherd size, the pottery from Area A was identified as Late Neolithic/Early Bronze- Age and Middle Bronze-Age in date and that from Area B as Early Iron-Age. The pottery was analysed in accordance with the guidelines for analysis and publication established by the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (PCRG 1997). Each sherd was examined using a binocular microscope at l0x power and divided into different fabric groups based on the principal inclusion identified and assigned into a fabric type based on definable variations within that group such as frequency and size of inclusions.

Area A – Earlier Prehistoric Pottery Two different identifiable fabric groups, flint tempered and grog tempered, are represented amongst the earlier prehistoric pottery from Area A, in addition to one fabric type which is vesicular in character. The two sherds made from well-sorted, fine, flint-tempered fabrics are both burnished on the exterior surface, are thin-walled measuring between 5–7 mm thick, and were fired in an unoxidising condition to black or dark grey in colour. These sherds, one of which originates from the neck zone

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 46 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 47

Fig. 11 Pottery 11.2 Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Beaker 11.1 Middle Bronze Age 11.3-11.14 Early Iron Age scale: One Half

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 47 19/02/2013 11:16 48 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

of a vessel, most likely derive from Middle Bronze-Age globular urns. This combination of burnished exterior only on a closed form, thin-walled vessel made from a very well-processed flint-tempered fabric is not found at any other time in the prehistoric period of southern Britain. One of the sherds also displays a single tooled line which appears to be located horizontally on the vessel (Fig. 11.1) Tooling is commonly used on Middle Bronze-Age globular urns to create geometric patterns at the base of the neck zone and these designs can be as simple as several horizontal, parallel lines where the neck joins the body of the urn. One sherd was found in each ditch in Area A. Middle Bronze-Age pottery dates from c. 1600–1000 BC. In Gloucestershire, however, this pottery is usually limestone- gritted (Darvill 1987, 108) and no other examples of this Deverel-Rimbury style of decorated globular urn have been found, let alone any which were flint-tempered. Therefore, there is every reason to suspect that these two vessels were brought to The Beeches from some distance. The most likely area for such vessels to originate is from an area of flint-producing Upper Chalk deposits, such as in Wessex (Cleal 1995, 191, Fig. 16.2). The third distinctive body sherd in this assemblage derives from a decorated beaker. It is made from the grog-tempered, sandy fabric (Gl), is thin-walled (5–7 mm) and is unique in the assemblage. The decoration was made from twisted cord impressions (Fig. 11.2) and the sherd was recovered from ditch A. Four beaker settlements have been found in Gloucestershire, at Barnwood, Roughground Farm at Lechlade, The Warren at Toddington and Oxpens Farm at Yanworth, and several beaker burials are known in the county (Darvill 1987, 83–8), but none of these are ditched enclosures. Beakers date from c. 2500–1600 BC. The fabric does not indicate any specific source, local or non-local, but the absence of any calcareous matter in the clay matrix and the difference between this clay matrix and that of the very fine, micaceous fired/burnt clay found in Area A may be significant. In addition, the fills of ditchesA and B contained several undecorated body sherds from grog- tempered vessels, but from a different fabric, without the sandy clay matrix (G2). The identification of grog in this case, and for the undecorated sherds made from the vesicular fabric Dl, would need to be confirmed by thin section and petrological analysis to make sure that it is not simply naturally- occurring argillaceous matter such as clay pellets or mudstones (Whitbread 1987). This pottery could date from the Late Neolithic-Early Bronze-Age period and might derive from other plain beaker period vessels, or from the body zone of Collared or Biconical urns, for example; some of The Beeches sherds are thicker than the beaker sherd but do not have two surfaces for thickness measurements. However, the three vesicular sherds may well have been shell-gritted, and if so, then these could be later prehistoric in date (discussed below). The sizes of these Late Neolithic/Early Bronze-Age and Middle Bronze-Age sherds from ditches A and B are similar – there are no big sherds amongst them. Therefore, examination of their positions within the two ditches is important to determine the date of the infilling of these features. The decorated beaker sherd was recovered from the primary fill of ditch A, unaccompanied by any other pottery, indicating that the ditch was excavated during or after the beaker period. The flint-tempered Middle Bronze-Age sherds were recovered from the third fill of ditchA and the uppermost fill of ditch B. The vesicular sherds were only found in the uppermost fills of different cuts of ditch A. The other grog-tempered sherds were found in both the uppermost, just next and lower fills of ditches B and A respectively. The decorated Middle Bronze-Age sherd was found in the same context as one of the undecorated grog-tempered sherds. Therefore, the infilling of both ditches contained flint-tempered and grog-tempered pottery in both the middle and final excavated phases, but the vesicular sherds were only found in the uppermost context.

