Title: Updated Project Design – Ham Hill, (SAM No. 100)

Authors: M. Brittain, N. Sharples and C. Evans

Derivation: Submission of post-excavation assessment, and lead into third phase of project delivery

Origination Date: 12-Sep-2015

Reviser(s): M. Brittain

Date of Last Revision: 04-Feb-2016

Version: 2

Status: Final Version

Summary of Changes: Page number revision; notification of requirements of SMC consent; modification of Metalwork specialist statement

Circulation: Ham Hill Stone Company; Historic ; District Council

Required Action:

File name/Location: CAU server: J:\Ham Hill\PXA & UPD 2015\PXA & UPD Final

Approval:

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Summary of 2011-13 Investigations’ Results 4 1.3 Summary of Products and Tasks 9 1.4 Interfaces and Partnerships 10 2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 10 2.1 to Bronze Age 11 2.2 to Roman 13 3. BUSINESS CASE 15 4. DISSEMINATION AND ARCHIVE 15 4.1 Monograph 16 4.2 Archives 17 4.2 Public Outreach 17 5. RESOURCES AND PROGRAMMING 18 5.1 Project Team 18 5.2 Management Responsibilities 18 5.3 Products, Tasks and Timetable 18 5.4 Budget and Resources 19 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY 21 7. APPENDICES 28 7.1 Projects Specialists’ Method Statements 28 7.1.1 Soil Profiles – Charles French 28 7.1.2 Pollen and Land Snails – Michael Allen and Rob Scaife 30 7.1.3 Archaeobotanical Remains – Rachel Ballantyne 35 7.1.4 Faunal Remains – Clare Randall 51 7.1.5 Coprolites – Erica Rowan 56 7.1.6 Worked Bone and Antler – Ian Riddler 57 7.1.7 Human Remains – Natasha Dodwell 59 7.1.8 Strontium and Oxygen Isotope Analysis of Human Remains – Richard Madgwick 62 7.1.9 Flint and Chert – Lawrence Billington 63 7.1.10 Early Prehistoric – Henrietta Quinnell 65 7.1.11 Later Prehistoric and Roman Pottery – Lisa Brown 68 7.1.12 Metalwork – Grahame Appleby and Andrew Fitzpatrick 72 7.1.13 Slag, Stone and Clay – Simon Timberlake 75 7.1.14 Glass – Vicki Herring 81 7.1.15 Scientific Dating 82 7.2 Allied Research Programme 84 7.2.1 Wessex Archaeology archive 84 7.2.2 Museum Collections 84 7.3 Main Tasks Sequence and Product Descriptions 85 1. INTRODUCTION The following is an update to a project design (Sharples and Evans 2010) originally approved for a three year-long archaeological excavation strategy as part of a planning condition (TTNCM57/2011) and Scheduled Monument Consent on an extension by the Ham Hill Stone Company to their quarry within the of Ham Hill, Somerset, a designated heritage asset (Scheduled Ancient Monument No. 100, Figure 1). The project has been carried out as a partnership between the Cambridge Archaeological Unit of the University of Cambridge, Historic England and the Department of Archaeology, University of Cardiff. Allied with the mitigation of the 1.28ha development zone, the project undertook a research programme that included four trenches targeting the hillfort’s ramparts, and a geophysical survey of much of the hillfort’s interior was carried out by Historic England (then formerly English Heritage). Interim statements on the results of these investigations have been produced in three detailed annual reports (Slater et al. 2011, Brittain et al. 2012, 2013) and summarised in three short academic publications (Slater 2011; Brittain et al. 2013, 2015b). A full assessment report covering the results from all three field seasons has also been issued (Brittain et al. 2015a). This Updated Project Design addresses the structure and aims of the project leading through to its dissemination (including publication) and archive deposition.

1.1 Background The hillfort of Ham Hill is located in south Somerset, approximately 6km west of Yeovil, on the northern scarp of the Jurassic limestone hills which define the character of this part of Somerset. The hilltop is a plateau of Upper shelly limestone (Ham Hill stone), which rises to a maximum height of 139 metres OD and has extensive views, particularly north across the . It is located within three parishes; Stoke sub Hamdon, Norton sub Hamdon and Montacute. Almost the entire monument is owned by South Somerset District Council, the Duchy of , Major Shuldham and the Ham Hill Stone Company Limited. Most of the monument is currently managed as a country park by South Somerset District Council who regard it as ‘a unique piece of Somerset countryside’ (Countryside Service 2007: 3). Ham Hill is the largest hillfort in Britain (Forde-Johnston 1976: 93, 97). It encloses an area of approximately 88.1ha (RCHME 1997: 28), which compares with an area of 17.2ha at Maiden Castle and the 22.3ha at , both in Dorset. The site is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (no 100) and is recorded in the Somerset Historic Environment Record (HER no. 55103). It is widely recognised as an archaeological monument which has regional, national and indeed international significance. Various scale plans of the hillfort exist from the early 19th and 20th centuries (e.g. Hoare 1827, Downman 1901: British Library MSS 39172). The most recent morphological survey of the earthworks was undertaken by the RCHME (1997) which showed the hillfort to be defined by two ramparts and ditches, but a third rampart is visible in limited areas of the defensive circuit. The survey also suggested that the ramparts are interrupted by two original entrances, one on the east side, at

1

Trench 3

Trench 2

Quarry

2011-13 excavation area Trench 4 Previous Trench 1 Excavations

0 500 metres

347657/116711 SWANSEA OXFORD NEWPORT CARDIFF BRISTOL SWINDON

BATH

HAM HILL SOUTHAMPTON YEOVIL

EXETER BOURNEMOUTH

PLYMOUTH

2013

Trench 4 Trench 1

2011-12 2011

0 500 metres

349087/115640 Figure 1. Site location Batemoor Barn, and one at the end of a narrow coombe that separates the spur from the main plateau. The main body of the hillfort is a roughly rectangular area, known as the plateau, but projecting from the northwest corner of the plateau is a prominent area of high ground known as the spur. The survey illustrated the extent of quarrying across the hillfort, estimated to have been some 31.1ha, which has been confirmed by historic map regression (Jefferson Consulting 2012). Common to all these accounts is that the survival of the ramparts along the west aspect of the hillfort’s perimeter is considered to be poor if not non-existent. Earliest considerations of Ham Hill’s ancient occupation assumed that it was Somerset’s Roman legions that accounted for its vast earthworks (e.g. Gerrard 1900 [1633]: 96-7), but its broader antiquity and significance was established in the early 19th century (e.g. Hoare 1827). It was during this time that a number of local antiquaries, particularly members of the Walter and Norris families, established private collections of artefacts displaced and obtained through the hill’s quarry works. The earliest systematic investigations of the hill took place in the early 20th century (e.g. Beattie and Phythian-Adams 1913, Walter 1907, 1912). Around this time the local private collections were gradually transferred to the Castle Museum (today’s South Somerset Museum). Harold St. George Gray, the museum’s curator, noted the stylistic similarities of the material culture, and particularly the pottery, with that found at the Glastonbury and ‘lake village’ excavations of which Gray, in partnership with Arthur Bulleid, was a co-director (Gray 1902: 27-49, 1910). Gray suggested a programme of excavations to explore this similarity and between 1923 and 1930 a series of excavations under the auspices of the Ham Hill Excavation Committee occurred. The excavations were focused upon the hill’s northern spur, and interim results were published in the Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society (Gray 1924, 1925, 1926, 1929), but many of the excavated trenches were never reported on and Gray never attempted an overall synthesis; in the 1950s Wilfred Seaby, then curator of the Museum, sought to collate aspects of Gray’s excavations, but this too was not completed. The hill’s excavations prior to the 1970s and the considerable museum archives remain largely without context and unpublished (Adkins and Adkins unpublished report; Morris 1988; Somerset County Council Museum Service 1997). Since the 1970s there have been excavations and observations by a variety of individuals in response to the expansion of the existing quarries within the hillfort interior (e.g. Ellison and Pearson 1977). Most of this work has taken place in the southwest corner of the hillfort (Smith 1991; Adkins and Adkins 1992; McKinley 1999; Leivers 2006), adjacent to the 2011-13 excavation area; and an area of approximately 0.45ha has been examined. The investigations revealed predominantly later Iron Age archaeology of which the principal features were pits, often in discrete clusters, but an arc of a structural gully, and undated linear ditches were also identified and excavated. Many pits were probably used for grain storage, but later infilled with debris; one pit containing a human burial and fragments of another individual, and stone querns and metalwork, including iron currency bars, were placed in other pits (see McKinley 1999). The quantities of Iron Age ceramics were small, but indicated that occupation of this area of the hillfort occurred

3

primarily during the Middle to Late Iron Age with only a small amount of Beaker, Early Iron Age and later activity (Morris in McKinley 1999, 91-101). The overall density of features and finds in these excavations was considered to be low, which was thought to imply that the southwest area of the hillfort was only partially occupied or utilised. However, it seems clear that an unknown quantity of features were not identified due to problems understanding the superficial geology of the excavated areas.

1.2 Summary of 2011-13 Investigations’ Results Of the 2011-13 programmes of investigation two outstanding contributions may be highlighted. The first is that occupation of the southwest area of the hillfort was considerably denser and longer-term than had been presumed, with the plateau itself illustrating a complex plan contrasting in both scale and character in comparison with other hillfort interiors. The second concerns the high degree of preservation observed across the four rampart trenches, the most remarkable of which being the western perimeter which, contrary to previous assumption, survives intact beneath tips of quarry rubble; within each trench was significant sources of information that will further inform interpretation of the hillfort. Limited understanding of the soil character and its depositional history at Ham Hill has proved to be a difficulty for a number of previous investigations, resulting in features being overlooked or under-investigated. This may account for some large blank areas on site plans and the discontinuity of linear features and distributions across excavation phases. Beginning with the evaluation trenching in 2009, intensive analysis of the soils has been integral to the 2011-13 programme. The open area investigations were located upon a natural depression in the Ham stone geology that is overlain by thick and compacted Yeovil sand and the remaining hollow filled with a combination of buried soil and colluvium with a thickness of 0.45-0.90m, both of which were heavily bioturbated. Artefacts were fairly abundant throughout this soil profile, but features were themselves generally only visible in the solid geology once the layers had been removed by machine or by hand. Walkover survey and metal- detecting of the soils in conjunction with systematic test pitting was employed to locate and map the distribution of surface artefacts across the excavated area. Following removal of these layers, excavation of the exposed features was conducted along with systematic wet and dry sieving of deposits in order to maximise the project’s finds retrieval and the efficiency of its ecofactual data. The investigation area had previously been subject to geophysical survey (Geophysical Surveys of Bradford 1992, 2001) which detected a large rectilinear enclosure roughly covering an area of 110m by 80m with an east facing entrance. A number of areas of anomalous geophysical response were also registered that suggested the presence of archaeological features comparable to those excavated in previous work in the southwest corner of the hillfort (Lievers et al. 2006; McKinley 1999); Iron Age pits and a series of linear boundaries forming a field system were expected. A major contribution to the 2011-13 fieldwork was an extension and enhancement of the geophysical survey by English Heritage (Payne et al. 2012; Linford et al. 2014). This entailed a c. 20ha caesium magnetometer survey with

4

targeted earth resistance (0.2ha) and ground penetrating radar (0.4ha) investigations. The results present a spectacular image of the hillfort’s internal occupation (Figure 2), which comprises of multiple multiphase ditch systems, rectilinear enclosures, ring gullies and areas of ‘pit-type responses’ all subdivided by at least two major arterial routeways connecting with the hillfort’s east entrance. Taking the results of the open area’s excavation (described below) as a proxy for presenting a possible sequence in the geophysical survey results, it would appear that much of the Ham Hill pre-rampart plateau is covered by a Bronze Age field system, overlain by Late Bronze Age to Late Iron Age enclosures and settlement areas, with a significant Romano-British building complex to the southeast of the hillfort. The excavations produced a significant quantity of finds totalling 56,076 items at 511,953g fairly evenly divided between the open area (33,012 at 365,424g) and the rampart trench (23,064 at 146,529g) investigations. These covered the Neolithic to the early Roman occupation of the hill, with a single item – a greensand chert handaxe – of probable Lower Palaeolithic date representing the earliest artefact identified at Ham Hill. A potential source material for the handaxe lies within only a few kilometres of the hill and similar surface finds have been identified across South Somerset, notably along the Vale of Taunton, including sixteen handaxes of greenstone chert recovered from within the ploughsoil upon Norton Fitzwarren ‘hillfort’ (Norman 2000). Nevertheless, this appears to be a unique find for Ham Hill. The earliest prehistoric features comprised two clusters of Neolithic pits. One cluster of five pits contained Early Neolithic plain ware pottery, and a second cluster of two pits along with an outlying pit contained ware pottery of a broadly Middle Neolithic date. These represent the only certain Neolithic features to have been identified at Ham Hill, and they support the view that occupation of the hilltop was long-lived. A sense of the scale of this occupation is revealed by the density of the flintwork (n=1887) recovered from the open area investigations alone, but combined with the redeposited material and sealed land surfaces within the rampart trenches (n=1712) – and taking into account their relatively modest surface area and the broad distance between trenches – the tally of 3599 worked flints is by no means a small assemblage. The low number of pre-Neolithic items restates the view that it was in the Neolithic that Ham Hill became a place of notable significance. Two fragments of polished stone and a number of leaf-shaped from the 2011-13 investigations adds to the 32 complete and fragmentary flint and stone and 40 leaf-shaped arrowheads sourced from Ham Hill and housed in the Museum of Somerset, Taunton (Minnit 1982: 23). This further indicates that the site was an important focal point for the Neolithic communities of South Somerset, but highlights the absence of any obvious monumental earthworks belonging to this phase either in the excavated areas or within the geophysical survey plots. The hill’s next major phase of activity is illustrated by an Early to Middle Bronze Age landscape of ditched enclosure that has now been revealed in the open area as at least nine enclosed rectilinear plots with a minimum of four access points. Close to 50 percent of the enclosing ditches have been hand dug with over 25 percent sieved and sampled. Evidence for contemporary settlement and related activity zones is

5

Figure 2. Interpretive plan of significant geophysical anomalies limited and may have been situated outside of the investigation area, but fragments of saddle quern from the ditches caution that the nature of settlement on the hill may not have left structural traces. It was possible to complete the full excavation of three (Tr1, Tr3 and Tr4) of the four rampart trenches, and in each of these the Iron Age earthworks were preceded by cut ditches or elongated pits from which bone has been dated to the Late Bronze Age, c. 800BC. These were initially thought to be Neolithic owing to the nature of the worked flint assemblage, and their morphology; the only feature fully exposed was an elongated and discontinuous ditch 4.0m in length and redolent of a ditch. The features from each trench, however, produced consistent Late Bronze Age dates. This frames the possibility – as suggested by Hensleigh Walter early in the 20th century (Walter 1912: 45) – that the hill was enclosed by an interrupted ditch circuit prior to the full erection of the rampart earthworks. Evidence within the interior was rather more limited, although the only certain features of this period – a six- or seven-post structure – were found to contain 523g of diagnostic pottery. Based upon the similarity of its alignment with this structure, a ten-post fenceline has also been ascribed to this phase. Only minimal trace of Early Iron Age activity was present in the hillfort’s open area investigations, with no features dated to this phase. The hilltop’s inner rampart, however, appear to have been established in the Early Iron Age, with the first two phases of rampart construction being associated with ceramics of that date. Along the southwest of the hilltop, in trenches 1 and 4, the rampart had been subject to hillslope erosion, quarrying and partial levelling, but these early constructional phases nevertheless complemented those observed at the north of the hillfort, having been formed of a simple rubble dump against a stone revetment. Trenches 2 and 3 along the hillfort’s northern spur revealed a very preserved rampart. Trench 3 was a reopening of Gray’s 1929 ‘cutting XV’, for which Sam Pointer evaluated the documentary and material archive as part of a Master’s dissertation into the archive of Gray’s 1920s’ excavations (Pointer 2012). The exposed 4.0m section provided an invaluable opportunity to view a vertical section through the rampart sequence. The rampart comprised at least four main phases of stone, earth and timber construction, with loam deposits representing soil formation and occupation horizons separating these different phases. The ramparts of the north spur therefore had two construction phases in addition to those observed in trenches 1 and 4 where later enlargement had either been completely truncated or had never occurred. This fourfold construction was largely confirmed in Trench 2 (covering 80m2), although owing to the complexity and depth of the sequence it was not possible to explore below the phase 2 rampart. This was a revetted rubble dump with an entrance defined by a stone-lined revetment. The entrance was infilled with rubble and soil as part of the third phase construction which was a massive enlargement of the rampart with multiple layers of material supported by a poorly built stone revetment which incorporated several separate phases of construction. Considerable quantities of occupation debris were found accumulated behind the rear of the rampart in Trench 2. A thick soil accumulation separated the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth construction phases, indicating a considerable period of time