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 48 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 49

Interpretation Interpretation of the above evidence is challenging. For example, there may have been beaker occupation at this location prior to the Early-Middle Bronze-Age settlement represented by the other sherds in the two ditches. The beaker sherd may have been on the surface when the ditches were dug, or was in a below ground feature (possibly a posthole) and disturbed during the construction of the ditches. The plain grog-tempered pottery may be either beaker or later in date and the vesicular pottery could be highly degraded sherds of later prehistoric date which derives from the settlement located in Area B. It is difficult to imagine that these are ditches which had been constructed during the beaker period and that they gradually filled up throughout the several centuries representing the Early Bronze-Age and into the Middle Bronze-Age period. However, it is important to consider another possibility – the beaker sherd may have been curated and represents an ancestral deposit at a new community location, which could explain its recovery from the primary fill of ditch A. The significance of the presence of Middle Bronze-Age occupation at this location is important. Evidence for Middle Bronze-Age settlements in the county are rare and slight (Darvill 1987, 112–3) but at least one ditched settlement has been inferred at Tewkesbury (Hannan 1976). Pottery of this date, but which is not likely to be of local origin, could be very significant. It is interesting that neither the beaker sherd nor the globular urn sherds display any characteristics suggesting local derivation in their fabrics. The beaker cannot be proven as local or non-local but the globular urns were definitely not locally made. They were brought to this site.

Area B – Later Prehistoric Pottery Two different fabric groups are represented amongst the later prehistoric pottery from Area B, the quartz group and the shell and shelly limestone group. The four fabric types within the fossil shell and limestone group could have been made from local resources in the immediate area around The Beeches or even within a local region up to 10 km. The presence of some calcareous matter in the silty fabric suggests that this fabric could also have been made from clays in the local area; it is similar to fired/burnt clay found in Area B. The fabrics include coarse, intermediate and finewares. There are six different rim types, one base and several angled sherds in this very fragmented assemblage. The rims include a thickened, square-headed rim from a necked vessel (Fig. 11.3), a thin, incurving rim from a closed form, ovoid jar (Fig. 11.4), a vertical flat-topped rim on what appears to be a hemispherical-profile bowl (Fig. 11.5), a medium-length, plain, rounded, slightly everted rim from a necked jar (Fig. 11.6), a long, thin, upright, plain, rounded rim from a necked jar (Fig. 11.7), and a thin flat-topped rim fragment (Fig. 11.8) which is probably from a necked vessel. These rims are all paralleled amongst the large Early Iron-Age assemblages from Crickley Hill (Elsdon 1994, ills. 202–213) and The Loders, Lechlade (Hingley 1986, Figs. 7–10), and elsewhere in Gloucestershire (Saville ed. 1984, 152–155). The presence of angled shoulder sherds from both bowls and jar forms (Figs. 11.9 – 11.13 incl.) indicates that The Beeches assemblage contains bipartite vessels at least; tripartite vessels such as those commonly found at The Loders and at Roughground Farm, Lechlade (Hingley 1993, Figs. 31, 49 and 51) cannot be ruled out due to the extreme fragmentation of the assemblage. Bipartite or shouldered bowls and jars characterise assemblages dated to the first half of the first millennium BC, but it is the type of decoration found on these apparently bipartite vessels which pinpoints the date to the Early Iron-Age or from the 7th to 5th centuries BC. Two types of decoration were found on The Beeches pottery; incised, geometric or linear motifs, the fragments of which suggest triangular shapes of repeated parallel lines on both fine and coarseware sherds (Figs. 11.10– 11.13 incl.) and an applied strip or cordon around the neck of a coarseware jar (Fig. 11.14). The

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 49 19/02/2013 11:16 50 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

incised decoration is found on the pottery from Crickley Hill and at Sandy Lane, Leckhampton, also near Cheltenham (Webb and Purnell 1950, 198) while the applied cordon is known from Cadbury Castle phase 5 at South Cadbury hillfort in Somerset (Alcock 1980, Fig. 14, D631/5) as well as at The Loders (Hingley 1986, Fig. 9, 40), and again are Early Iron-Age in date. Normally applied neck bands are also impressed with finger-tipping but this is not the case for The Beeches. Burnishing occurs on 59 of the Early Iron-Age sherds representing approximately six vessels, all of which are bowls with the burnish on both surfaces. What is most curious about The Beeches assemblage compared to that from Crickley Hill and The Loders is the absence of finger-tip impressions on coarseware fabric shouldered jars (cf. Hingley 1986, Figs. 7–9) and the presence of what is usually a fineware decorative technique, incising, and the fineware design motif of infilled triangles on both angular bowls and one coarseware jar. Usually, there are both plain and finger-tip decorated coarseware shouldered jars and both plain and incised or tooled angular bowls in assemblages of this period. Therefore, this is an important settlement assemblage of Early Iron-Age date from a settlement on the low ground area in the Cotswolds. While the pottery may have been made locally, it belongs in ceramic cultural style to the wider Cotswold region of distinctive forms and decoration which characterise this period. This small assemblage contributes important information about the location of Early Iron-Age settlement in the region.