7

had elapsed between the two events. The fourth phase rampart, provisionally dated to the end of the Iron Age, was composed of stone-revetted boxes infilled with rubble and soil, with the reinstatement of a narrow western entrance flanked by a guard chamber. Overall, this presents an unusual and complex sequence in which a previously unknown western entrance into the hillfort was blocked and subsequently reopened. The final two phases of the rampart broadly coincide with the activity recorded at the hillfort’s open area investigations, with over 70% of the area’s finds dated to the mid to Late Iron Age. 89 pits were fully excavated, 65 of which belonged to five clusters or groups. A number of these contained ‘special deposits’, such as dumps of burnt material (including black mustard seed), metalwork, querns, pottery (Glastonbury Ware in particular), animal bodies and human body parts (including two crouched inhumations). A total of five ring or eaves-drip gullies were uncovered, three with an entrance oriented to the east or southeast, and although neither contained internal architecture one (which also appeared to have been recut) held two postholes positioned within the entrance termini, and two had what appeared to be a palisade slot positioned about 5m from the entrance. There are indications that this settlement activity was partitioned by at least three shallow ditches containing mid to Late Iron Age pottery; one of these was cut by the ditch of the large rectangular enclosure identified in the 2001 geophysical survey. The enclosure was centred upon a natural hollow, the centre of which was more prone to the retention of water following heavy rains than the surrounding areas, which may have influenced the enclosure’s siting. Around 75% of the enclosure’s interior was exposed within the excavation area, and although two, possibly paired, gulley-defined structures were situated on the north edge of the enclosure’s interior, pits associated with these would have probably lain beneath the enclosure’s inner bank and suggest these occupation features most likely predated the enclosure. The enclosure’s interior space therefore appears to have been devoid of cut features other than two lines of postholes and a screen gulley channelling the flow of movement and visibility at the enclosure’s entrance. The enclosure’s ditch was hand excavated in 55 slots with the remaining baulks gradually machine excavated in spits. The excavation revealed four main stages of infilling, the initial fill was a thin layer of silt, and this was covered by a thick but variable layer, sometimes rubble sometimes sand, which derived from the deliberate levelling of the inner bank which contained human and animal remains, along with Glastonbury Ware pottery. The character of these deposits is significant. Many of the skeletal elements were in a state of partial articulation, which suggests that they were in a fleshed state at deposition which may have followed their prolonged exposure and display along the inner bank. There was a clear focus of deposition at the north corner of the enclosure, although multiple deposits have been recorded at various points along the enclosure’s ditch. Counting only human crania and mandibles, and combining previous seasons’ findings, at least fourteen individuals were represented; it is possible that owing to the differential preservation of bone along the ditch that only a fraction of the actual total number of human and animal elements deposited in the ditch have survived. These deposits clearly hold significance for an understanding of the function of the

8

enclosure which may be compared with Late Iron Age ceremonial complexes, particularly those classed as sanctuaries. Phasing of the Mid to Late Iron Age features within the open area investigations requires more detailed analysis of the main material categories, particularly the pottery, in conjunction with a programme of radiocarbon dating. This would further aid an understanding of the timing, construction and use of the enclosure, and would make it possible to align this with other activities across the site, such as the phases of rampart construction and the differential treatment of human bodies. At least two crania deposited within the enclosure’s ditch, and possibly a third, displayed clear signs of blunt force trauma; one of these had also been punctured by a moulded and pointed object. These violent deaths point to the possibility of inter- regional conflict, which has been further highlighted in preliminary isotopic analysis of bone samples that suggest the majority of these individuals may have originated from regions local to Ham Hill. In Trench 2 the occupation soil built up behind the phase 3 rampart contained multiple disarticulated human remains with markings of cuts indicative of either defleshing or dismemberment. The secure dating of these elements will further aid an understanding of Iron Age conflict and mortuary behaviour. Furthermore, the complexity of social relations in the Late Iron Age of southwest Britain and the potentially varied role that the enclosure facilitated at Ham Hill is again exposed in the bone isotope data. The body of a young adult female, excavated from a grave cut into the base of the enclosure’s ditch, produced an isotope signature indicating that that this individual was of a more distant, perhaps Continental origin. The hollow created by the levelling of the enclosure bank and the partial infilling of its ditch continued to be a focus, primarily on its west side, for the deposition of Glastonbury Ware, carbonised plant remains (black mustard seed) and tubers, all seemingly dumped from outside of the enclosure; its interior appears to have remained unoccupied. The ditch deposits were covered by the gradual silting of the hollow and amongst the finds in the uppermost fills were occasional sherds of Romano-British pottery of the 1st to 2nd century AD. Small quantities of Roman pottery and metalwork from ditches that form a trackway and field system indicate an agricultural occupation of this part of the hilltop contemporary with the buildings mapped by the geophysics and early 20th century investigations on the east side of the hillfort. The archive collections from the quarry works on the hillfort’s north spur point to a significant Roman presence there, and this was confirmed by the recovery of 1st to 2nd century pottery and metalwork within the final (phase 4) rampart in Trenches 2 and 3.

1.3 Summary of Products and Tasks There will be three main outcomes of the site’s excavation and post-excavation programme: 1) A programme of academic research that has greatly increased the understanding of the designated heritage asset (see Appendix 7.1)

9

2) A comprehensive and accessible monograph publication on the character and occupation of the hillfort 3) An archive of material in the Somerset Museum that provides an educational resource, interrogated by future researchers and utilised in future exhibitions

Details of Project’s Task Sequence and Product Descriptions are provided in Appendix 7.3.

1.4 Interfaces and Partnerships Working in close conjunction with both Somerset County Council and, also, English Heritage, the programme will involve a working collaboration between the Departments of Archaeology of the Universities of Cardiff and Cambridge (Cambridge Archaeological Unit).

2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Core research aims have been outlined on a national scale by Historic England’s Research Strategy for (HERSP: Last 2010) and at a regional scale by the South West Archaeological Research Framework (SWARF: Webster 2008; Grove and Croft 2012). These emphasise the potential of scientific techniques (SWARF, Grove and Croft 2012: 8, 13), in particular a general need for scientifically based chronologies and the application of novel techniques for the examination of material culture of different types and ages (HERSP, Critical Priority 2). The high resolution dating and analysis of economic assemblages and environmental deposits is also regarded as a priority (SWARF Research Aim 23b, Grove and Croft 2012, 13, 29). These research strategies are referred to below in relation to period-specific aims and objectives. Overall, the excavations offer a significant opportunity to examine an extended timeframe of hilltop occupation from at least the Early Neolithic to the Romano- British periods. This provides a foundation centred upon the importance of the hill, situated within its prominent locale overlooking the Somerset Levels, and as a place for which its historic significance may be regarded as a reference point for the activities taking place there. Importantly, this provides not only unparalleled information on the onset and development of the hillfort, but the size and significance of this hillfort means it will make a substantial contribution to a general understanding of the Iron Age in Britain. Area excavations of hillfort interiors are today very rare as most are now designated heritage assets (Scheduled Ancient Monuments) and, as such, are protected from any significant development or damage. There have been, therefore, very limited opportunities to explore these important monuments. Balksbury, Cadbury Castle, , Maiden Castle and Winklebury can claim to have been extensively excavated but these excavations occurred some time ago and recent work at and Caerau has been more limited.

10

Ultimately, the site will be placed in the context of the surrounding prehistoric landscape. A key to the understanding of this landscape is a consideration of the relationship between the low lying wetlands of the Somerset Levels and the upland landscapes of south Somerset. An important re-evaluation of the Bronze Age around the Severn Estuary has provided considerable insight to the distribution and extent of finds spots, settlements and field systems over an area of c. 7600 sq km almost immediately north of Ham Hill (Bell 2013), and although Ham Hill itself was unfortunately not included within this assessment, it provides a useful regional comparison. Moreover, a considerable body of research exists for the understanding of the wetlands, for which a critical evaluation of the Iron Age settlements at Glastonbury and Meare is integral (Coles 1987; Coles and Minnit 1995). The excavations at the hillfort of South Cadbury (Barrett et al. 2000) provide a detailed comparison from a complex and well preserved hillfort. The recent South Cadbury Environs project (Tabor 2008) provides a contextual analysis of a landscape comparable to that around Ham Hill. Analysis of the existing HER and recent development-related excavations will, together with the critical examination of the published reports, provide the basis for the detailed consideration of the landscape setting of the hillfort of Ham Hill. In order to realise the following broad aims, and to maximise the academic value of the project, amongst the main objectives of the fieldwork programme will be: 1. A rigorous programme of scientific, stratigraphic and typological dating – particularly allowing for cross-referencing of chronological identifiers between the rampart trenches and open area investigations – that will provide a robust framework for examining the sequence of activity on the hill top and phasing the principal features excavated and visible on the geophysical survey. 2. A detailed programme of scientific analyses to maximise knowledge into artefact typologies, production, function and exchange. 3. Examination of horizontal and vertical spatial patterning of pit clusters and of depositional activities within the enclosure ditch, taking into account areas of ceremonial, mortuary and domestic activity, agriculture, crop processing and storage, etc. This will be examined via the archaeological, artefactual, ecofactual and geoarchaeological record. 4. A detailed examination of the spatial relationship of the activities identified and examined that incorporates information from the previous excavations and the topographic and geophysical surveys to give a considered understanding of the spatial organisation of the hillfort interior. 5. A consideration of the relationship of the hillfort to its surrounding local and regional landscape based on existing databases and reports.

2.1 Neolithic to Bronze Age The Neolithic pits within the hillfort’s interior, covering the Early and Middle phases of this period, provide a resource that has not previously been possible to examine at Ham Hill. The number of leaf shaped arrowheads and stone axes in the museum

11 collections from Ham Hill has signalled to its special interest within Neolithic communities, but apart from petrological analyses of 12 of stone axes (with two also from Stoke-sub-Hamdon, Evens et al. 1962), their lack of secure context has restricted discussion of this period. The amount of worked flint of Neolithic date found from each of the investigation areas further points to the intensive use of the hill at this time. At South Cadbury, 16km to the northeast, a number of Neolithic features, mainly pits, were located within its interior, and under land surfaces sealed beneath the later ramparts (Alcock 1972; Barrett et al. 2000: 47, 53-4). The hill’s western slope overlooked a group of four Early Neolithic pits at Milsom’s Corner (Tabor 2002: 34). As at Ham Hill there was no evidence for an enclosure. The finds at Ham Hill have added significance by the recent publication of contemporary ceremonial earthworks in the river valley linking East Lambrook and , 4km northwest of Ham Hill (Mudd and Brett 2013). This complex of prehistoric ditched features included a small causewayed enclosure and a later Neolithic ‘long’ enclosure containing Early and Middle Neolithic ceramics. The analysis included thin section profiles and an array of radiocarbon determinations; combined with the programme currently underway by Richard Tabor for the Milsom’s Corner assemblage, this presents an opportunity to secure a tight sequence for Early and Middle Neolithic occupation and its material typologies in this part of south Somerset. This addresses a number of local and national research aims, including (1) refined dating of the early Neolithic (SWARF Research Aim 16d, Grove and Croft 2012: 24), and (2) improved and expanded petrology and pottery studies (SWARF Research Aim 49a, Grove and Croft 2012, 31, 33, and HERSP Research Theme PR3.18, Last 2010). Combined with a chronological baseline for the artefact studies, the detailed collection of surface finds and distributional analysis will further raise ‘awareness of the significance of “sites without structures” through improved understanding of ephemeral sites, especially lithic scatters’ (Grove and Croft 2012, 14). The Bronze Age field system is one of the most extensively exposed and examined in the southwest, with Hillfarrance (Gent and Reed 2007) and recent investigation at Yeovil (Wessex Archaeology 2010, 2015) being obvious comparisons in terms of scale. Whilst field systems on the south coast at Bestwall Quarry have been dated to the Early Bronze Age with their disuse occurring at least by the start of the Middle Bronze Age (Ladle and Woodward 2009), the phasing of the ditches at Ham Hill has not yet been chronologically positioned with confidence. An Early Bronze Age date seems possible on the basis of the preliminary pottery assessment, but doubt is raised by the ditch-like segments cut and sealed beneath the ramparts and which have been dated to the Late Bronze Age c. 800 BC. The investigation of the origins and purpose of land division is patchy in the Southwest, and forms a research component recognised in HERSP (Theme PR1.7, Last 2010), in conjunction with the intensification of agriculture in the Bronze and Iron Ages in SWARF (Research Aims 21a and 40, Grove and Croft 2012, 28, 35). Further analysis of the pottery and the surface material distributions is essential to clarify the sequence. The presence of later Bronze Age metalworking has been recognised in the museum collections that contain bronze objects as well as moulds (Jockenhövel 1980; Needham et al. 1988). From the 2011-13 investigations, scientific analysis of the Late

12

Bronze Age metalwork, along with slag and crucible traces, will significantly widen understanding of the regional material culture for this period, thereby addressing a core Research Aim for SWARF (No.14, Grove and Croft 2012, 21).

2.2 Iron Age to Roman Ham Hill is classified as a developed hillfort (Cunliffe 1982) because of the size of the ramparts, the presence of multivalation and the large area enclosed. It is therefore comparable with other developed hillforts, particularly the large hillforts at Cadbury Castle (Barrett et al. 2000), Hod Hill (Richmond 1968; Stewart 2008) and Maiden Castle (Sharples 1991), which lie in south Somerset and adjacent areas of Dorset. All three of these hillforts have been excavated and geophysical surveys provide an impression of the overall patterns of occupation. The geophysical surveys of Cadbury Castle and Maiden Castle indicate they were densely occupied. The interior appears to be covered in pits and houses, which blur into each other and are only given pattern by the presence of roads transecting the interior. The survey of Hod Hill is different and reveals an interior packed with houses arranged along roads emanating from the entrance (Stewart 2008). Excavations at Maiden Castle and Cadbury Castle confirm that both hillforts were densely occupied. The interiors are covered with pits, post-hole structures and houses, and at Cadbury Castle stratified occupation spreads survive on the surface in the interior of the hillfort. Ham Hill seems to be very different to the neighbouring, developed hillforts in having a relatively low density of occupation per hectare, but owing to its sheer size it is likely that it held a potentially comparable inhabitant population. Moreover, the complex pattern of internal enclosure at Ham Hill is difficult to parallel on other hillforts. Most of our understanding of developed hillforts is based on the examples to the east on the chalk downlands of Wessex. Greater chronological refinement of the feature and deposit sequence at Ham Hill will build on the work at South Cadbury to create a regionally specific interpretation of the development of these important monuments; in so doing, this will serve to address HERSP Research Theme PR3.23 (Last 2010, characterizing the size and social structure of human groups, and explaining later prehistoric social and political change). The accurate dating of all these features will also provide a chronology that should aid a more detailed interpretation of the geophysical survey. Scientific dating for the Iron Age has been recognised as a core area in need of further research (SWARF Research Aims 3k and 16f, Webster 2008, 237; Grove and Croft 2012, 25), and this has implications for the refinement of regional artefact sequences (HERSP Research Theme PR3.19: Prehistoric material culture in context, Last 2010) and the clarification of regional variation between assemblages (HERSP Research Theme PR1.6: Regional Diversity in prehistory, Last 2010). In particular, this is an essential outcome envisaged for analysis of the project’s later prehistoric pottery in conjunction with extensive dating of the intact rampart sequence in Trench 2. Building upon the chronology for ceramics developed at South Cadbury (Barrett et al. 2001) and the sample of Ham Hill’s archived Early Iron Age corpus (Morris 1988a), there is an opportunity to understand ceramic developments from

13 the Late Bronze Age, in particular the development and use of South West Decorated Wares (e.g. Peacock 1969; Blackmore et al. 1979), an understanding of which remains only limited. An accurate date for the introduction of Durotrigian Wares from Dorset is also a key priority in understanding the regional ceramic sequence and has considerable implications for visualising transformations in Late Iron Age and Early Roman society. Recent work on the ceramic sequence in Cornwall (Nowakowski and Quinnell 2011) provides an important regional context for an understanding of the Ham Hill sequence and address broad research questions into chronologies for poorly dated periods (HERSP Research Theme PR4.25: Key transitions in prehistory, Last 2010). Scientific analysis of the material assemblage will aim to expand understanding of the use and social significance of particular finds categories, whilst serving to integrate the finds assemblage into a more coherent narrative both for Ham Hill and the Iron Age in general. Analysis of encrusted and fatty residues within the ceramic assemblage will clarify if distinction exists in the use of different pottery forms, and will provide a baseline for cross-reference with the archaeobotanical and faunal data, identifying the use of dairy products or by-products such as oils from black mustard seed (HERSP Research Theme PR3.22: Understanding food preparation and consumption practices; food processing and preservation, Last 2010). The unusual character of some of the archaeobotanical remains, namely the abundance of the black mustard seed, is quite different to that normally present on other Iron Age settlements, and the significance of these deposits is key to understanding the agricultural economy of the southwest region (SWARF Research Aim 20, Webster 2008, 244). Petrographic thin section of ceramics and worked stone (e.g. querns) as well as element analysis (pXRF) of items of metalwork and metalworking (e.g. slag) will further enhance an understanding of exchange networks and resourcing (SWARF Research Aim 1f, Webster 2008, 235), and the mobility of the human and faunal population will be examined via bone isotopic signatures (HERSP Research Theme PR6.2, Human interactions with the environment in prehistory, Last 2010). The human remains at Ham Hill are illustrative of the variety of practices enacted upon bodies, either as a part of protracted mortuary rites or in a symbolic or violent capacity. The contexts from which the remains have been recovered provide the opportunity to examine this behavioural range in some detail; this includes cutting and disarticulation of body elements in the rampart, formal pit burial and deposition of disarticulated elements into pits, and the display of bodies – some with clear evidence for major trauma – upon the enclosure’s inner bank prior to their deposition with the bank material into the enclosing ditch. This will address research themes into warfare and conflict (HERSP Theme PR3.20, Last 2010) and the role of the dead (HERSP Theme PR3.21, Last 2010), as well as addressing the geographic position of Ham Hill upon the border between and Durotrigia and the competition between these groups as expressed in material form. The creation of the Roman administrative structures in the region are also subjects that can be addressed through the material recovered (SWARF research Aim 10, Grove and Croft 2012, 19).