The Flints by Peter Makey The excavation produced a total of 246 (969 gm) pieces of struck flint, nearly all of which can be said to be prehistoric. Only three unworked pieces, (1.3 gm), were recovered. The number and range of implement types is restricted. Although the assemblage is small, the overall range and stylistic traits of the pieces are reasonably consistent with the admixture of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze-Age material, previously recovered from Bed 4, Forty Acre Field, in the vicinity of Barnwood (Clifford et al. 1934, Fig. 4). The stratified material is predominately from the fills of the three ditches. Unfortunately there are too few intact pieces in the assemblage for any useful statistical analysis to be conducted. Less than 12% of the material is in a fresh state and over 80% of the material exhibits varying degrees of cortication. Twenty percent of the material possesses a thick old white cortication and general abrasion suggestive of a discrete element of earlier material. This element is probably of early to middle Neolithic in date. The largest individual collection of material (15 pieces, 6% of total) comes from Area A, ditch A, (2050). Ditch A terminus (2037) is perhaps more significant, containing 11 pieces of a fairly homogenous nature. Although this material is clearly residual, the majority of the pieces are of a later Neolithic to early Bronze-Age aspect. These include a bladelet, edge utilised flake, core fragment, core rejuvenation flake and the sole example of a fabricator.A similar homogenous collection comes from ditch A, (2038). In this case the collection is slightly more Neolithic (i.e. less early Bronze-Age) in character and is of note for containing the only re-fit in the assemblage; it is possible to re-fit a tertiary flake onto the surface of a plunging core rejuvenation flake from 2033.

Raw Material and Reduction Technology Nearly all the struck pieces have been manufactured on flint that appears to have been derived from the local gravels or boulder clay. All pieces appear to have been knapped via the application of hard hammer technique. The struck material is generally of a small size and it is notable that

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 50 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 51

in a few instances pieces of flint appear to have been used on more than one occasion, probably due to the limited local availability of suitable raw material. It is likely that pebbles of poor knapping quality were imported after removal of a significant degree of primary cortex. Most of the retouched implements have been heavily used, particularly with respect to the scrapers. However, un-retouched pieces exhibit a slightly lower than normal degree of use. Traces of burning are only present on 31 (12.6%) of the pieces. The incidence and degree is sporadic, although, it may be of future interest to note that at least four of the cores have been heavily burnt (calcined). Some of this burning appears to be modern.

Flakes, Spalls, Blades and Bladelets Nearly 46% of the flint flakes are broken. There is limited evidence for platform preparation. Platforms tend to be single flake and un-corticated.O nly five pieces classified as spalls (here defined as flakes <10 mm in length) were recovered. The blade assemblage is an admixture of fresh and old-looking pieces and contains a high proportion (35%) of broken pieces. The full range of reduction sequences is present from primary to tertiary removals. Many of the blades and bladelets are fine examples, 76% possessing single or double dorsal crests.A n atypically large and fine example, comes from ditch A (2006). The specimen possesses traces of use wear on its left- hand side and has a dense light grey cortication.

Cores and Core Rejuvenation Flakes Most of the cores are fragmentary with weights varying from between 17 gm to 40 gm, and maximum dimensions between 30 mm and 55 mm. Though not exhausted, the cores are so fractured as to be practically useless and it would seem likely that most have been intentionally discarded. Most of the core rejuvenation flakes came fromA rea A. Only one example (6103,) was recovered from Area B (ditch C). The flakes appear to come from varying types of core. Most of the rejuvenation flakes possess traces of at least five small squat flake removals and do not appear to relate to the extant cores.

Retouched Implements Eight flakes possess miscellaneous retouch that cannot be classified, and three that are heavily retouched fragments from tools of uncertain form. Some of these pieces are reminiscent of the manufacturing of piercers or arrowheads. Three of the examples have been retouched along their right hand margins and the remaining example has been retouched along both lateral margins. The retouch tends to be straight and semi-abrupt and all specimens appear to have received a moderate degree of utilisation.

Notches Two notched pieces (2004, 2007, ditch A) are present. Both pieces are crude and possess only single notches.

Serrated Pieces Two fragmentary light grey corticated, serrated edged blades (2007 and 6003), from ditches A and C) were recovered. The example from 2007 possesses very fine serrations on its right hand

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 51 19/02/2013 11:16 52 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

side and appears to have received limited usage. A similar piece to this is known from the floor of the south chamber of the Hazleton North Long Barrow (Saville 1990, 161, Fig. 165.9).

The Obliquely Blunted Point The example (6003) from Area B, ditch C, is a burnt and grey corticated medial blade fragment with light but abrupt left side oblique medial to distal retouch. The piece bears a strong resemblance to a later Mesolithic obliquely blunted point. The Beeches example is reminiscent of an atypical specimen from the Hazleton Long Barrow assemblage (Saville 1990, 163, Fig. 167.45).

The Fabricator (Fig. 12.1) A fabricator was recovered from the terminus of ditch A, (2029). Crude and plano-convex in section, the implement is highly cortical, (i.e. possesses a high degree of cortex). A similar but larger example is known from Bed 4, Barnwood (Gracie 1954, 185, Fig. 4). Fabricators of this form are more common in later Neolithic and early Bronze-Age industries.

The Knife (Fig. 12.2) Only 1 knife was recovered from ditch A (2026). This specimen was a double-edged flake knife and would appear to have been heavily used. Examples such as this tend to have later Neolithic affinities.

Scrapers (Fig. 12.4–6). The scraper assemblage contains a variety of forms, most are squat and some are quite fine.A ll the scrapers have received heavy usage and all are corticated. The scraper assemblage accords reasonably well with the assemblage from Hurst Fen, Suffolk (Clark et al. 1960).

The Arrowhead (Fig. 12.3). The arrowhead is an oblique form of Clark’s (1934) class G, a hollow based, petit tranchet derivative, and comes from Area A, ditch A (2007). It is clearly residual and has been subjected to a moderate degree of post depositional attrition. This is a later Neolithic form that is frequently found in association with Grooved Ware pottery of Durrington Walls and Clacton sub-styles. This is reasonably rare and highly chrono-diagnostic piece.

Conclusions The range of tools is far smaller than might be found on a prehistoric occupation site. The presence of core rejuvenation flakes, chunks and chippings demonstrates that a limited degree of knapping has been carried out in the vicinity. The absence of primary reduction debitage suggests that partially reduced cores were being brought onto the site. The incidence of rejuvenation flakes appears to be confined to the ditches.I t is notable that none were recovered from the unstratified assemblage. The observable difference in scraper cortication might relate to the multi-period nature of the assemblage. Perhaps the scraper assemblage represents two separate, semi-discrete phases of occupation while the core material is a complete admixture. The apparent difference in the cortication of flakes, blades and cores probably relates to different refuse histories of the

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 52 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 53

respective items, the cores being intentionally discarded, the flakes and blades chance losses. There does however appear to be a slight chronological distinction between the assemblages from ditches A and B. On stylistic grounds the assemblage is predominately later Neolithic and has closest affinities with Peterborough Ware and Grooved Ware assemblages of Durrington Walls and Clacton sub- styles. An early to later Neolithic date would appear to be the most probable for the bulk of the flint, although there may also be limited elements of Mesolithic and Beaker material. However, none of the flints can definitely be said to be contemporary with the cutting of the ditches. Some of the smaller scrapers are consistent with examples from Mesolithic and Beaker sites. Material of a Mesolithic aspect is present in surprisingly large quantities and constitutes up to 12% of the assemblage. In spite of this, no clear diagnostic Mesolithic elements are present. The most probable Mesolithic element is the possible obliquely blunted point fragment from context 6003. The recovery of a decorated Beaker sherd from the primary fill of ditchA (2155) indicates the possible presence of Beaker material. Two implements are of possible Beaker attribution. These are both from ditch A, an end-scraper (Fig. 12.6) in context 2170 and a double-edged flake knife (Fig 12.2) in 2026.

The Faunal Remains by Andrew Clarke A moderately sized assemblage of just under 2500 bone fragments was recovered, of which 43.5% was identifiable to species.A small-scale analysis had been carried out at the assessment stage (Barber, 2000) the results of which are combined with the findings of this analysis. The bone assemblage was recovered through a combination of excavation by hand and the sieving of bulk samples. The bones are in a very poor state of preservation, greatly reducing the amount of interpretative data that could be retrieved.

Species Identification The assemblage was identified using the reference collection of the CambridgeA rchaeological Unit and Schmid (1972). Where possible, every bone was identified to species level, but it was not possible to differentiate sheep or goat remains with any confidence and all such bones are noted as sheep/goat.

Quantification To obtain the greatest amount of data from the assemblage every element in the skeleton was counted. Left and right sides were counted separately and where it was clear that a group of fragments originated from a single element, they were counted as a single bone. This accounts for the difference in the grand total in this report and that stated by Barber. The total number of identifiable fragments NIS( P) was calculated for each species. It was not appropriate to extrapolate these results to obtain the minimum number of elements (MNE) or minimum number of individuals (MNI) due to the small amount of identifiable material.

Age Estimation of age was carried out using the dental wear stages for cattle, sheep/goat and pigs following Payne (1973), Halstead (1985) and Grant (1982). Further age estimation was based on

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 53 19/02/2013 11:16 54 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

the stages of fusion of the post-cranial elements following Getty (1975). However, the amount of ageing data was so limited (ten estimations from teeth and one from fusion) that it was not possible to obtain any useful information pertaining to mortality patterns.