14

Many of these aims will be greatly enhanced by cross-referencing the information accrued from the two excavation targets: the open area and the rampart investigations. The different spatial circumstances that these exhibit – upstanding vertical stratigraphy and open plan horizontal relationships – will facilitate chronological definition to a degree not normally possible. This may also provide a means to parallel key changes in the architectural character of each area, such as the construction and decommission of the interior’s enclosure with the enlargement of the rampart and the blocking of one of its (newly discovered) entrances. Moreover, the artefact, agricultural and environmental assemblages are substantial and will enable a much more sophisticated analysis of the social and economic life of the region. This will particularly be the case when these are fully integrated with the data from the previous excavations, and the integration of unpublished or under- studied data will address SWARF Research Aims 11 and 13 (Grove and Croft 2012, 37; Webster 2008, 242) that are critical priorities for archaeology in the southwest.

3. BUSINESS CASE The research themes outlined above accord with several of those identified as key in Historic England’s Research Strategy for Prehistory (HERSP: Last 2010) and South West Archaeological Research Framework (SWARF: Webster 2008; Grove and Croft 2012). Foremost amongst these is the expansion of knowledge of the regional agricultural economy (SWARF Research Aim 20; Webster 2008, 244) and the publication of unpublished excavations (ibid., 241). Equally, as the artefact, agricultural and environmental assemblages recovered are substantial, this will enable sophisticated analysis of the social and economic life of the region, particularly when these are integrated with the data from the previous excavations and local museum collections (SWARF Research Aim 17; ibid., 242; see also 240). Further analysis of the ceramic assemblage will provide not only invaluable chronological information, but give a good indication of the exchange networks (SWARF Research Aim 1 (f), ibid., 235). Finally, as the understanding of developed hillforts is largely based on Wessex chalk downland examples, the publication will significantly contribute to providing an alternative regionally specific interpretation of the development of these important monuments (SWARF Research Aim 3k; ibid., 237). These many public and research benefits will only be enabled by the completion of the project’s research and publication commitments, which is dependent upon the continuation of the mitigation-funding provided by the developer in accordance with the requirements of development control.

4. DISSEMINATION AND ARCHIVE PUBLICATION Extended summaries of the annual fieldwork seasons have been published in three journal articles (Slater 2011; Brittain et al. 2013, 2015b) and across popular national media, including British Archaeology (Apr, 2012; Sharples et al. 2012) and Natural Stone Specialist (Oct, 2013), with numerous features in broadsheet articles and on a number of televised programmes.

15

4.1 Monograph The results of the excavations at Ham Hill Quarry and the allied research work need to be integrated in the publication of a substantial monograph on the archaeology of Ham Hill. The volume will involve a detailed reconsideration of the hilltop in total and a minimum of three thematic research topics should lie at its heart: 1. The later prehistoric and Roman settlement context of the Somerset and Dorset border; 2. The development of the site from early prehistory through to the establishment of the quarries; including the project’s contribution to regional material chronologies, and the historical legacy of early settlement to later occupation; 3. The emergence and changing role of hillforts in southern Britain.

The excavations will be published in a Cambridge Archaeological Unit/University of Cardiff monograph (Product 11; Appendix 7.3), comprising c. 450 pages, c. 50 photographs, over 200 pages of illustrations. The structure of the book will be outlined as: Chapter Chapter heading Detail Background with a discussion of Ham Hill stone 1 INTRODUCTION that considers the decision to give planning consent 2 HISTORY OF RESEARCH Overview of published and unpublished excavation and material analysis of the Ham Hill 2.1 General history of research site and assemblages, with overview of Ham Hill’s place in broader studies of British prehistory Outline of the origins, nature and resource potential of the various museum collections, 2.2 Museum collections focusing upon the Museum of Somerset in Taunton; previous attempts to access and synthesise Ham Hill’s archaeology METHODOLOGICAL Overview of the project’s intensive fieldwork 3 strategy and integrative approach to broader BACKGROUND research investigations 4 SITE SETTING 4.1 Topography Local landscape configuration 4.2 Other sites Broader regional context and landscape situation The soil depositional history and preservational context of the hillfort, with an overview of the 4.3 Environment and soils site’s environmental data and ecological sequence Edited detailed summaries of the major 5 THE SITE topographic and geophysical surveys prior to and during the project Outlining the periods’ archaeology from all 5.1 RCHME topographic survey excavated areas, with specialist reports 5.2 Geophysics

16

Chapter Chapter heading Detail NEOLITHIC TO MIDDLE Outlining the periods’ archaeology from all 6 BRONZE AGE excavated areas, with specialist reports Overview of the context and current THE NORTH ‘SPUR’: ST understanding of Gray’s 1920s excavations, 7 GEORGE GRAY’S LEGACY utilising published works and postgraduate research into Gray’s archives 8 RAMPART EXCAVATIONS Trenches 1-4: Structure and 8.1 The results of the Late Bronze Age to Romano- sequence British data 8.2 Specialist reports 8.3 Sequence overview OPEN AREA 9 EXCAVATIONS Late Bronze Age-Early Iron 9.1 Age The results of the Late Bronze Age to Romano- British data 9.2 Middle to Late Iron Age 9.3 Romano-British 9.4 Specialist reports Interpretative discussion considering the wider FINAL DISCUSSION & implications of the project that looks at the 10 nature of hilltop and hillfort studies in Britain SPECIALIST OVERVIEWS and the Continent and examines the regional and national role of Ham Hill

4.2 Archives On the completion of the publication programme, the project’s written, drawn and computer archives (recording sheets, indices, plans/sections, photographs, etc.) and finds (and informative environmental flots and residues) will be prepared for submission to Somerset County Council Museums Service; this will be undertaken in full accordance with the UKIC (1990) Guidelines for the Preparation of Excavation Archives for Long-term Storage. Any artefactual discard policy will be formally agreed with the curators and duly logged. A digital archive containing full details of the contextual record and environmental and artefactual remains will be lodged with ADS.

4.3 Public Outreach The success of the public component integral to the fieldwork stages of the project is outlined by the project’s outreach officer, Hayley Roberts, in the annual excavation reports. Public involvement is not anticipated for the analysis and publication programme, but the dissemination of the final monograph product and digital archive will provide direct access to the project’s results. In the meantime, a number of public presentations are forecast for 2016 and 2017.

17

5. RESOURCES AND PROGRAMMING 5.1 Project Team Project Managers/Executives – Niall Sharples (U. of Cardiff) Christopher Evans (CAU) Project Officer – Marcus Brittain (CAU) Finds Officer – Justin Wiles (CAU) Soil Profiles – Charles French (U. of Cambridge) Pollen – Rob Scaife (U. of Southampton) Snails – Michael Allen (Freelance) Archaeobotanical Remains – Rachel Ballantyne (U. of Cambridge) Charcoal – Dana Challinor (Freelance) Faunal Remains – Clare Randall (Freelance) & Vida Rajkovača (CAU) Worked Bone &Antler – Ian Riddler (Freelance) Human Osteologist – Natasha Dodwell (CAU) Strontium & Oxygen Isotope – Richard Madgwick (U. of Cardiff) Flint and Chert – Lawrence Billington (CAU) Pottery Specialists – Henrietta Quinnell (Neolithic & EBA; Freelance) & Lisa Brown (LBA & Iron Age; Wessex Archaeology) Metalwork – Andrew Fitzpatrick (U. of Leicester) & Grahame Appleby (CAU) Worked Stone & Ancient – Simon Timberlake (CAU) Glass – Vicki Herring (CAU) Scientific Dating – Derek Hamilton (SUERC) Graphics Officer – Andrew Hall (CAU) Computing Officer – Jane Matthews (CAU) Editor – Sam Lucy (CAU)

5.2 Management Responsibilities The Project Managers/Executives are responsible for the overall direction of the project, and are responsible for all high-level decision-making. The Project Supervisor will be responsible for day-to-day running of the project and for the co- ordination of specialists. Communication between the Project Managers/Executives and the Project Supervisor will be continuous and ongoing; the Project Supervisor will ensure that, where necessary, liaison between specialists is conducted either remotely or in person. The project will be under continuous review by the Project Managers, who, in conjunction with the Curator, holds the authority to approve changes in Project Design, timetable and other changes.

5.3 Products, Tasks and Timetable The product outlined in Section 4.1 is a 450 page volume, including c. 50 photographs, c. 200 pages of illustrations. It is anticipated that the project’s final publication will be completed in 2017.

18

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adkins, L. and Adkins, R. 1992. Excavations at Ham Hill 1991. Somerset Archaeology and Natural History 135, 89-94. Adkins, L. and Adkins, R. unpublished. Ham Hill, Somerset. Project synopsis. Langport, Somerset. Alcock, L. 1972. “By South Cadbury, is that Camelot. . . ” Excavations at Cadbury Castle 1966–70. London: Thames and Hudson. Allen, M. 2010. Palaeo-environmental and Geoarchaeology. In N. Sharples and C. Evans, Project design – Ham Hill, Somerset (SAM No. 100), pp.24-25. Avery, B.W. and C.L. Bascomb 1974. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods. Soil Survey Technical Monograph No. 6. Harpenden: Soil Survey of England and Wales. Barrett, J., Freeman, P.W.M., and A. Woodward 2000. Cadbury Castle Somerset. The later prehistoric and early historic archaeology. (English Heritage Archaeological Report 20) London: English Heritage. Beattie, I.H. and W.J. Phythian-Adams 1913. A Romano-British house near Bedmore Barn, Ham Hill. Journal of Roman Studies 3, 127-133. Bedwin, O. 1991. Asheldham Camp – an early Iron Age hillfort: the 1985 excavations. Essex Archaeology and History 22, 13–37. Bell, M. 2013. The Bronze Age in the Severn Estuary. (CBA Research Report 172) York: Council for British Archaeology. Blackmore, C., Braithwaite, M. and I. Hodder 1979. Social and cultural patterning in the late Iron Age in Southern England, in Burnham, B. and Kingsbury, J. (eds.), Space, Hierarchy and Society. (BAR International Series 59). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, pp. 93-111. Bridges, E.M. 1978. World Soils (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brittain, M., Sharples, N. and C. Evans. 2015b. Excavations at Ham Hill, Stoke sub Hamdon, 2011-2013: Post-Excavation Assessment. Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report no.1318. Brittain, M., Sharples, N. and C. Evans. 2015b. Excavations at Ham Hill, Stoke sub Hamdon, 2013. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society. 157, 131-134. Brittain, M., Sharples, N. and C. Evans 2014. Excavations at Ham Hill, Somerset (2013). Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report no. 1247. Brittain, M., Evans, C. and N. Sharples 2013a. Excavations at Ham Hill, Stoke-sub- Hamdon. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society. 156, 160- 163. Brittain, M., Evans, C. and N. Sharples 2013b. Excavations at Ham Hill, Somerset (2012). Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report no.1159

21

Bullock, P., Fedoroff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G. and T. Tursina 1985. Handbook for Soil Thin Section Description. Wolverhampton: Waine Research. Canti, M.G. 1997. An investigation of microscopic calcareous spherulites from herbivore dungs. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 219-231. Canti, M.G. 2003. Aspects of the chemical and microscopic characteristics of plant ashes found in archaeological soils. Catena 54, 339-361. Clapham, A.J. and Stevens C.J. 2008. The Charred Plant Remains. In Ellis, C. and A.B. Powell (eds.) An Iron Age Settlement outside Battlesbury Hillfort, Warminster, and sites along the Southern Range Road (Wessex Archaeology Report 22). Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology and Defence Estates, pp.93–102. Cook, S.F. and R.F. Heizer 1965. Studies on the Chemical Analysis of Archaeological Sites. Berkeley: University of California Press. Courty, M-A., Goldberg, P. and R.I. Macphail 1989. Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Curwen, E.C. 1937. Querns. Antiquity 11, 133-151. de Moulins, D. 1995. Charred plant remains. In Wainwright, G.J. and S.M. Davies (eds.) Balksbury Camp, , Excavations 1973 and 1981 (English Heritage Archaeological Report 4). London: English Heritage, pp.87–92. Durand, N., Curtis Monger, H. and Canti, M.G. 2010. Calcium carbonate features. In Stoops, G., Marcelino, V. and Mees, F. (eds.) Interpretation of Micromorphological features of Soils and Regoliths. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 149-194. Durman, R. 2006. Ham Hill: Portrait of a building stone. Reading: Spire Books. Ellison, A. and T. Pearson 1977. Ham Hill 1975: a watching brief. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 121, 97-100. Evens, E.D., Grinsell, L.V., Piggott, S. and F. Wallis 1962. Fourth report of the Sub- Committee of the South-Western Group of Museums and Art Galleries on the Petrological Identification of Stone Axes. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28, 209- 266. French, C. 2004. Evaluation survey and excavation at Wandlebury Ringwork, Cambridgeshire, 1994–7. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 93, 15–66. French, C. 2003. Geoarchaeology in Action: Studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution. London: Routledge. Fuller, D.Q and C.J. Stevens 2009. Agriculture and the development of complex societies: An archaeobotanical agenda. In A.S. Fairbairn and E. Weiss (eds.) From Foragers to Farmers: Papers in honour of Gordon C. Hillman. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.37–57. Garrow, D., Gosden, C., Hill, J.D., and C. Bronk Ramsey 2009. Dating Celtic art: a major radiocarbon dating programme of Iron Age and early Roman metalwork. Archaeological Journal 166: 79-123.

22

Geophysical Surveys of Bradford. 1992. Document on Geophysical Survey at Ham Hill. Unpublished report 92/101. Geophysical Surveys of Bradford. 2001. Hamdon Hill: Geophysical survey. Unpublished report 2001/35. Gent, T. and S. Reed 2007. A Bronze Age field and figure from Hillfarrance. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 150: 1-38. Gerrard, E.H. 1900 [1633]. The Particular Description of the County of Somerset. London: Harrison and Bonn. Gray, H. St. G. 1902. The “Walter Collection” in Taunton Castle Museum. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 48, 24-53. Gray, H. St. G. 1910. Notes on archaeological remains found on Ham Hill, Somerset. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 56, 50-61. Gray, H. St. G. 1924. Excavations at Ham Hill, South Somerset. Part I. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 70, 104-116. Gray, H. St. G. 1925. Excavations at Ham Hill, South Somerset. Part II. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 71, 57-76. Gray, H. St. G. 1926. Excavations at Ham Hill, South Somerset. Part III. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 72, 55-68. Gray, H. St. G. 1927. Kingsdown Camp, Somerset 1927. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 73(2), 130-32. Gray, H. St. G. 1929. Excavations at Ham Hill, 1929. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, 75, 99-100. Gray, H. St. G. 1930. Excavations at Kingsdown Camp, Mells, Somerset, 1927-9. Archaeologia 80, 59-98. Grove, J. and B. Croft 2012. The Archaeology of . South West Archaeological research Framework Research Strategy 2012-2017. Taunton: Somerset County Council. Grupe, G. and S. Hummel 1991. Trace element studies on experimentally cremated bone I. Alteration of the chemical composition at high temperatures. Journal of Archaeological Science 18, 177-186. Hambleton, E. 2008. Review of Middle Bronze Age-Late Iron Age Faunal Assemblages from Southern Britain. English Heritage, Research Department Report Series No.71-2008. Hamilton, D. 2010. The Use of Radiocarbon and Bayesian Modelling to (re)write Later Iron Age Settlement Histories in East-Central Britain. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leicester. Hodgson, J.M., 1976. Soil Survey Field Handbook. Harpenden, Soil Survey Technical Monograph 5.