Results A total of 2452 bones was recovered, of which 1067 (43.5%) were identifiable to species.A rea A produced the most amount of bone but it must be remembered that 938 of these bones came from the burial of the two cows. Therefore Area A and Area B produced relatively similar assemblages in size and species identified.

Species Representation The species identified include: cattle Bos( taurus, domestic), sheep/goat (Ovicaprid), pig (Sus domesticus), dog (Canis familiaris,) deer species (unidentifiable) and small rodent species (unidentifiable).

Cattle In Area A the remains of cattle dominate due to the recovery of two articulated cow skeletons but, when discounted, reduce the total number of cattle remains to 37 fragments, almost the same as the number of sheep/goat fragments. It was not possible to obtain any useful ageing, mensural or taphonomic data. However, as the bones come from throughout the skeleton, it is not unreasonable to assume that these are the waste product of primary and secondary butchery as the majority are those parts which are discarded, either during dismemberment because they bear little or no meat (such as the distal limb bones), or they are meat bearing bones (such as the pelvis) which are discarded after filleting. The articulated remains, (Barber 2000), indicated that the burial consisted of two individuals, one of which was a probable female at least five years of age. The cattle remains from Area B mirror those of Area A coming from throughout the skeleton, the waste product of primary and secondary butchery. No ageing, mensural or taphonomic data were obtained.

Sheep/goat The information from the sheep/goat remains from Area A is as fragmentary as that provided by the cattle. It was not possible to retrieve ageing, mensural or taphonomic data, but it appears that, as with the cattle, the sheep/goat bones, from all parts of the skeleton, are butchery waste. The sheep/goat bones from Area B provided even less information. Of the ten fragments only one long bone shaft was recovered; the remaining fragments were loose un-ageable teeth.

Pig The pig remains from both areas were limited to seven loose, un-ageable teeth.

Other Species A fragment of deer antler (too small to ascertain the species) was found in Area A with evidence of having been cut. Ten foot bones of dog were also found in Area A, which cannot provide

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 54 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 55

ciences S uclear interval N Calibrated Age One sigma 1446 BC to 1394 1376 BC to 1338 plus 1318 BC to 1207 1367 BC to 1347 plus 1313 BC to 1195 plus 1136 BC to 1134 BC BC BC interval Calibrated Age Two sigma Age Two 1515 BC to 1310 1404 BC to 1121 1395 BC to 1117 nstitute of Geological and I Age BP 3149 ± 45 BP 3023 ± 45 BP 3009 ± 45 BP Conventional Radio Carbon 2088 2029 2034 Context Beeches Number A Table 1. The Radiocarbon Dates Table Ditch B Ditch Location Cutting 1 Cutting 19 Cow burial ct. 2000. O bovine? bovine? uman skull nimal bone nimal bone Description A A H ew Zealand, dated 17 12280 12281 12282 Sample N Number utt, H NZA 19499 19500 19501 Number Laboratory The above data have been taken from a report submitted by The Rafter Radiocarbon Laboratory, The above data have been taken from a report submitted by Rafter Radiocarbon Laboratory, Ltd., Lower

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 55 19/02/2013 11:16 56 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

information on the size of the canine. The only other species was indicated by two incisors of a small unidentified rodent.

Conclusions It is unfortunate that the assemblage is in a poor state of preservation and there is little useful data pertaining to the economic activities of the Middle Bronze-Age and the Iron-Age. However it is clear that in the Middle Bronze-Age the economy was based on the three major domestic animals with a concentration on cattle and sheep/goat. This appears to continue into the Iron-Age, with the possibility that cattle were becoming more popular: however this may be due to a taphonomic bias in favour of cattle remains. It is not clear what form of exploitation was being carried out at the site (traction, meat, milk, wool or a combination of these) but an indication is provided by the articulated cattle burial. The remains of two cows were recovered from the area enclosed by the ditches in Area A. It was possible to age one of these to at least five years old. This possible female showed no signs of slaughter. A burial such as this can be suggestive of ritual activity: however it is the view of the author that this is not the case here. The ritual disposal of animals suggests that a sacrifice is being made: in some way, a valuable animal is being given up to make a statement. A five year old cow would not be a sacrifice. At this age, it would be reaching the end of its milking life and its meat would be past its prime. These factors, combined with the absence of cut marks, suggest that this animal, and presumably its companion, were buried after dying of some natural cause such as disease, that made them unfit for consumption. The presence of a cow of this age suggests that it was being exploited for its milk, traction or for breeding because, if meat were the major concern, it would have been slaughtered at an earlier age. The assemblage from Area A suggests that Bronze-Age cattle, sheep/goats and, to a lesser extent, pigs were exploited for their meat. The waste from butchery was then disposed of in refuse areas conveniently provided by the boundary ditches. Less than 1% of the assemblage shows evidence of having been cut/butchered, gnawed or burnt. Area B does not offer any conflicting interpretations for the Iron-Age.