23

Jay, M., Haselgrove, C., Hamilton, D., Hill, J.D., and J. Dent 2012. Chariots and context: new radiocarbon dates and the chronology of Iron Age burials and brooches in East Yorkshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31: 161-189. Jefferson Consulting Limited 2012. Hamdon Hill, Somerset. The extent of the Western limits of Hamdon Hill to identify areas of quarrying activity since 1887. Unpublished report, July 2012. Jockenhövel, A. 1980. Tüllenmesser von der Britischen Inseln. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 10, 233-237. Jones, M.K. 1984. The plant remains. In B. Cunliffe (ed.) Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire 2, The Excavations, 1969–78, The Finds (CBA Research Report 52). London: Council for British Archaeology, pp.483–95. Jones, M.K. and Nye, S. 1991. The plant remains. In B.W. Cunliffe (ed.) Danebury: An IronAge Hillfort in Hampshire, Volume 5 The excavations 1979-1988: the finds. (CBA Research Report 73) London: CBA, pp.439–446. Jones, S. and Randall, C.E. 2010. Death, destruction and the end of an era: the end of the Iron Age at Cadbury Castle, Somerset. In Sterry, M., Tullett, A., and N. Ray (eds) In search of the Iron Age. Leicester University Press, pp.165-184. Kilbride-Jones, H. E. 1937-38. Glass armlets in Britain, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 72, 366-95. Knusel, C.J. and A.K. Outram 2004. Fragmentation: The Zonation Method Applied to Fragmented Human Remains from Archaeological and Forensic Contexts. Environmental Archaeology 9(1), 85-98. Kuhn, P., Aguilar, J. and R. Miedema 2010. Textural pedofeatures and related horizons. In Stoops, G., Marcelino, V. and Mees, F. (eds.) Interpretation of Micromorphological features of Soils and Regoliths. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 217-250. Ladle, L. and A. Woodward 2009. Excavations at Bestwall Quarry, Wareham 1992-2005. Volume 1: The Prehistoric Landscape. (Dorset Natural History and Archaeology Society Monograph Series 19) Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and Archaeology Society. Last, J. 2010. Research Strategy for Prehistory. Consultation Draft June 2010. English Heritage Thematic Research Strategies. Leach, P. 2009. Prehistoric ritual landscapes and other remains at Field Farm, Shepton Mallett. Proceedings of the Somerset Natural History and Archaeological Society 152, 11-68. Leivers, M., Chisham, C., Knight, S., and C. Stevens 2006. Excavation at Ham Hill Quarry, Hamdon Hill, Montacute 2002. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 150, 39-62. Levitan, B., 1990. The vertebrate remains. In M. Bell, Brean Down excavations 1983- 1987. English Heritage: London, pp.220-241. Limbrey, S. 1975. Soil Science and Archaeology. London: Academic Press.

24

Lindbo, D.L., Stolt, M.H. and M.J. Vepraskas 2010. Redoximorphic features. In Stoops, G., Marcelino, V. and Mees, F. (eds.) Interpretation of Micromorphological features of Soils and Regoliths. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 129-147. Linford, N., Linford, P., Payne, A., Hardwick, I and Z. Edwards 2014. Ham Hill, Stoke sub Hamdon, Somerset. Report on Geophysical Surveys, November 2013. (Research Report Series no.67-2014). English Heritage. Maltby, M., 1985. The animal bones. In P.J. Fasham, The prehistoric settlement at Winnall Down, Winchester. (Hampshire Field Club Monograph 2) M3 Archaeological Rescue Committee Report 8, pp.97-112. McCobb, L.M.E., Briggs, D.E.G., Carruthers, W.J. and Evershed, R.P. 2003. Phosphatisation of seeds and roots in a Late Bronze Age deposit at Potterne, Wiltshire, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 1269–81. McKinley, J.I. 1999. Excavations at Ham Hill, Montacute, Somerset 1994 and 1998. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 142, 77-137. McKinley, J.I. 1995. Excavations at Ham Hill, Montacute, Somerset 1994. Unpublished Wessex Archaeology Report. Report Reference 37602c. McKinley J.I. 2004. Compiling a skeletal inventory: disarticulated and co-mingled remains. In Brickley, M. and J.I. Mckinley (eds.) Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains. IFA Paper No. 7, pp.14-17. Minnit, S. 1982. Farmers and field monuments 4000 – 2000 BC. In M. Aston and I. Burrows (eds) The Archaeology of Somerset. Taunton: Somerset County Council, pp.23- 28. Moore, T.R. and D. Denton 1988. The role of soils in the interpretation of archaeological sites in Northern Quebec. In Bintliff, J.L., Davidson, D.A. and E.G. Grant (eds.) Conceptual Issues in Environmental Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 25-37. Morris, E.L. 1988a. Later prehistoric pottery from Ham Hill. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 131, 27-47. Morris, E.L. 1988b. The Iron Age occupation at Dibble's Farm, Christon. Proceedings of the Somerset Natural History and Archaeological Society 132, 23-81. Murphy, C.P. 1986. Thin section preparation of soils and sediments. Berkhamsted: AB Academic. Needham, S., Cowell, M. and H. Hoard 1988. A technological study of the Ham Hill stone moulds. Proceedings of the Somerset Natural History and Archaeological Society. 132, 15-21. Nowakowski, J. and H. Quinnell 2011. , Cornwall: The importance of CK Croft Andrew’s 1939 excavations for prehistoric and Roman Cornwall. . Oonk, S., Slomp, C.P. and D.J. Huisman 2009. Geochemistry as an aid to archaeological prospection and site interpretation: Current issues and research directions. Archaeological Prospection 16, 35-51.

25

Payne, A., Linford, N. and O. Linford 2012. Ham Hill, Stoke sub Hamdon, Somerset. Report on Geophysical Surveys, March, May and December 2011. (Research Report Series no.22-2012) English Heritage. Peacock, D. 1969. A contribution to the study of Glastonbury ware from south- western Britain. The Antiquaries Journal 49, 41-61. Pointer, S. 2012. Fifty Shades of Gray: An assessment of the St George Gray Archive, Museum of Somerset. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Cardiff. Randall, C.E. 2010a. Livestock and landscape: the exploitation of animals in the south west of Britain in later prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Bournemouth University. Randall, C.E. 2010b. More Ritual Rubbish? Exploring the taphonomic history, context formation processes and ‘specialness’ of deposits including human and animal bone in Iron Age pits. In Maltby, M. and J. Morris (eds) Social Environmental Archaeology; Integrated Studies of Ritual. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2077, pp.83-102. Randall, C.E. forthcoming. The animal bone. In R. Tabor, A Bronze Age enclosure and Iron Age boundaries and post-built structures at Newtown Park, Langport. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society. Randall, C.E. in preparation a. Animals. In R. Tabor and C.E. Randall, Pits on the hill: the Earlier Neolithic occupation at Cadbury Castle, Somerset. Randall, C.E. in preparation b. The animals. In Randall, C.E. and R. Tabor, A new phase: newly identified Middle Bronze Age occupation at Cadbury Castle, Somerset. Randall, C.E. in preparation c. The Animals. In Ladle, L., and C.E., Randall, Excavations at Football Field, Worth Matravers, Dorset: Prehistoric and Romano-British settlement and a Post-Roman cemetery. Natural History and Archaeology Society Monograph. Randall, C.E. in preparation d. The faunal remains. In C.E. Randall, Extending the Iron Age at Hog Cliff Hill: Excavations at Grimstone . Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. Richmond, I. 1968. Hod Hill Volume 2: Excavations carried out between 1951 and 1958 for the Trustees of the British Museum. London: British Museum. Rowan, E. 2012. Analysis of coprolite from an Iron Age site at Barleycroft Farm, Plant Site, Cambridgeshire. Report for Cambridge Archaeological Unit. Sharples, N. 1991. Maiden Castle: Excavations and Field Survey 1985-86. London: English Heritage (Archaeological Report 19). Sharples, N. and C. Evans 2010. Project design – Ham Hill, Somerset (SAM No. 100). Unpublished document. Sharples, N., Evans, C., Slater, A., Payne, A., Linford, P. and N. Linford 2012. Ham and Mustard. British Archaeology 123, 35-39.

26

Slater, A. 2011. Ham Hill Archaeology 2011-2014: A Brief introduction to the Project and Directors First Findings. Chronicle: Journal of The Yeovil Archaeological and Local History Society. 10(1), 4-10. Slater, A., Brittain, M., Evans, C. and N. Sharples 2012. Excavations at Ham Hill, Somerset (2011). Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report no.1101. Somerset County Council Museum Service. 1997. The Ham hill project design. Unpublished report. Stevens, R., Lightfoot, E., Hamilton, J., Cunliffe, B. and R. Hedges 2010. Stable isotope investigations of the Danebury hillfort pit burials. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29(4), 407-428. Stewart, D.A. 2008. Hod Hill: ‘Too much wasted by cultivation for definite survey’. Proceedings Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 129, 97-103. Stoops, G. 2003. Guidelines for Analysis and Description of Soil and Regolith Thin Sections. Madison. Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Stoops, G., Marcelino, V. and F. Mees (eds.) 2010. Interpretation of Micromorphological Features of Soils and Regoliths. Amsterdam: Elsevier. van der Veen, M. 1999. The economic value of chaff and straw in arid and temperate zones. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8, 211–24. Walter, R.H. 1912. Hamdon or Ham Hill, S. Somerset: Notes on its Early Occupation – and afterwards. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 68, 45-52. Walter, R. Hensleigh 1907. Hamdon or Ham Hill: Discovery of a Roman villa. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 53, 179-182. Watts, S. 2014. The Life and Death of Querns. The deposition and use-contexts of querns in South-Western England from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. (Southampton Monographs in Archaeology New Series no.3) Southampton: The Highfield Press. Webster, C.J. (ed), 2008 The Archaeology of South West England; South West Archaeological Research Framework – resource assessment and research agenda. Taunton: Somerset County Council. Wedephol, K.H. (ed.) 1969. Handbook of Geochemistry. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Wessex Archaeology 2010. Lyde Road, Yeovil, Somerset. Interim Post-excavation Assessment Report. Wessex Archaeology Report no. 71481.03. Wessex Archaeology 2015. Lyde Road, Yeovil, Somerset. Archaeological Excavation Interim Report. Wessex Archaeology Report no. 71489.04. Wilson, C.A., Davidson, D.A. and M.S. Cresser 2005. An evaluation of multi-element analysis of historic soil contamination to differentiate space use and former function in and around abandoned farms. The Holocene 15, 1094-99. Wilson, C.A., Cresser, M.S. and D.A. Davidson 2008. Multi-element soil analysis: an assessment of its potential as an aid to archaeological interpretation. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 412-24.

27

7. APPENDICES

7.1 Project Specialists’ Method Statements

7.1.1 Soil Profiles – Charly French

Current Stage of Assessment Between the better preserved soils under the ramparts and the less well preserved buried soils found in the interior of the later Iron Age enclosure, it is possible to suggest that there was once a well-developed, calcareous brown earth soil (Avery 1978) present in this landscape prior to the Iron Age. This former soil exhibited some evidence of organised clay structures indicative of the base of a former clay-enriched and weathered Bw horizon of a brown earth. Subsequently at some point this soil was subject to considerable soil surface disturbance, leading to some illuviation and then irregular depletion of fines (silt and clay) throughout the profile (Kuhn et al. 2010). There is also the strong influence of the formation of secondary oxides and hydroxides of iron, probably also associated with disturbance and oxidation processes (Lindbo et al. 2010). These repeatedly observed soil processes imply that the earlier Holocene soil had already been cleared and much disturbed at some time prior to the later prehistoric use of this hill-top. Throughout there are numerous well-developed turf lines present, both beneath the rampart and within the make-up of the rampart sections. This suggests that there was widespread and local availability of turf on the hill-top that was available for construction purposes. The turf lines within the rubble of the ramparts may well have added a degree of stability, although they could also conceivably represent stop/start episodes measuring in terms of a few years. The soil profile in the interior of Ham Hill has continued to be affected by more recent agricultural disturbance and oxidation processes, making it very difficult to assess when the observed soil formation processes occurred exactly, except that they are post-clearance. Unusually also, there are no hints in the base of the B horizons present that indicate what the previous soil history may have been like at the site. This could be because of past and recent intensive agricultural use leading to considerable depletion of the fine fabric features that might have indicated this.

The Open Area Investigations The present day soil profile within the later Iron Age enclosure F.1531 exhibits considerable variation in thickness from about 45cm to as much as 90cm. This undoubtedly reflects the former presence of ridge and furrow which has now been ostensibly levelled by more recent agriculture and quarry landscaping. Beneath the homogeneous, fine sandy loam topsoil, or former ploughsoil, is a pale yellowish brown horizon of fine sandy/silty loam which appears bleached, no doubt as a result of leaching. Beneath this lies a variable expression of reddish brown fine sandy loam, much affected by amorphous iron formation derived from the underlying weathered/in situ Ham Stone bedrock (a Jurassic limestone).

28

The variable thickness of the soil profile is probably due to a number of factors. These include slight undulations in the surface of the bedrock, possibly some localised hillwash accumulation, and the strong probability of some spreading of excavated topsoil material as a result of adjacent quarry operations. The remarkable homogeneity of the profile and poor horizon definition is a result of a combination of earthworm mixing, rooting and arable agriculture, possibly compounded by the down-profile within-soil movement of fine material (mainly silt sized material) associated with bare soil surfaces above and localised colluviation. This largely undifferentiated and homogeneous soil appears to be a product of the weathering of the fine sand- and clay-dominated sedimentary Ham Stone substrate beneath. In addition, there may have been some localised within-soil illuviation with silt and clay, leading to the creation of a weakly developed textural B horizon (or Bw). The only part of the soil profile that is undisturbed appears to be the basal c. 10- 25cm thick B horizon; most of the profile above has been much mixed. Consequently cut archaeological features are most clearly visible at the surface of this basal B horizon. There is evident iron and manganese movement and deposition, features which are often in the form of irregular mottled zones of iron deposition. This is a slightly gleyed horizon (or Bsg) in places, reflecting a zone of slightly higher groundwater influence due to the very fine-grained and relatively impermeable nature of the fine sandy clay substrate. All of the test pit profiles cut in 2011 were recorded with two of the best exposures of the upper and lower B horizons sampled for micromorphological analysis. The only part of the soil profile that is undisturbed appears to be the basal c. 25-30cm thick B horizon; most of the profile above has been much mixed and disturbed by either Iron Age features and/or later agricultural and quarrying activities. All of the soil profiles and many of the feature fills are strongly influenced by the secondary formation of iron oxides and hydroxides, leading to either reddening or yellowing of the soil/sediment colours.

The Rampart Trenches The overall aims of the geoarchaeological analysis were to discern the nature of soil development both pre-rampart and also within the interior of the hillfort during its use, as well as to assess the possibility of using phosphate and multi-element analyses to detect internal settlement use. Each rampart section preserved one or more turf lines, a buried soil, and occasionally and/or settlement related deposits. These buried soil profiles were sampled at four loci (Trenches 1, 2 and 3), with one midden deposit (in Trench 1), and one possible structural context (from the circular stone walled structure on the interior side of the rampart in Trench 1). In each case, there appears to be the base of the A and certainly the B horizon present of the in situ pre-Iron Age buried soil. A series of seven sets of thin section blocks were taken from five different loci under the rampart and associated deposits. The good preservation conditions present offered the opportunity to investigate the relatively unmodified soil that should

29

better reflect the nature of soil development within the interior of the enclosure as well.

Analysis Programme The Ham Hill micromorphology analysis has been completed and fully reported on, and no further analysis is required. In order to drive this towards publication an allocation of time would be necessary to dovetail the micromorphology with Mike Allen’s field reports, for which a day’s editing is required.

1 day (editing)

7.1.2 Land Snails and Pollen – Michael Allen and Rob Scaife

Current Stage of Assessment Land Snails Land snails are not uniformly well-persevered due to the non-base-rich soils on Ham Hill which are not conducive to shell (or bone) preservation. The slow-weathering nature of the limestone and the sandy podzolic and acid nature of the soils and sediments means that overall, survival of snail shells was poor except in specific micro-environments where shell numbers were locally very high. Consequently no samples were taken specifically for land snails; however, rock rubble, bank deposits, outcrops of Hamstone and deposits of bone all create local microhabitats with higher free calcium carbonate levels facilitating local shell preservation. For similar reasons, sampling for land snail on previous excavations was not undertaken (e.g. Smith 1991; McKinley 1999; Lievers et al. 2002). A large programme of bulk samples were taken and processed by standard flotation methods, during which the processors were diligent and noticed the presence of rare to occasional snail shells, and of flots with high shell numbers. Full assessment of the flots was undertaken and a total of 226 samples were assessed. These comprise the full suite of samples from which selection for analysis will be made.

Pollen Eight samples from an Iron Age ditch from the 2011 season and described in Allen (2012) yielded no pollen (Allen and Scaife in Slater et al. 2012: 87-90), and pollen was considered not present in many other contexts (Scaife pers. comm.). However an off- site local small-scale peat bog of Horse’s Wood was cored (Allen in Brittain et al. 2014) revealing nearly 5m of deposits dating from at least 8270-7970 BC (at 399cm) to after AD 890-1020 (at 168cm). A series of 12 samples were assessed (Scaife in Brittain et al. 2014). Pollen was present from depths of at least 248cm to 72cm and was present throughout the

30

sequence covering the early post glacial to medieval period and embracing the late prehistoric period of the Neolithic activity and Iron Age enclosure at Ham Hill.

Analysis gain The combination of the pollen and the land snail analysis will provide important information of the nature of the challenging lived-in environment of the hilltop itself, and the wider landscape in which it sits. The combination of these two analyses can provide an important and significant contribution to the comprehension of the hill top activity and a preservational environment challenging for many palaeo- environmental studies.

Analysis programme (Further work required to fulfil analysis) Land snails A sequence of 16 samples and a possible 5 other samples are recommended for analysis from the 2013 season and a further 9 from the 2012 season have enough shells that could be considered for analysis. Consequently the suite of 21-25 samples for analysis is suggested as:

Feature type Feature Context Sample Trench 3 3800 1899 3802 1897 3803 1896 Trench 2 1. Roman occupation (after construction of LIA rampart 4) Phase BGB 3916 2006 2. Rampart 4; boxed extension) Phase BFD 3975 (2017) Phase BFD 3986 (2019) Phase BFC 4030 2030 3. Rampart 4 Phase BFB 4056 2046 4. Rampart 3: occupation layers behind rampart Phase BEE 3952 2009 Phase BEA 4014 2033 5. Rampart 3: construction and modification Phase BDC 4024 2037 Phase BDB 4044 2041 6. Rampart 2: occupation layers behind rampart Phase BCC 4056 2047 Other rampart contexts 3919 (2008) 4025 (2036) 4052 (2043) Enclosure ditch 1531 3. mid fill (possible bank backfill into ditch) – secondary fill Ditch 1531 5449 (2072)

31

Ditch 1531 5838 2143 2-3. lower and mid fill Ditch 1531 5390 2065 2. lower and mid fill (bank backfill into ditch) Ditch 1531 5450 2074 1. basal deposits (silting) – primary fill Ditch 1531 5392 2066 Ditch 1531 5830 2144 Other (2012) Ditch 1531 2991 1917 Trench 2 (2012) 3933 1960 Trench 3 (2012) 3814 1905 3808 1902 3807 1900 3804 1894 3801 1898 3799 1903 3783 1892 Table 7.1.1. Samples for land snails for analysis; samples in parentheses for consideration; a selection of the 9 selected samples from 2012 will be analysed.

In addition to those selected on the basis of mollusc and context, a series of other key deposits were provided from sub-rampart deposits that had been targeted as being of Neolithic date, but have all returned Late Bronze Age Dates (c. 800 BC). From these, samples from contexts 3817 and 3827 (Trench 3) and 3859, 3862 and 3866 (Trench 4) have been assessed and may be included here. Relevant samples from Trench 1 (3817 and 3827) have some shells (c. 40-50 in flots alone) which can be examined. Those in Trench 4 all have less than 10 – but could very be rapidly scanned and identified at very little cost (Table 7.1.2).

Feature type Feature Context Sample Trench 3 3817 1911 3827 1913 Trench 4 (scan and ident only) 3859 1970 3862 1971 3866 1972 Table 7.1.2. Contexts selected on archaeological ground; samples from trench 3 can be extracted sorted, identified and analysed, those from trench 4 will be scanned and identified.

Pollen No further assessment of samples from the hilltop enclosure is considered valuable. The off-site sequences at Horse’s Wood, however, provide a full landscape land-use history, embracing all periods of activity on the closely adjacent hilltop of Ham Hill. Clearly, this is an interesting pollen sequence providing data which relate to local archaeological activity revealed in the project’s programme of excavations (Table

32

7.1.3). As well as providing preliminary information of the vegetation and environment, this study also raises a number of questions which may be pursued. Unfortunately, poor pollen preservation will inhibit further detailed work since obtaining typical full pollen counts of 500-600 grains per sample/level would take an inordinate amount of time. The sample extraction used here was rigorous and it is unlikely that any enhancement of techniques will produce more concentrated pollen. Analysis should be a concerted attempt to achieve fuller counts. It is suggested that some additional samples adjacent to the zone boundaries (i.e. levels representing environmental and stratigraphical change) could be analysed, and deposits from the lower sequences included (i.e. below 248cm). Pollen sums such as obtained in the present study should, if possible, be obtained from a small number of additional levels and, as noted, attempts to achieve something pertaining to standard pollen counts would be made. Samples have been taken and are available from depths of 52cm to 400cm. A series of 12 assessed samples will be counted and 12 new samples prepared and analysed from the following proposed levels.

Sediment Assessed Additional Sediment type C14 depth (cm) (cm) levels (cm) 54-89 Humic silt – dark greyish 72

brown 89-103 Silt – Greyish brown to olive 96 103-108 Inwash 108-144 Silt – olive 120 144-156 Silt – greyish brown coarse silt 144 156-160 Detrial humic in silt 156 160-168 Silt – light olive 168-251 Peaty silt (168cm) AD 890-1020 168

172 180 184 196 200 212 216 220 224 228 236 240 248 251-263 Transition 263-297 Calcareous silt 297-473 Peaty silt – to humic silt 298 334 (399cm) 8270-7970 BC 368 396 Table 7.1.3 Summary of Horse’s Wood deposit sequence

33

Radiocarbon dating Previous radiocarbon results indicate the span of the deposits (Table 7.1.4). Radiocarbon assays from 384cm or 344cm (the lowest dateable material), and three dates between 184cm and 240cm to date the span of the development of activity should be obtained. This includes humic silts, but twigs at 238cm, 240cm and 323cm should be considered and identified (i.e. species) prior to dating. Depth Calibrated Deposit Material Lab no Result BP C13‰ (cm) result Peaty silt 168 Humic silt SUERC-50806 2083±29 -29.0 AD 890-1020 Humic silt 399 Humic silt SUERC-50807 8952±29 -28.1 8270-7970 BC Table 7.1.4. Radiocarbon dates from the Horse’s Wood deposit sequence

Analysis Programme Rate (£) Task No. Days Analysts Cost (£) Total (£) per day Land snails Full extraction 27 samples 5 MJA 240 1200 Identification 27-32 samples 3.75 MJA 240 900 Tabulation and analysis 1 MJA 240 240 Liaison with CAU re deposits 0.5 MJA 240 120 Reporting 4.75 MJA 240 1140 Total 15 3600 Pollen Pollen prep (12 new samples) 1 RGS / CL 275 275 Identification counting (24 levels) 18 RGS / CL 275 4950 Analysis and diagram 1.5 RGS / CL 275 412.50 Report 2 RGS / CL 275 550 Lab costs 100 Total 22.5 6287.50 Wood identification Wood identification 2 Up to 1 AJC / DC Up to 200 Up to 200 Total Up to 1 Up to 200 Radiocarbon dating Sample prep and submission 0.5 MJA 240 120 Reporting etc 0.5 MJA 240 120 Total 1 240 Management, liaison and Editing Commissioning analysis, liaison 0.5 MJA 240 240 Editing reports/management 1.5 MJA 240 240 Postage etc 10 Total 2 490 Total 41 10,817.50 10,817.50 Table 7.1.5 Breakdown of analysis programme

34

Timetable

Task Analyst/s Days Duration Land Snails M.J. Allen 15 days 3 months Pollen R.G. Scaife & C. Langdon 22.5 days 4 months Wood ident A.J. Clapham/D. Challinor >1 day 1 week Managing/liaison M.J. Allen 2 days 8 months

7.1.3 Archaeobotanical Remains – Rachel Ballantyne

Current Stage of Assessment Summary data for the following statement are presented in Table 7.1.6.

INTERIOR AREAS RAMPARTS Year excavated Total % of Year excavated Total % of Phase 2011 2012 2013samples samples 2012 2013 samples samples Natural - - 8 8 1.8 -11 0.9 Neolithic - 12 12 2.7 --- - ?Neolithic ------Bronze Age 16 42 24 82 18.8 -11 0.9 ?Bronze Age 1 2 - 3 0.7 --- - Iron Age 107 58 95 260 59.5 66571 65.7 ?Iron Age - 5 8 13 3.0 18 1 19 17.6 Post-Iron Age - - - - - 3-3 2.8 Roman - 2 - 2 0.5 -44 3.7 ?Roman 1 - 3 4 0.9 --- - Unphased 23 17 13 53 12.1 819 8.3 Total 148 126 163 437 100 35 73 108 100 Table 7.1.6. Summary of all assessed archaeobotanical samples from 2011-2013

The Open Area Investigations 437 samples have been assessed, overall representing 9551 litres of sediment (average sample volume 21 litres). Of these, ~60% are Iron Age in date, specifically Middle to Late Iron Age, with pits and ditch fills predominant, and several structures. A lesser proportion (~20%) is Bronze Age, including a Middle Bronze Age field system, other ditches, and a 6-post structure. Earlier and later periods were rarely encountered and sampled. Nine Neolithic pits are represented solely by the 2013 excavation season, and the six Roman and possible Roman samples are all from ditch fills. The plant remains are charred, generally poorly preserved and in low concentrations. Grain-rich exceptions occur in Iron Age pits F.1528, F.1541, F.1554, F.1566, F.1607, F.1615, F.1690 and F.1691, where deeper or more quickly deposited fills appear to have provided a less destructive burial environment. Moderate concentrations of charred grain and wild seeds also occur as charred lenses in Iron Age enclosure ditch F.1531, which has been sampled at regular intervals along its course. The otherwise widespread, but very fragmented charred plant macrofossils

35

and charcoal are likely to have had prolonged post-depositional ‘lives’ as surface debris prior to burial. Plant taxa are dominated by emmer wheat and hulled barley with lesser quantities of spelt wheat. Cereal chaff is poorly represented relative to grain and most of the likely arable weed seeds are grain-sized; traits that suggest extensive crop processing prior to storage, perhaps at the communal rather than household level (after Fuller and Stevens 2009, 42–4). Comparable examples cited by Fuller and Stevens (ibid.) include a wide range of hillforts in southern Britain, notably Asheldham (Murphy in Bedwin 1991), Balksbury (de Moulins 1995), Battlesbury (Clapham and Stevens 2008) and Danebury (Jones and Nye 1991). Other cultivars are represented by occasional Celtic beans and perhaps one case of pea. There is limited potential to reconstruct crop husbandry as the majority of weed seed forms appear to have been removed from the crops before they were preserved by charring. The results are consistent with those already published at Ham Hill (Ede in Smith 1990: 39-43; Ede in McKinley 1999: 116-24; Stevens in Leivers et al. 2006). Occasionally super-abundant charred remains of mustard/cabbage seeds suggest a processed crop, rather than accidentally harvested weed seeds. The seeds were identified as black mustard (Brassica nigra) during a previous assessment (Stevens in Leivers et al. 2006: 55), but no illustrations of the supporting data are published or available for publication. Moderate quantities of hazel nutshell occur in several Neolithic pits, whilst very low quantities occur in a number of later Bronze Age and Iron Age features. Starchy plant parts are occasionally very well preserved, although always in low quantities. Many smaller root/stem fragments may be explained by turf burning, but the fragments in two fills of enclosure ditch F.1531 are large, fleshy and co-occur with cereal grain; these may be tap roots or tubers gathered for food, for which prehistoric evidence is rarely encountered. Wood charcoal is highly fragmented and in low quantities, likely due to the taphonomic processes discussed above for plant macrofosssils (notably, prolonged deposition pathways and weathering). There are moderate quantities of charcoal in Neolithic pits F.1722 and F.1728 and Late Bronze Age postholes F.1586 and F.1927. Later pits with moderate charcoal are Bronze Age/Iron Age F.1734, and Iron Age F.1541, F.1554, F.1559, F.1593, F.1607 and F.1691. Eavesdrip gully F.1692, Structure 5, and enclosure ditch F.1531 also include some moderate charcoal. Oak has been noted occasionally by its macroscopic features, but identifications based on high-powered microscopy are yet to be undertaken. Previous work at Ham Hill has also identified hazel and ash, with lesser quantities of blackthorn/cherry (Prunus), hawthorn/apple/whitebeam (Pomoidae), willow/poplar (Salicaceae) and alder (Gale in McKinley 1999: 124-5; Chisham in Leivers et al. 2006: 54-5).

The Rampart Trenches 108 samples have been assessed, overall representing 2313.5 litres of sediment (average sample volume 21 litres). Of these, c. 80% are Iron Age and primarily

36

represent soil and rubble layers infilling the rampart. Other Iron Age features include ditches, pits, postholes and a roundhouse floor. One possible Neolithic soil deposit was sampled in Trench 1 (this has since been shown to be of Late Bronze Age date), whilst the upper strata of all the trenches include post-Iron Age deposits that have only been identified with confidence as Roman in Trench 2. All of the plant remains are charred, with the exception of three mineral-replaced cabbage/mustard seeds in a Roman soil layer [3928] in Trench 2. Other mineral- replaced macrofossils include coprolites (Rowan 2014), amorphous ?fungal underground bodies (?sclerotia), earthworm cocoons and millipede exoskeletons. All mineral-replaced items are yellowish-brown and thus appear to be of calcium phosphate, which indicates concentrations of decaying organic matter in a calcareous burial environment (McCobb et al. 2003). Mineral-replaced biota occur solely in layers behind the rampart in Trench 2, suggesting a high quantity of organic refuse has decayed to silt at these locations. Charred macrofossils and charcoal are also particularly abundant in Iron Age (Phase BEA) soil horizons, suggesting a close link between the deposition pathways for uncharred (since decayed) and charred (preserved) plant matter in this location. The range of charred plant taxa is near identical to that discussed above for the interior of the hillfort, however the quantity and quality of remains is much higher. Hulled wheat (mostly emmer) and hulled barley grain are the predominant types, with lesser quantities of chaff and grain-sized seeds of likely arable weeds. One exceptional context is Phase BEA soil layer [4071], where numerous wild plant seeds include small forms broadly absent from the interior and rampart plant assemblages. Whilst this might represent a crop processing by-product, the presence of onion couch tubers and stem/root fragments strongly implies that burnt turf is the origin. The small wild seeds are therefore more likely to reflect grassland in the local environment, rather than arable ecology. The most abundant plant remains occur in rampart soil layers from Trench 2, relating to Iron Age BCC, BDC, BDD, BEA, BEB, BED, BEE, BEG, Late Iron Age BFB and BFC, Roman BGA, and quarrying/spoil dump BI. Of these, the highest quantities occur in BED, BEA, BEB and BFC, whilst those in BGA and BI are noticeably lower (though still ‘abundant’) and may represent reworked material. There appears much repetition through the infilling sequence, and so the challenge is to characterise these rampart deposits whilst avoiding the redundant duplication of results. Even when discounting the Late Iron Age and Roman plant remains as reworked, refuse deposition linked to crop processing activity appears to have been intense, repetitive and prolonged in this area of the ramparts. Less frequent occurrences of similar charred plant remains occur in roundhouse floor [3743] in Trench 1, and soil layers from CCC, CDB and CED in Trench 3. These remains are of importance for understanding the activity in Trench 2 in the wider context of rampart activity and deposition. Previously published archaeobotanical work at Ham Hill does not include sampling of the ramparts. Wood charcoal is often fragmented and in low quantities, but the degree of attrition is less than in the interior of the hillfort. Abundant charcoal is confined entirely to

37

Trench 2, a trait that may be linked to more rapid burial pathways in refuse-rich contexts. The range of phases with abundant charcoal is also slightly more constrained than for the charred plant macrofossils, spanning BCC, BDD, BDE, BEA, BED BEE, BEG, BFB, BFD. Whilst there may be a link with the deposition of charred grain, this is not a close correlation as deposits with the highest grain quantities are not those with the most abundant wood charcoal, and vice versa. Oak has been noted occasionally by its macroscopic features, but identifications based on high-powered microscopy are yet to be undertaken. Previous work at Ham Hill does not include the analysis of charcoal from the ramparts.

Further work required to fulfil analysis The following discussion draws primarily on the site-specific questions outlined by Allen (2010, 24-25) in the original MoRPHE project design for Ham Hill; these are indicated in bold below.