The Human Remains by Andrew Clarke The small amount of human bone is in a poor state of preservation, the surface of the bone badly eroded. Very little interpretative data could be retrieved. The 103 human bone fragments were recovered from adjacent fills 2029 and 2036 of the terminus (C1) of ditch A. Each fragment originates from a skull, apparently a fully mature adult. It was not possible to reconstruct the skull (or skulls) to any extent or to ascertain the sex or number of individuals present. It can be stated that the skull fragments originate from the occipital, parietal and sphenoid areas, of at least one adult of indeterminate sex.

The Environmental Remains by Kath Hunter Though the quantity of the plant remains noted at the assessment level was low, the paucity of evidence from local sites of similar date increased the importance of recording such remains. Nine samples were selected for analysis from the 33 previously assessed (Hunter 2000); the criterion being the presence of identifiable charred plant remains and charcoal. The samples had been processed using a flotation technique, separating the lighter material (flot) from the minergenic

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 56 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 57

portions. The flot and the residue were recovered on a 500μ mesh. All the plant macrofossils were carbonised. Preservation ranged from very good, allowing identification to species, to too badly degraded, exhibiting very few diagnostic characteristics. The species and genera represented are recorded in Tables 2 and 3.

Area A, Bronze-Age

Pit 2022 Sample 5001 This was the only feature to produce relatively well-preserved cereal remains. These were two wheat grains and a rachis fragment which suggested an identification of free threshing wheat, though it was not well enough preserved to identify whether it was from Hexaploid (Bread wheat) or Tetraploid (Rivet) wheat. One other unidentified cereal grain was found.

Ditch A C 6 Sample 5035 One abraded cereal grain whose overall shape suggested a glume wheat, possibly Emmer (Triticum cf. dicoccum).

Ditch A C10 Sample 5041 Three fragments of Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) charcoal.

Ditch B C16 Sample 5037 One degraded unidentified cereal grain with charcoal identified as Cherry/Blackthorn type (Prunus sp.); due to distortion it was not possible to identify it to species.

Ditch B C17 Samples 5030, 5031 5030 contained two degraded, unidentified cereal grains with charcoal identified asPrunus cf. avium (Cherry, possibly Wild Cherry). Sample 5031 contained two fragments of Hazelnut shell (Corylus avellana).

Ditch B C20 Sample 5019 This contained a carbonised stone of Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna).

Area B Iron-Age

Ditch C C26 Sample 9002; Cutting 27 Sample 9008 Together, three fragments of Hazelnut shell (Corylus avellana).

Discussion Both cereals and other potential food species (Hazelnut and Hawthorn) were present as macrofossils. Though the number of cereal and other carbonised plant remains is small, their

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 57 19/02/2013 11:16 58 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine ge A 1 9008 ron- I 2 9002 Early 1 1 5037 1 5035 ge A 2 5031 Sample Number 2 5030 Middle Bronze- 1 5019 2 1 1 1 5001 Table 2. Plant Macrofossils Table ut shell utlet eed Grain Grain Grain fragment Rachis fragment N fragment S N Caryopsis azelnut awthorn Common Name Free threshing wheat Emmer Free threshing wheat H Goosefoot family H Grass Taxa ndet. I Triticum sp Triticum cf. dicoccum Triticum Cereal sp Triticum Corylus avellana L. Chenopodiaceae Crataegus monogyna Jacq. Poaceae

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 58 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 59

presence in an area where there is relatively little evidence of plant remains from the Bronze-Age and Iron-Age highlights their local and regional importance. Late Neolithic/Early Bronze-Age sites at Trinity Farm and Duntisbourne Leer similarly produced few plant remains (Pelling 2000). The grain of possible glume wheat (a type of wheat that has to be parched and threshed in order to release the grain from the chaff) seems to fit with the evidence from other Bronze-Age deposits. Though free threshing wheat occurs sporadically in assemblages from the Neolithic period in Britain (Donaldson 1981, Dalwood et al. 1990) it does not appear to become the dominant wheat type until the medieval period. The presence of an identifiable free threshing wheat rachis from the same context as free threshing wheat grains strengthens the identification of the grains and may suggest evidence of the gradual transition from glume wheat to free threshing types. Hazelnuts appear to have been exploited as a food resource in the wider Gloucestershire/ Wiltshire area from the Neolithic period (Pelling 2000). The nature of shell fragments means that these may survive where other less robust fruits and vegetation do not. Charcoal of Prunus sp (Cherry, Blackthorn type) is a species found on other Bronze and Iron-Age sites in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire such as Cherry Tree Lane (Pelling 1990) and in Oxfordshire at Ashville Trading Estate (Jones 1978). This highlights potential food resources in the form of fruits not represented in the preserved plant remains, as well as possibly suggesting evidence of the wood being burnt for fuel.