Interior % of Ramparts Total % of Phase 2011 2012 2013Total samples 2012 2013 samples samples Bronze Age 2 2 - 4 8 --- - Iron Age 26 4 12 42 84 11819 95 ?Iron Age - - 1 1 2 --- - Roman ------11 5 Unphased - 2 1 3 6 --- - Total 2951348100 11920100 Table 7.1.7. Samples recommended for plant macrofossil analysis

Interior % of Ramparts % of Phase 2011 2012 2013Total samples 2012 2013 Total samples Neolithic - - 2 2 12.5 --- - Bronze Age - 2 - 2 12.5 --- - Iron Age4149 56.3 -99 100 ?Iron Age - - 2 2 12.5 --- - Unphased - 1 - 1 6.3 --- - Total 44816100 099100 Table 7.1.8. Samples recommended for charcoal analysis

The Open Area Investigations The charred plant macrofossils of the interior provide a very limited opportunity to examine spatial variation in the use and distribution of grain storage within the interior. Whilst charred debris from crop processing is clearly present, it is well represented in only a few contexts, primarily Iron Age pit fills. There are no clearly in situ charred remains of stored cereals in the pit fills, as found at Danebury (Jones 1984) and Wandlebury (Ballantyne in French 2004: 53-57), and thus no monoliths of pit fills have been collected for microexcavation. Interpreting use of the pits is therefore reliant upon indirect evidence from models that assume the most frequently charred plants at a site are likely to represent daily, routine activities from

38

post-storage crop processing (Stevens in Slate et al. 2013; Fuller and Stevens 2009). Such analyses are however problematic as other activities can generate charred cereals, notably through their use as building resources, fodder and fuels (van der Veen 1999). Of note, however, are the occasional very rich deposits of ?black mustard seed that may well be in situ charred traces of pit storage and represent a unique prehistoric find in Britain, if not Europe. First reported by Stevens (in Leivers et al. 2006), the additional examples from interior pits and an enclosure ditch are worthy of more detailed SEM identification and quantification. The interpretation of these seeds is, however, dependent upon literary research primarily in the spheres of food science and ethnography. New data on defining the nature and character of the wider landscape in which Ham Hill lies, the range and diversity of the resource base and its exploitation is limited by the poor pollen preservation conditions at the site (Allen and Scaife in Slater et al. 2012: 87-90). Analysis of the spring deposits at the foot of Ham Hill holds the greatest potential in this regard. In addition, wood charcoal can provide a dry- site proxy for insight to the use of different areas of the landscape (e.g. alder and willow/poplar represent damp land). However, the high levels of charcoal fragmentation largely preclude the detailed recording of traits such as ring curvature, which can indicate the use of mature timber versus roundwood (Marguerie and Hunot 2007). The interpretation of the wood charcoal assemblage, in terms of human selection of resources, is therefore reliant on contrasting its composition to pollen records from elsewhere in the region. Evidence for crop ecology and thus husbandry is also limited due to the high degree of processing that appears to have occurred prior to grain storage. Most of the likely arable weeds are of grain-sized types that are difficult to separate from the harvest, which suggests that the most weed seeds are missing from the charred plant assemblage. Few of the remaining likely arable weeds have specific soil requirements that allow comment upon the geology or timing of sowing or harvest. New research questions are however raised by the macrofossil and charcoal assemblages generated since the original project design. Firstly, the possible use of wild or cultivated vegetables, as represented by charred remains of tap root/tubers alongside charred grain in two fills of Iron Age enclosure ditch F.1531 and in pit F.1901. Secondly, spatial analysis for specific features with interval sampling, namely enclosure ditch F.1531 and Structure 5, in addition general observations on spatial patterning amongst the different periods and feature types of the hillfort interior. In light of the above observations, the following additional work is recommended at analysis:  Full identification and quantification of plant macrofossils in 50 samples. Most are selected on the basis of higher quantities of grain, chaff or wild seeds. These samples are summarised in Tables 7.1.7, with a full list including justifications in Table 7.1.9.

39

A proportion of the 50 samples contain specific items of interest, notably large- seeded legumes, mustard/cabbage seed or large tap root/stem fragments. Other, less rich samples represent structures with multiple samples where spatial analysis is of interest.  SEM analysis and identification of the likely black mustard seed in pit F.1524, generating seed coat images for publication, and of the tap root/tuber fragments in two Iron Age samples (2x F.1531, c. 15 fragments in total).  Four radiocarbon dates One is requested for the likely black mustard seed in pit F.1524, due to the unique nature of this Iron Age find. Contingency is also requested for two radiocarbon dates on the tap root/tubers, which are a rare find, should they be identified as edible plants. One date is requested on charcoal of a short-lived taxon in undated pit F.1559, as this is the second most charcoal-rich feature within the interior of the hillfort.  Charcoal analysis for 16 samples, from two Neolithic pits, two Late Bronze Age postholes, one Bronze Age/Iron Age pit, nine Iron Age features, one probable Iron Age and one undated. This provides a basic sequence through time of interior fuel use, in contrast to activities represented by the refuse-rich ramparts. The analysis will be primarily by taxonomic recording, with ring curvature and other traits noted only for fragments over 4mm in size. The samples are summarised in Table 7.1.8, with a full list and justifications in Table 7.1.10.  Report of ca.10–15 pages, summarising the methods and variation in results by phase. This will include analysis of spatial patterning for key plant types (cereals, ?black mustard, tap root/tubers) and interpretive consideration of crop processing, wider activities and economy.

Illustrations The selected sample locations should be illustrated on phased plans, and may later require colour/symbolic coding to indicate traits (e.g. grain density). Major features and structures should be labelled, as should the fully analysed samples. Samples that have not progressed beyond assessment should be marked but unlabelled. It would be best if these drawings are made available to the analyst for experimentation during analysis, perhaps as layered pdfs. The SEM analysis will generate illustrations. Likely one set (archaeological and modern reference examples) for the ?black mustard seeds, and one set for the tap root/tuber examples, depending on the success of the analysis. The Rampart Trenches The charred plant macrofossils from the ramparts provide an opportunity to address questions relating to nearby activities, notably crop processing, and refuse deposition. These remains were not specifically discussed in the original project design, although the remains are relevant to defining the nature and character of

40

the wider landscape in which Ham Hill lies, the range and diversity of the resource base and its exploitation (Allen 2010). Crop processing debris is widely present and of similar composition throughout much of Trench 2, where the highest concentrations occur. The apparent homogeneity of the refuse-rich remains means that any residuality and reworking are very difficult to identify; it is thus recommended that only the richest deposits are analysed, to raise confidence that discrete episodes of deposition are being analysed, rather than charred remains originating repeatedly from those rich horizons. Evidence for crop ecology and thus husbandry is again limited due to the high degree of processing that appears to have occurred prior to grain storage. Wood charcoal can provide some insight into the use of different areas of the landscape and may inform on fuel use linked to the charring of the associated, abundant cereal grain. Detailed recording of traits such as ring curvature, which can indicate the use of mature timber versus roundwood, should be undertaken where possible (Marguerie and Hunot 2007). Interpreting the wood charcoal assemblage, in terms of human selection of resources, is reliant on contrasting its composition to pollen records from elsewhere in the region. The rampart refuse appears linked to very specific activities due to its consistent composition, therefore the wider range of feature types and periods sampled in the hillfort interior will provide an important contrast. New research questions raised by the rich macrofossil and charcoal assemblages in Trench 2 are, firstly, the scale of the crop processing activities in terms of likely storage and surplus and, secondly, whether any changes in crops or their processing are distinguishable through time. Possible tap root/tubers are represented by fragments in three rampart deposits from Trench 2, but these should be treated with caution as nearby deposits include biological evidence of burnt turf ash. In light of the above observations, the following additional work is recommended at analysis:  Full identification and quantification of plant macrofossils in 20 samples, of which 19 are from Trench 2, and one from a roundhouse floor in Trench 1. All are selected on the basis of higher quantities of charred grain, chaff or wild seeds. These samples are summarised in Table 7.1.7, with a full list including justifications in Table 7.1.11.  SEM analysis and identification for the tap root/tuber noted in Trench 2 fills [4046], [4070] and [4081], overall comprising c.5 fragments.  Charcoal analysis for 9 samples, all from Trench 2. This will provide a temporal sequence of charcoal in the refuse-rich rampart deposits, with the potential for greater resolution in changes to fuel selection than is possible from discrete features in the hillfort interior. The analysis will aim for detailed recording of taxon and features such as ring curvature for all fragments over 4mm in size. The selected samples are summarised in Table 7.1.8, with a full list and justifications in Table 7.1.12.

41

 Brief report of c. 5 pages summarising macrofossils and charcoal by phase, esp. in Trench 2. This will include consideration of refuse deposition and related activities near the ramparts.

Illustrations The selected sample locations should be illustrated on section drawings for each relevant trench. These drawings should have labels for the main contexts and fully analysed samples. Samples that have not progressed beyond assessment should also be marked but unlabelled. These sections should be made available to the analyst for experimentation, ideally as layered PDFs. SEM analysis may generate one set of illustrations, depending on the outcome of the analysis. Some of the most intact charred macrofossils and charcoal may be considered appropriate for optical microscope photography, which if so will be undertaken in the laboratory during analysis.

Proposed timetable Plant macrofossil analysis at c. 6 samples per day 50 interior samples + 20 rampart samples = 70 samples, or 12 days for Rachel Ballantyne 5 days analysis and report writing for Rachel Ballantyne

SEM microscopy at ~2 samples per day 1 sample of 1000s of mustard/cabbage seeds, or 0.5 day for Rachel Ballantyne 6 samples of c.20 tap root/ tuber fragments (12 in one sample ?identical), or 3 days for Alex Pryor 2 days of report writing for Alex Pryor

Charcoal analysis at ~2 samples per day 16 interior samples + 9 rampart samples = 25 samples, or 12.5 days for Rachel Ballantyne 5 days of analysis and report writing for Rachel Ballantyne

The proposed lab work could be undertaken on a part-time basis February and May 2015, with the samples linked to radiocarbon dating to be undertaken first. The subsequent analysis should not happen until phasing of the site has been completed, ideally alongside the radiocarbon dating. Analysis should also take place when phased site plan(s) and rampart sections are available.

42

Feature/ context Context Sample Flot Seeds UPD Phase Feature Ltrs Grain Chaff Estimated cereal quantities Other charred plant remains Justification Year des cription No. No. ml etc. analysis Anthemis cotula?, Persicaria, tuber, BA F.1510 co-axial ditch [2960] <1597> 30 15 - - C - P Check tuber 2011 Poaceae stem/rootlet co-axial ditch (basal 1x Vicia, tuber/hazelnut x1, indet. x1. BA F.1521 [2749] <1623> 40 8 B - C 3x Barley, 1x Hulled wheat. Indet grain x2 P Check tuber 2011 fill) Avena MBA F.1550 ditched field system [5065] <1854> 24 40 C - C Hordeum sp., tuber x1 P Check tuber 2012 LBA F.1927 posthole [4554] <1825> 23 30 - - C - tuber x1. Planatgo lanceolata P C Check tuber 2012 5 Chenopodium, 1 Fallopia 10 Hordeum grain, 2 T cf dicoccum, 8 T BA/IA F.1734 ditch fill [5665] <2113> 15 15 A - C convolvulus, 1 Rumex, 1 large-seeded P C Moderate grain and wild seeds 2013 spelta/dicoccum grain Poaceae indet., Charcoal incl. Quercus Hulled wheat, Barley, spelt glume, emmer spikelet Avena+++, Bromus, Brassica x1, Vicia, IA F.1011 enclosure ditch fill [2771] <1554> 10 15 A* B A** P Abundant grain and wild seeds 2011 fork Rumex, poa IA F.1021burial in ditch base [1062] <1544> 45 25 - - A* - Brassicas x 100. Nothing else P Brassica seeds x100 2011 Fallopia, rootlet, Rumex, Poa, IA F.1509 upper fill pit [2802] <1559> 30 40 A B B Hulled wheat, Barley. Emmer glumes x5 P Moderate grain and wild seeds 2011 Avena/Bromus Fallopia, 4-5 Avena, Persicaria, Rumex IA F.1518 mid fill pit [2628] <1517> 14 10 A C B 3-4 Hordeum, hulled wheat x2-3 emmer glume 2-3 P Moderate grain and wild seeds 2011 sp. Fallopia. 10+Avena/Bromus, Rumex, IA F.1518 mid fill pit [2628] <1518> 14 11 A C A 15x Hulled wheat, spelt glume P Moderate grain and wild seeds 2011 Vicia/Lathyrus 4x Poaceae rootlets, Avena x1, Vicia Vicia faba IA F.1523 structural 'drip' gully [3221] <1639> 40 40 B - C 5x Cereal indet. 1x hulled wheat P 2011 faba x1 Drip gully character IA F.1523 structural 'drip' gully [3265] <1642> 20 40 B C B 8x hulled wheat, 1x spelt glume 6x Bromus/Avena, 1x Avena P Drip gully character 2011 4x Hulled wheat 5x Cereal grains. Emmer glume Avena sp. x5, Fallopia sp. 1x cf. IA F.1523 structural 'drip' gully [3554] <1680> 16 15 B C B P Drip gully character 2011 bases hawthorn Brassicas x1000s., Fallopia, Bromus, IA F.1524 upper pit fill [2641] <1528> 25 60 A - A*** Hulled wheat cf. emmer + Hulled barley P Brassica seeds x1000 2011 Avena, Galaeopsis Brassicas x1000s., Fallopia, Bromus, IA F.1524 pit 2nd to upper fill [2709] <1529> 25 30 A - A*** Hulled wheat cf. emmer + Hulled barley P Brassica seeds x1000 2011 Avena, Galaeopsis Brassicas x100+., Fallopia, Bromus, IA F.1524 pit main fill [2710] <1530> 23 10 C - A* a few hulled wheat and barley P Brassica seeds x100 2011 Avena pit, carbonised IA F.1524 [2712] <1531> 15 4 C - A cf. Hulled wheat frag, Brassica x 20 P Brassica seeds x20 2011 horizon carbon rich deposit Fallopia, Avena, Bromus, IA F.1528 associated with [2692] <1543> 40 40 A* - A Hulled wheat cf. emmer + Hulled barley Vicia/Lathyrus, Chenopodium, Rumex P Abundant grain and wild seeds 2011 metal deposit in pit sp., Stellaria sp., IA F.1528 basal pit fill [2746] <1547> 16 10 A - B Hulled wheat cf. emmer + Hulled barley Fallopia, Persicaria P Moderate grain and wild seeds 2011 upper fill enclosure Brassica seeds x7 IA F.1531 [2716] <1527> 40 60 C C B 1x hulled wheat grain, 1x glume base 1x rootlets, 7x Brassica nigra., 1 indet.? P 2011 ditch Spatial patterning of activity debris upper fill enclosure Brassica seeds x20 IA F.1531 [2717] <1532> 40 40 C - A hulled wheat x1 culm node x1. Brassica x20 P 2011 ditch Spatial patterning of activity debris Table 7.1.9. Detailed breakdown of 50 interior area samples recommended for charred plant macrofossil analysis