Conclusions The wheat grains and chaff suggest the cultivation of both glume and free threshing types. Other potential food crops were represented by hazelnut shell and a hawthorn nutlet and inferred by the presence of fruitwood charcoal. One significant fact is the lack of evidence of barley, a common crop of the Prehistoric period. This may, of course, be a product of taphonomic processes rather than a reflection of agricultural practice. Though the assemblage is relatively small, it seems to fit well into the emerging pattern of palaeo-environmental evidence for the region.

Table 3. Charcoal

Taxa Common Name Sample Numbers 5030 5037 5041 5033 Fraxinus excelsior Ash 3 4 Prunus cf. avium Wild Cherry 1 Prunus sp. 2

Bibliography and References Alcock, L., 1980. The Cadbury Castle Sequence in the First Millennium B.C., Bulletin of The Board of Celtic Studies 28, 656–718. Allen T., Darvill T., Green S. and Jones M., 1993. Excavations at Roughground Farm, Lechlade, Gloucestershire: a Prehistoric and Roman Landscape. Thames Valley Landscapes: The Cotswold Water Park Volume 1, Oxford Archaeological Unit, Oxford. Barber, G., 2000. The Beeches Cattle Skeletons Assessment, Avon Archaeological Unit, Bristol (unpublished).

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 59 19/02/2013 11:16 60 Donna E.Y. Young and Jonathan G.P. Erskine

Bashford, R., 2006. Kingshill North, Cirencester, Archaeological Evaluation Report, Oxford Archaeological Unit (unpublished). Boessneck, J., 1969. Osteological differences between sheep (Ovies aries Linne) and Goat (Capra hircus Linne). In Brothwell and Higgs (eds.) Science In Archaeology, 2nd ed., 331–58. Thames and Hudson, London. Clark, J., 1934. Derivative Forms of the Petit Tranchet in Britain. Archaeological Journal 91: 32–58. Clark, J., Higgs, E., and Longworth, I., 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic Site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26, 202–45. Cleal, R., 1995. Pottery fabrics in Wessex in the fourth to second millennia BC, in I. Kinnes and G. Varndell (eds.), Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape; Essays on British and Irish Pottery for Ian Longworth, Oxbow Monograph 55, Oxford, 185–94. Clifford E., 1933, The Roman Villa, Hucclecote, near Gloucester. Trans. BGAS, 55, 323–76. Clifford, E., 1934. An Early Iron-Age Site at Barnwood, Gloucestershire. Trans. BGAS, 56, 227–54. Clifford, E., 1944. Graves Found at Hailes, Gloucestershire. Trans. BGAS, 65, 187–98. Clifford, E., Garrod, D. and Gracie, H., 1954. Flint Implements From Gloucestershire. The Antiquaries Journal, 34, 178–87. Dalwood, H., Dillon, J., Evans, J. and Hawkins, A., 1990. Excavations in Walton, Aylesbury 1985–1986, Records of Buckinghamshire 31 (for 1989) 137–225. Donaldson, A., 1981. Identification: 48 in Gates T.,A food vessel from Wellhand Farm, Newton, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana, 9. Darvill, T., 1987. Prehistoric Gloucestershire, Alan Sutton and Gloucestershire County Library, Gloucester. Darvill, T., 2006. Early Prehistory, in Holbrook and Juřica (eds.), Twenty-Five years of Archaeology in Gloucestershire, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Report No. 3, Cotswold Archaeology, Kemble. Darvill, T., Hingley, R., Jones, M. and Timby, J., 1986. A Neolithic and Iron-Age Site at The Loders, Lechlade. Trans. BGAS, 104, 27–48. Darvill, T., and Timby, J., 1986. Saintbridge. Trans. BGAS, 104, 49–60. DoE 1990, Archaeology and Planning, Planning Policy Guidance Note 16, Department of the Environment, London. Elsdon, S., 1994. The Iron-Age Pottery, in Dixon P, Crickley Hill 1: The Hillfort Defences, Crickley Hill Trust and the Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, 203–43. Erskine, J., 1995a. Excavation of a Bronze Age Settlement at Savages Wood, Bradley Stoke. Bristol and Avon Archaeology, 12, 18–55. Erskine, J., 1995b. The Beeches Playing Field, London Road, Cirencester. Site Assessment Comprising Archaeological Desk-Top Study and Geophysical Survey, Avon Archaeological Unit, Bristol (unpublished). Erskine, J., 1997. The Beeches Playing Field, London Road, Cirencester, Gloucestershire. Archaeological Evaluation. Avon Archaeological Unit, Bristol (unpublished). Gracie, H., 1954. The Description of the Later Implements. In Clifford, E., Garrod, D. and Gracie, H., Flint Implements From Gloucestershire. Antiquaries Journal, 34, 178–87. Getty, R., 1975. Sisson & Grossman’s The Anatomy of Domestic Animals. W.B. Saunders Company, London. Grant, A., 1982. The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates. In Wilson, B., Grigson, C, and Payne, S. (eds.) Ageing and Sexing of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, BAR British Series, 109: 91–108, Oxford. Halstead, P., 1985. A study of mandibular teeth from Romano-British contexts at Maxey. In Pryor F. and French, C., The Fenland Project No. 1. Archaeology and environment in the Lower Welland Valley, Vols. I and II, 27, 219–24, East Anglian Archaeology, Norwich. Hannan, A., 1976. Holm Castle, Tewkesbury: Excavation during 1975, Glevensis, 10, 10–11. Herdman, D., 1933. A Prehistoric Vessel from Hawling. Trans. BGAS, 55, 381–82. Hingley, R., 1986. The Iron-Age, in T. Darvill, R. Hingley, M. Jones and J. Timby, A Neolithic and Iron-Age site at The Loders, Lechlade, Gloucestershire, Trans. BGASS, 104, 27–48. Hingley, R., 1993. Early Iron-Age pottery, in Allen et al.1993, 40–4 .