43

Feature/ context Context Sample Flot Seeds UPD Phase Feature Ltrs Grain Chaff Estimated cereal quantities Other charred plant remains Justification Year des cription No. No. ml etc. analysis upper fill enclosure hulled wheat incl. emmer grain, emmer glume Fallopia, Galium, Trifolium, Moderate grain and wild seeds IA F.1531 [2718] <1533> 42 30 A A A P C 2011 ditch bases Vicia/Lathyrus, Spatial patterning of activity debris 10+x hulled wheat grain, 2x Emmer type, 2+ Check nut/tuber parenchyma thick burnt lense Fallopia, Avena/Bromus x10, nut/tuber IA F.1531 [2938] <1592> 38 20 A A A Barley. Spelt +emmer glume bases, 10x glume P Moderate grain and wild seeds 2011 upper enclosure parenchyma, Poa, Tripleurospermum bases Spatial patterning of activity debris Check parenchyma IA F.1531 enclosure ditch [2988] <1915> 47 30 C - - 5x cereal Parenchyma P 2012 Spatial patterning of activity debris Rumex, Fallopia, Polygonum, Persicaria, 30+Cereal grains, mainly hulled wheat, some Abundant grain and wild seeds IA F.1531 enclosure ditch fill [3165] 1638B 40 50 A* A A* Avena/Bromus, Vicia/lathyrus, P 2011 barley. Spelt glumes and emmer glumes 20+ Spatial patterning of activity debris Chenopodium sp. 1 Corylus avellana nutshell fragment, 2 10+ T spelta/dicoccum grain, 2+ small Vicia/Lathyrus, 1 Fallopia Root/tuber fragments for SEM IA F.1531 ditch fill - enclosure [5931] <2164> 26 6 A C A Triticum/Hordeum grain, 2 T spelta/dicoccum convolvulus, 1 Polygonum sp. kernel, 1 P C Moderate grain and wild seeds 2013 glume bases Phleum, 5+ Bromus seeds, root/tuber Spatial patterning of activity debris fragments 12 T spelta/dicoccum grain, 1 Triticum grain, ~7 1 Persicaria maculosa, 6 Bromus cf. Moderate grain and wild seeds IA F.1531 ditch fill - enclosure [5992] <2165> 4 6 A B B indet. grain, 5 T. spelta/dicoccum glume bases, 3 secalinus, fine roundwood as well as P C 2013 Spatial patterning of activity debris culm nodes and culm fragments larger charcoal 1 Persicaria maculosa, 1+ Chenopodium, 12+ ?tuber/tap root frags, 1 large- 3+ T dicoccum grain, 24+ Triticum s/d grain, 2+ Tuber/tap root frags 12+ for SEM seeded legume, 1 Chenopodium cf. IA F.1531 ditch fill - enclosure [6028] <2163> 28 8 A B A Triticum grain, 1 Triticum spelta glume base, 4+ P C Moderate grain and wild seeds 2013 ficifolium seed, 1 small Vicia/Lathyrus, 1 Triticum s/d glume bases Spatial patterning of activity debris Eleocharis palustris, 6 Bromus secalinus seeds Persicaria x1, Fallopia x1, Avena x1, IA F.1534 burnt basal fill pit [2783] <1608> 15 4 A - B 3x Hulled Wheat, 6x Barley + frgs. P Moderate grain and wild seeds 2011 Bromus xf. 2 Hulled wheat grains, spelt glumes, emmer spikelet Vicia faba/Pisum sativum, occasional Vicia faba/Pisum sativum IA F.1541 upper fill pit [2855] <1574> 35 70 A A* B P 2011 fork rootlets Moderate grain, abundant chaff 20+grains hulled wheat,?barley. Spelt & emmer IA F.1541 upper lense pit [2865] <1605> 40 20 A A A 20+ xA v e n a / Bro mu s , 1x Ru me x s p P C Moderate grain, chaff and wild seeds 2011 glumes 20+ IA F.1541 basal pit fill [3439] <1682> 45 20 A** - A* 75+ hulled wheat, 20+barley, 50+Avena sp. P Abundant grain and wild seeds 2011 Vicia faba x3, Fallopia, Avena/Bromus, 20+hulled wheat (1x germianted), 5+barley, 2-3 Vicia faba IA F.1566 main fill pit [3047] <1661> 45 50 A* B A* Persicaria, Rumex, Rahpanus capsule, P 2011 spelt glumes, 5-6 glumes Abundant grain and wild seeds Vicia/Lathyrus 50+x Hulled wheat,10+x Barley, 100+x spelt & 20+ Avena/Bromus,Persicaria, Rumex, Vicia faba IA F.1607 basal slump pit [3442] <1665> 47 80 A* A* A* P C 2011 emmer glumes sp. 6x Vicia faba, Fallopia, Abundant grain and wild seeds 20+ hulled wheat 5+ barley, cereal culm node, a IA F.1615 lower fill pit [3403] <1655> 2 10 A* C A Avena/Bromus, Fallopia, Rumex sp. P Abundant grain and wild seeds 2011 few glumes Table 7.1.9 continued

44

Feature/ context Context Sample Flot Seeds UPD Phase Feature Ltrs Grain Chaff Estimated cereal quantities Other charred plant remains Justification Year des cription No. No. ml etc. analysis 2 Chenopodium, 1 Fallopia 4 Hordeum, 1 germinated Hordeum, 2 T convolvulus, 1 Persicaria maculosa, 1 spelta/dicoccum grain, 1 Triticum, 2 indet. grain, 1 IA F.1686 pit fill [5331] <2058> 16 3 A C A Rumex acetosella, 1 Rumex, 1 Plantago P Moderate grain and wild seeds 2013 T spelta/dicoccum glume base, 1 T lanceolata, 2 large-seeded Poacceae, 2 spelta/dicoccum spikelet fork small seed indet. 1 hulled, twisted Hordeum, 2 hulled Hordeum, 5 2 Chenopodium, 1 Persicaria maculosa, Hordeum, 10 T cf dicoccum, 25 T spelta/dicoccum 1 small-seeded Vicia/Lathyrus with IA F.1690 pit fill [5356] <2069> 15 5 A* C A* P Abundant grain and wild seeds 2013 grain, 2 indet grain, 2 cereal culm node, culm hilum, 2 Festuca, 25 Bromus cf fragments, 1 ?coleoptile secalinus, 10 large-seeded Poaceae 2(+3) Hordeum, 10(+2) T cf dicoccum, 50(+2) T 2 Chenopodium, 1 Rumex, 1 Festuca, 6 IA F.1690 pit fill [5445] <2106> 12 6 A* C A P Abundant grain and wild seeds 2013 spelta/dicoccum grain, 20(+3) indet grain Bromus cf secalinus, 4 Poa, 3 Phleum 7 Chenopodium, 1 Persicaria maculosa, 15 hulled Hordeum, 10(+2) Hordeum grain, 5 T cf 1 Brassica nigra, 1 Avena, 3 Bromus cf Abundant grain and wild seeds IA F.1691 pit fill - charcoal [5359] <2098> 16 10 A* C B dicoccum, 10(+1) T spelta/dicoccum grain, 5(+1) P 2013 secalinus, 1 large-seeded Poaceae Pit fill sequence indet grain, 1 T dicoccum glume base indet., 1 small seed indet. 15 hulled Hordeum, 20 Hordeum, 2 T cf dicoccum, 10 Chenopodium, 1 Fallopia 10 T spelta/dicoccum grain, 10 indet grain, *1 convolvulus, 3 Rumex, 5 Brassica nigra, Abundant grain and wild seeds IA F.1691 pit fill - charcoal [5406] <2099> 10 8 A* C A P 2013 germinated Hordeum grain*, 2 T dicoccum glume 5 Bromus cf secalinus, 2 unidentified Pit fill sequence base, 2 T spelta/dicoccum glume base seeds, 1 small indet seed 5(+1) hulled Hordeum, 10 Hordeum, 20 T (1 Vicia faba var minor), 10 Vicia faba spelta/dicoccum grain, 10 indet grain, 1 T Chenopodium, 1 Persicaria maculosa, 2 IA F.1691 pit fill [5406] <2114> 14 22 A* B A P C Abundant grain and wild seeds 2013 dicoccum spikelet fork, 5 T spelta/dicoccum Fallopia convolvulus, 5 Brassica nigra, Pit fill sequence glume bases 10 Bromus cf secalinus, 2 Poa, 1 indet. 5 Chenopodium, 1 Rumex, 1 small 1 hulled, twisted Hordeum, 4 hulled Hordeum, 4 Vicia/Lathyrus, 1 Raphanus Hordeum, 10 T cf dicoccum, 5 T cf spelta, 25 T Abundant grain and wild seeds IA F.1691 pit fill [5409] <2067> 16 4 A* C A raphanistrum capsule, 1 Poa, 1 Vulpia cf P 2013 spelta/dicoccum, 30 indet grain, 3 T Pit fill sequence myuros, 5 Avena, 7 Bromus cf spelta/dicoccum glume base secalinus, 3 large-seeded Poaceae 1 cf Vicia faba var minor, 5 5 Hordeum, 10 T spelta/dicoccum grain, 5 indet Moderate grain and wild seeds IA F.1691 pit fill - charcoal [5543] <2125> 12 3 A C A Chenopodium, 1 Avena, 5 Bromus cf P 2013 grain, 2 T spelta/dicoccum glume base Pit fill sequence secalinus, 1 Phleum 15(+2) T spelta/dicoccum grain, (3 indet grain), 1 10 Chenopodium, 1 Persicaria maculosa, Moderate grain and wild seeds IA F.1691 pit fill - charcoal [5544] <2126> 16 4 A C A* T spelta glume base, 1 T spelta/dicoccum glume 1 Fallopia convolvulus, 2 Rumex, 1 P 2013 Pit fill sequence base Avena, 20 Bromus cf secalinus seed 70+x hulled wheat, 20+x barley, 2x glume bases 1 M-LIA F.1554 pit [2986] <1606> 59 100 A* C C Parenchyma and some roundwood. P C Abundant grain and wild seeds 2012 large Vica sp. 4x Bromus sp., 10x Avena sp. 1x M-LIA F.1897 pit [4374] <1785> 62 60 A - A 2x barley, 7x cf. emmer grain, P Moderate grain and wild seeds 2012 Fallopia convolvulus Galium sp. x2, Malva? x1, Bromus sp. x3, M-LIA F.1897 pit [4445] <1821> 16 6 C C A emmer wheat x2, emmer glume Vicia sp. x1. Avena sp. x2, Poa/small P Moderate grain and wild seeds 2012 grass x1. 1x Arrheanthermum type tuber Table 7.1.9 continued

45

Feature/ context Context Sample Flot Seeds UPD Phase Feature Ltrs Grain Chaff Estimated cereal quantities Other charred plant remains Justification Year des cription No. No. ml etc. analysis

2-3x cf. barley, 6-7 cf. emmer grains, 5-6x glume undated F.1539 pit [2819] <1575> 33 50 A B C 1x Avena, 3x Bromus P Moderate grain and wild seeds 2012 base (1x T.d. 1x T.s), 1 monocot stem undated F.1877 pit [4324] <1757> 20 10 C - C 2x cereal 1x moncot tuber & stem/ 1 Bromus sp. P Check tuber 2012 undated F.1901 pit fill [4391] <1800> 21 0.5 - C C 1 browned Hordeum rachis internode 1 large fragment of charred parenchyma P Large parenchyma fragment for SEM 2013 (?LBA) Table 7.1.9 continued

Feature/ context Context Sample Flot Seeds Charcoal UPD Phase Feature Ltrs Roots Grain Chaff Charcoal notes Justification Year des cription No. No. size etc. 2/4mm analysis 1(+31) frags Corylus avellana Neolithic F.1722 pit fill [5598] <2151> 26 10 20 C - A* 5/2 (4) C Neolithic fuel selection 2013 nutshell (42 frags Corylus avellana Neolithic F.1728 pit fill [5653] <2108> 16 14 6 C - A* 6/2 (8) C Neolithic fuel selection 2013 nutshell) LBA F.1586 posthole [3231] <1968> 15 70 0 - - - 30/8 C Later Bronze Age fuel selection 2012 LBA F.1927 posthole [4554] <1825> 23 30 5 - - C 3/4 P C Later Bronze Age fuel selection 2012 BA/IA F.1734 ditch fill [5665] <2113> 15 15 10 A - C charcoal incl. Quercus4/7P C Later Bronze Age/IA fuel selection 2013 upper fill enclosure Iron Age fuel selection IA F.1531 [2718] <1533> 42 30 40 A A A 2/3 P C 2011 ditch Spatial patterning of activity debris Iron Age fuel selection IA F.1531 ditch fill - enclosure [5931] <2164> 26 6 2 A C A 4/1 P C 2013 Spatial patterning of activity debris fine roundwood as well as Iron Age fuel selection IA F.1531 ditch fill - enclosure [5992] <2165> 4 6 4 A B B 3/2 P C 2013 larger charcoal Spatial patterning of activity debris 1 large frag of insect-damaged Iron Age fuel selection IA F.1531 ditch fill - enclosure [6028] <2163> 28 8 10 A B A 3/2+(1) P C 2013 roundwood Spatial patterning of activity debris IA F.1541 upper lense pit [2865] <1605> 40 20 40 A A A 3/4 P C Iron Age fuel selection 2011 oak charcoal present. No IA F.1593 basal fill pit [3261] <1657> 20 40 5 - - - 10/5 C Iron Age fuel selection 2011 obvious round wood IA F.1607 basal slump pit [3442] <1665> 47 80 25 A* A* A* 3/4 P C Iron Age fuel selection 2011

charcoal incl. ?Quercus IA F.1691 pit fill [5406] <2114> 14 22 5 A* B A 3/3 P C Iron Age fuel selection 2013 roundwood, 4 frags fly ash/slag Iron Age fuel selection M-LIA F.1554 pit fill [2986] <1606> 59 100 8 A* C C some roundwood 60/40 P C 2012 Most charcoal-rich feature Second most charcoal-rich feature undated F.1559 pit fill [2962] <1599> 47 120 40 C - C 50/10 C 2012 Requires C14 dating of charcaol Table 7.1.10. Summary of 16 interior area charcoal samples for full analysis

46

Context Context Sample Flot Seeds Estimated other charred plant remains and UPD Phase Ltrs Grain Chaff Estimated cereal quantities Justification Year No. des cription No. ml etc. mineral-replaced biota analysis lots of Bromus grass + Avena sp., 8+ Corylus roundhouse 100+ emmer grains, 3-4 hulled wheat, 3-4 Hulled Only abundant remains in Trench 1 ADC [3743] <1837> 88 100 A* A A avellana, 1x tuber, Fallopia convulvulus, Vicia P 2012 floor layer barley, 20+ emmer glumes, some spelt Clearly associated with a structure sp., Rumex sp., Persicaria sp. 1 Chenopodium, 2 Fallopia convolvulus, 1 20 Hordeum grain, 20 T dicoccum, (2 T cf spelta Persicaria maculosa, 1 Galium aparine, 1 Bromus BCC [4046] soil layer <2042> 14 35 A* C B grain), 40 T spelta/dicoccum grain, 10 indet grain, P C Earliest sampled phase 2013 cf secalinus, charcoal incl. roundwood and 1 T spelta/dicoccum glume base ?Quercus, some roundwood 1yr old, ?root/tuber 5 Hordeum, 5 T cf dicoccum grain, 15(+75) T spelta/dicoccum grain, 15 indet grain **a high % (1 frag Corylus avellana nutshell) silica-rich fly Early phase BDA [4044] rubble layer <2041> 10 7 A* - C P C 2013 of single-grained emmer** Fe staining in heavy ash/slag Single-grained emmer grain residue grain 2 hulled Hordeum, 3(+3) Hordeum grain, 30 T cf dicoccum, 30(+23) T spelta/dicoccum grain, ** a (1 Corylus avellana nutshell fragment), 1 Early phase BDC [4025] rubble layer <2036> 31 23 A* C C number of the emmer grains have their dorsal side Chenopodium album, 1 Fallopia convolvulus, 1 P 2013 Damp or germinated emmer grain glossy and 'blown off', suggesting germinated Rumex, 2 Bromus cf. secalinus **, 2 T spelta/dicoccum glume bases (1 cf Vicia faba var minor), 1 Chenopodium, 2 20 hulled Hordeum, 40(+3) Hordeum grain, 10 T cf Persicaria maculosa, 1 small Vicia/Lathyrus, spelta grain, 70(+11) T spelta/dicoccum grain, 5 T BDC [4081] rubble layer <2183> 11 25 A** A* A 1(+1) Trifolium/Medicago, 1 Avena, 15 Bromus P Earlier phase 2013 dicoccum glume base, 25 T spelta/dicoccum cf secalinus, charcoal incl. Quercus and glume base roundwood, root/tuber frags 1 large legume indet., 1 Raphanus raphanistrum 6 hulled Hordeum, 20 T cf. dicoccum, 6 T cf. Early phase BDD [4038] soil layer <2040> 12 250 A* - C capsule, 1 medium Asteraceae, almost all P C 2013 spelta, 60(+15) T spelta/dicoccum grain Damp or germinated emmer grain Quercus charcoal, 1 iron-working spheroid

30 Hordeum grain, 25 T cf dicoccum grain, 3 Persicaria maculosa, 1 lenticular Carex, 5 400(+35) T cf spelta grain, 200 T spelta/dicoccum Main refuse-generating phase BEA [4005] soil layer <2027> 30 150 A*** A A Avena, 1 Avena fatua type awn, 1 Anisantha P C 2013 grain, 100(+15) indet. grain, 10 T spelta glume Very abundant cereals sterilis, 10 Bromus cf. secalinus base, 20 T spelta/dicoccum glume base (1 frag Corylus avellana nutshell), 2 Galium 30 hulled Hordeum, 20(+3) Hordeum grain, 100 T aparine, 1 medium Vicia/Lathyrus, 2 small cf dicoccum, 100(+19) T spelta/dicoccum grain, 4 Vicia/Lathyrus, 10(+1) Avena, 40 Bromus cf BEA [4014] soil layer <2049> 12 100 A** A A* T dicoccum glume base, 20 T spelta/dicoccum secalinus, 1 Phleum, swollen culm base with P C Main refuse-generating phase 2013 glume base, 2 T spelta/dicoccum spikelet fork, roots - Arrhenatherum? Charcoal incl. large 1(+2) cereal culm node frags of Quercus and roundwood, CaP replaced ?fungal sclerotia Table 7.1.11. Detailed breakdown of rampart 20 samples recommended for charred plant macrofossil analysis