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 60 19/02/2013 11:16 TWo prehistoric enclosures at The Beeches Playing Field 61

Holbrook, N., and Juřica J., (eds.) 2006. Twenty-Five Years of Archaeology in Gloucestershire. A Review of New Discoveries and New Thinking in Gloucestershire, South Gloucestershire and Bristol 1979–2004, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Report 3 , Cotswold Archaeology, Kemble. Hunter, K., 2000. Assessment of the plant macrofossils and other environmental evidence from The Beeches, Cirencester, GSMR 17205/11, Avon Archaeological Unit, Bristol (unpublished). Jones, M., 1978. The Plant Remains. In Parrington M. The excavation of an Iron-Age Settlement, Bronze- Age Ring Ditches and Roman features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon (Oxfordshire) 1974–76. Oxford Archaeological Unit Report 1. (CBA Research Report 28) Oxford. Marshall, A.,1978. The pre-Belgic Iron-Age in the Northern Cotswolds, Trans. BGAS, 96, 9–16. Marshall, A., 1989. The Hillfort at Burhill, Buckland, Gloucestershire. Evidence for Occupation during the Earliest Phases of the Iron-Age. Trans. BGAS, 107, 197–202. Mudd, A., Williams, R. and Lupton, A., 2000. Excavations alongside Ermin Street, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. The Archaeology of the A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester Road Scheme, Vol. 1, Oxford Archaeological Unit, Oxford. Mullin, D., Hughes, A. and Biddulph, E., 2009. Kingshill North, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, Post Excavation Assessment, Oxford Archaeology, (unpublished). O’Neil, H., 1967. Bevan’s Quarry Round Barrow, Temple Guiting. Trans. BGAS, 86, 16–41. Osgood R and Bell T. in press, Violent Deaths in the Middle Bronze Age at Tormarton, South Gloucestershire. Trans. BGAS in press. Parker Pearson, M., 1993. Bronze Age Britain, B. T. Batsford/English Heritage, London. Payne, S., 1973. Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: the Mandibles from Asvan Kale. Anatolian Studies, 23, 281–303. PCRG, 1997. The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery: Guidelines for Analysis and Publication. Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Occasional Paper 2, (Second Edition), Oxford. Pelling, R., 2000. Charred and waterlogged plant remains in Mudd A. et al. 2000. Powell, K., Smith, A. and Laws, G., 2010. Evolution of a Farming Community in the Upper Thames Valley, Volume 1: Site Narrative and Overview. Oxford Archaeology, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph No 31, Oxford. Reece, R., 1990. Excavations, Survey and Records around Cirencester. Cotswold Studies 2, Cotswold Studies, Cirencester. Saville, A., ed., 1984. Archaeology in Gloucestershire. Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museums and the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Cheltenham. Saville, A., 1990. Hazleton North, Gloucestershire, 1979–82: The excavation of a Neolithic long cairn of the Cotswold-Severn group. Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. Archaeological Report No 13. English Heritage, London. Schmid, E., 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones: For Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. Elsevier: Amsterdam, London, New York. Vallender, J., 1997. An Archaeological Evaluation of Land adjacent to Farmington Quarry, Gloucestershire Archaeology Service, Gloucestershire County Council (unpublished). Webb, E., and Purnell, F., 1950. An Iron-Age Site near Cheltenham. Trans. BGAS, 69,197–9. Whitbread, I., 1986. The Characterisation of Argillaceous Inclusions in Ceramic Thin Sections, Archaeometry, 28, 79–88. Yates, D., 2007. Land, Power and Prestige. Bronze Age Field Systems in Southern England, Oxbow Books, Oxford.

031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 61 19/02/2013 11:16 031-062 - Erskine and Young.indd 62 19/02/2013 11:16