47

Area/ Context Context Sample Flot Seeds Estimated other charred plant remains and UPD Phase Ltrs Grain Chaff Estimated cereal quantities Justification Year Trench No. des cripti on No. ml etc. mineral-replaced biota analysis 1 cf Vicia faba var. minor, 30 Chenopodium, 1 Stellaria uliginosa, 2 Polygonum aviculare, 1 Persicaria maculosa, 1 Fallopia convolvulus, 1 Valerianella locusta, 1 small Vicia/Lathyrus, 3 Trifolium/Medicago, 1 Raphanus raphanistrum 1 hulled, twisted Hordeum, 2 Hordeum, 5 T cf capsule, 1 Linum catharticum, 3 Centaurea cf Main refuse-generating phase Tr. 2 BEA [4071] soil layer <2179> 9 12 A* A A*** dicoccum, 25 T spelta/dicoccum grain, 10 T cyanus, 1 lenticular Carex, 1 Festuca, 1 Avena, 1 P 2013 Seed-rich deposit (burnt turf?) spelta/dicoccum glume bases Anisantha sterilis, 1 Poa, 30 Phleum, Arrhenatherum elatius var. bulbosum swollen culm bases with roots , 1 black Charophyte oogonium, many root and culm fragments, some vitrified charcoal and Quercus, 1 iron-working spheroid 1 Chenopodium, 1 Stellaria media, 2 Montia fontanta ssp. chondrospermum, 5 Persicaria 5 hulled Hordeum, 10(+3) Hordeum, 40 T cf maculosa, 1 Rumex acetosella, 2 dicoccum, 90(+36) T spelta/dicoccum, (5 indet Main refuse-generating phase Tripleurospermum inodorum, 1 Centaurea cf Tr. 2 BEA [4072] soil layer <2180> 24 40 A** A A grain), 1 6-rowed Hordeum rachis internode, 3 T P Abundant cereal grain 2013 cyanus, 5(+3) Bromus cf secalinus, 1 Poa spelta glume base, 1 T dicoccum spikelet fork, 10 Barley and wheat chaff charcoal incl. Quercus and roundwood, CaP T spelta/dicoccum glume base replaced ?fungal sclerotia, silica-rich fly ash/slag globule 1 Vicia faba var. minor, 2(+2) frags Corylus avellana nutshell, 1 Chenopodium, 1 Stellaria graminea, 1 Montia fontana ssp. 2 hulled Hordeum, 8(+2) Hordeum, 40 T cf chondrospermum, 1 Fallopia convolvulus, 10 Main refuse-generating phase Tr. 2 BEA [4074] soil layer <2181> 12 40 A** A A dicoccum, 150(+21) T spelta/dicoccum grain, 20 T P 2013 Persicaria maculosa, 1 Rumex acetosella, 1 Abundant cereal grain spelta/dicoccum glume base Festuca, 1 Avena awn, 3 Bromus cf secalinus, 1 Phleum, charcoal incl. Quercus and roundwood, CaP replaced ?fungal sclerotia 1 cf. Vica faba var. minor, 1(+2) Corylus avellana 10 hulled Hordeum grain, 20(+2) Hordeum grain, nutshell fragment, 1 Chenopodium, 1 Persicaria 100 T cf dicoccum, 300(+22) T spelta/dicoccum maculosa, 1 Raphanus raphanistrum capsule, 1 Tr. 2 BEB [4033] soil layer <2038> 10 45 A*** A A grain, 15 T dicoccum glume base, 2 Triticum P Very abundant cereals 2013 Trifolium, 1 trigonous Carex, 4(+2) Avena, 1 spelta glume base, 5 T spelta/dicoccum glume Bromus cf secalinus, 5 Bromus seed, 1 silica-rich base fly ash/slag globule 2 hulled, twisted Hordeum grain, 15 hulled 1 Fallopia convolvulus, 10 Persicaria maculosa, 2 Hordeum grain, 70 T cf. dicoccum, 5 T cf. spelta Polygonum aviculare, 2 Rumex seed, 1 Brassica Tr. 2 BED [3969] soil layer <2013> 38 80 A*** A* A* grain, 140(+3) T spelta/dicoccum, 1 T dicoccum nigra, 1 Raphanus raphanistrum capsule, 3 small P C Very abundant cereals 2013 spikelet fork, 10 T spelta glume base, 20 T Vicia/Lathyrus, 15 Avena, 20 Bromus cf. spelta/dicoccum glume base secalinus Table 7.1.11. continued

48

Area/ Context Context Sample Flot Seeds Estimated other charred plant remains and UPD Phase Ltrs Grain Chaff Estimated cereal quantities Justification Year Trench No. des cripti on No. ml etc. mineral-replaced biota analysis 1 Vicia faba var minor, 5 Chenopodium, 3 1 hulled, twisted Hordeum, 25 hulled Hordeum, (7 Persicaria maculosa, 1 Rumex, 7 small Hordeum), 40 T dicoccum, 180(+18) T Vicia/Lathyrus (some with hilum), 1 Tr. 2 BED [4070] soil layer <2177> 15 50 A** B A* P Abundant cereals 2013 spelta/dicoccum grain, (2 indet. grain), 10 T Tripleurospermum inodorum, 6 Avena, 15 spelta/dicoccum glume base Bromus cf secalinus, 2 Phleum, 1 Poa, charcoal incl. Quercus and roundwood 3 Chenopodium, 2 Fallopia convolvulus, 2 10 hulled Hordeum, 20 Hordeum(+4), 15 T Persicaria maculosa, 1 Rumex, 2 small dicoccum grain, 250(+8) T spelta/dicoccum grain, Vicia/Lathyrus, 1 Trifolium, 1 Festuca, 20(+1) Tr. 2 BED [4070] soil layer <2178> 10 50 A** B A* P Abundant cereals 2013 15 T spelta/dicoccum glume base, 1 T Bromus cf secalinus, 1 Poaceae culm fragment, spelta/dicoccum spikelet fork charcoal mostly Quercus, with some roundwood, root/tuber? 3 Vicia faba var. minor, (1 large-seeded legume), 1 Montia fontana ssp. chondrospermum, 2 Fallopia convolvulus, 1 Rumex, 1 Raphanus 1 hulled, twisted Hordeum, 20 Hordeum grain, 5 T raphanistrum capsule, 3 small-seeded Tr. 2 BEG [3997] soil layer <2023> 29 100 A* C A cf dicoccum grain, 40 T spelta/dicoccum grain, 2 P C Good representation of Celtic bean 2013 Vicia/Lathyrus, 3 Avena, 2 Festuca, 5 Bromus cf. T spelta/dicoccum glume base secalinus, charcoal incl. Quercus, CaP replaced ?fungal sclerotia, millipede fragments, 2 iron- smithing spheroids 2 Chenopodium, 3 Rumex, 1 Persicaria maculosa, 1 hulled straight Hordeum, 5 Hordeum grain, 30 T 2 small Vicia/Lathyrus, 2 Galium aparine, 1 cf. dicoccum grain, 40 T spelta/dicoccum grain, 15 Centaurea nigra, 1 Festuca, 6 Avena, 1 Phleum, Tr. 2 BFB [3990] soil layer <2014> 22 40 A** A* A P Later phase with good chaff 2013 T dicoccum glume base, 2 T spelta glume base, 50 15 Bromus cf. secalinus, charcoal incl T spelta/dicoccum glume base, 5 culm nodes roundwood with bark, 1 iron smithing spheroid, CaP replaced ?fungal sclerotia 1 Vicia faba var minor, 1 large-seeded legume 1 hulled, straight Hordeum grain, 10(+1) Hordeum indet., 5 Fallopia convolvulus, 10 Persicaria grain, 5 T cf. dicoccum grain, 80(+10) T maculosa, 5 medium Vicia/Lathyrus, 2 Avena, 1 Later phas e Tr. 2 BFB [3991] soil layer <2015> 28 20 A** B A* spelta/dicoccum grain, 20 indet. grain, 2 T spelta P 2013 Arrhenatherum elatius var bulbosum tuber, 5 Abundant grain glume base, 10 T spelta/dicoccum glume base, 1 Bromus cf. secalinus, 1 ?Claviceps (check), CaP culm node, 1 culm base with roots replaced ?fungal sclerotia 7 Vicia faba var. minor, 1 Chenopodium, 1 Persicaria maculosa, 1 Polygonum aviculare, 6 10 hulled Hordeum, 30 Hordeum, 200 T Rumex, 1 Fallopia convolvulus, 2 Later phas e Tr. 2 BFC [4053] soil layer <2044> 24 85 A*** A* A** spelta/dicoccum grain, 40 T dicoccum glume P 2013 Trifolium/Medicago, 2 Festuca, 10 Avena, 80 Very abundant cereals bases, 40 T spelta/dicoccum glume bases Bromus cf secalinus, charcoal incl. roundwood and concretion Table 7.1.11. continued

49

Area/ Context Context Sample Flot Seeds Estimated other charred plant remains and UPD Phase Ltrs Grain Chaff Estimated cereal quantities Justification Year Trench No. des cripti on No. ml etc. mineral-replaced biota analysis 23 Chenopodium, 20 Atriplex patula, 1 Rumex, 2 Persicaria maculosa, 3 Fallopia convolvulus, 3 8 Hordeum grain, 4 T cf dicoccum grain, 1 T cf. Brassica/Sinapis, 1 ?Geranium (not dissectum), Roman occupation Tr. 2 BGA [3928] soil layer <2007> 32 6 A* C A* spelta grain, 20(+1) T spelta/dicoccum grain, 20 6 Bromus cf. secalinus, 2 Poa, 1 medium-seeded P Charred and mineral-replaced 2013 indet grain, 1 T spelta/dicoccum glume base Poaceae, 1 small indet. CaP replaced 7 ?fungal mustard/cabbage seeds sclerotia, 3 Brassica/Sinapis seeds (fine), 1 seed indet. Table 7.1.11. continued

Area/ Feature/ context Context Sample Flot Seeds Charcoal UPD Phase Ltrs Roots Grain Chaff Charcoal notes Justification Year Trench des cription No. No. size etc. 2/4mm analysis charcoal incl. roundwood and Earliest sampled phase Tr. 2 BCC Soil layer [4046] <2042> 14 35 1 A* C B 10/8 (4) P C 2013 ?Quercus , 1 yr old roundwood Moderate charcoal (1 frag Corylus avellana Earlier phas e Tr. 2 BDA Rubble layer [4044] <2041> 10 7 1 A* - C 2/(2) P C 2013 nutshell) silica-rich fly ash/slag Low charcoal (only example)

almost all Quercus charcoal, 1 Earlier phas e Tr. 2 BDD Soil layer [4038] <2040> 12 250 <0.5 A* - C 75/100(3) P C 2013 iron-working spheroid Very abundant charcoal Main refuse-generating phase Tr. 2 BEA Soil layer [4005] <2027> 30 150 <0.5 A*** A A 10/15 (2) P C Moderate charcoal with, 2013 very abundant cereals charcoal incl. large frags of Main refuse-generating phase Tr. 2 BEA Soil layer [4014] <2049> 12 100 1 A** A A* 10/12 (10) P C 2013 Quercus and roundwood Moderate charcoal Tr. 2 BEDSoil layer [3969] <2013> 38 80 1 A*** A* A* 12/15 (1) P C Moderate charcoal 2013 charcoal incl. Quercus , 2 iron- Tr. 2 BEG Soil layer [3997] <2023> 29 100 1 A* C A 20/20 (10) P C Moderate charcoal 2013 smithing spheroids charcoal mostly Quercus , some Tr. 2 BEG Pit fill charcoal [3999] <2025> 16 150 0.5 A C C 50/20 C Abundant charcoal 2013 vitrified Tr. 2 BFD Soil layer [3975] <2011> 14 50 2 A* A A silica-rich fly ash/slag 15/10 (2) C Later phase 2013 Table 7.1.12. Detailed breakdown of 9 rampart samples selected for charcoal analysis

50

7.1.4 Faunal Remains – Clare Randall

Current Stage of Assessment This statement is based on the contents of the various annual interim reports produced by Vida Rajkovača. All of the faunal material from the excavations has been recorded to species, and NISP and MNI data made available. This has demonstrated that the assemblage is reasonably well preserved. A range of information on taphonomy, fragmentation, butchery, species and element representation and distribution, herd/flock structure and exploitation, and disposal and deposition is available. Recommendations for further work were made by Rajkovača:  Need for amalgamation of the assemblages to be dealt with by phase;  Chronological understanding, particularly in relation to the Rampart trenches;  Comparison across the entire site by phase;  Detailed spatial analysis.

Summary of data Faunal material was recovered from evaluation trenches excavated in 2009 (126 fragments, Iron Age), cut features within the hillfort interior in 2011 (1708 assessable fragments), features in the interior and rampart trenches in 2012 (1573 assessable fragments) and features in the interior and rampart trenches in 2013 (6318 assessable fragments). These relate to:  Neolithic – pits in the interior. Very small assemblage.  Bronze Age – posthole and ditches (2011), pits (2012) and field system (2013). Small assemblage.  Iron Age - material from evaluation trenches (2009), postholes, eaves gully and, particularly pits (2011), ditches and structure (2012), range of cut features (2013), rampart trenches 1-3 (2012), and rampart trenches 2 and 4 (2013). Bulk of the assemblage.  Romano-British/Early medieval – cut features which produced a very small assemblage (2011), and single fragment (2013).  Undated – very small amounts of bone from all years, which may be included if they can be assigned to phase.  A considerable number of fragments recovered from the residues of wet sieving, from a variety of contexts. Taphonomic indicators, butchery, metrics and pathology have been recorded as well as information on age from toothwear of livestock species and epiphyseal fusion data. The data was assessed following each field season with raw data presented for NISP and MNI by feature type.

51

The Neolithic assemblage comprises nine fragments, and this is typical of these types of features and deposits in this region. Cattle and sheep-sized animals were noted, with an emphasis on the latter. The date of these features is of interest, as sheep/goat only increases in abundance in the region in the later Neolithic (Randall in prep a). The Bronze Age assemblage consists of 155 fragments, spread over a number of areas and features. Cattle and sheep/goat predominate with few pig and a single horse fragment. Whilst small, and limited in the degree of analysis which can be carried out, this assemblage is similar in size and nature to a number of other Middle and later Bronze Age assemblages in the region (e.g. Higbee in Gent and Reed 2007; Higbee in Leach 2009; Levitan 1990; Randall forthcoming; Randall in prep b). The majority of the faunal material available for study relates to the Iron Age, with in excess of 2400 assessable fragments for the various cut features of the interior, and 4710 from the rampart trenches. Livestock species predominate in these assemblages, with sheep/goat most prevalent, and cattle and pig having lesser representation, and only small numbers of horse and dog with few wild species present (small numbers of deer, bird and small vertebrate fragments). This is in general terms a typical Iron Age assemblage (Hambleton 2008) and fits well alongside Iron Age assemblages in the region (cf. Randall 2010a); however, it is extremely desirable to differentiate between earlier and later Iron Age material, which has not been carried out to date. The scale of the Iron Age assemblage has provided a range of information which can be used to evaluate livestock production, exploitation, consumption and disposal, and it is clear from the analysis to date that there are potential differences in the location and feature type associated with the deposition of material. Pits in particular have high variability of content. A number of associated bone groups (ABGs) have also been identified. The Romano-British and later assemblage is small, identifying cattle and sheep/goat. It requires little further consideration.

Further research questions Chronological variation The small Neolithic assemblage is worth describing in publication due to the general scarcity of Neolithic faunal material. Similarly the Bronze Age material is worthy of further examination and description due to the limited amount of faunal material recovered from all sites of the period in this region. Similarities and differences can be assessed in relation to a number of published and unpublished assemblages locally, which provides a broad brush picture. Some chronological variation may be discernible at species representation level or in fragmentation and disposal, between the Bronze Age and Iron Age assemblages. Importantly however, the Iron Age assemblage should be considered where at all possible by phase. It is important, if feasible, to identify material belonging to the earlier and later Iron Age, and treat these as separate units. This is because the marked shift in livestock production and exploitation in the South Somerset area

52

appears to occur at the end of the earlier Iron Age, so this needs to be tested. At Cadbury Castle, and in its environs, there is a shift from the Middle Bronze Age with relatively even abundance of sheep/goat and cattle, with a few pigs, through to increasing abundance of sheep/goat in the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age (although the chronology for this is unclear), but with a marked upsurge in the abundance of sheep/goat in the mid first millennium BC, and which remains the case until the end of the Iron Age. The Ham Hill assemblage offers an important opportunity to compare species abundance and herd structures for this period.

Site economy and environment Indications from mortality profiles of cattle and sheep/goat for southern Somerset (Randall 2010a) and Dorset (e.g. Randall in prep. c; in prep. d) suggest that the predominant concern of Iron Age populations was to maintain a long term strategy of mixed husbandry and mixed products. The Ham Hill assemblage has some potential to provide a comparable example to test this picture of production and exploitation. The information likely to be afforded on the local environment is limited, but should be considered with respect to bird and small vertebrates, and these need if possible to be identified to species. It will also be important to be able to compare contemporary phases of fauna from the Open Area with the Rampart material.

Intra-site use and disposal practice There are some indications of differences in disposal in different areas of the site, and there is considerable potential for consideration of the spatial distribution of deposition, in general terms and between feature types. There is a need to test what has been observed elsewhere with respect to the tendency to dispose of the remains of animals with a smaller carcase, and which require differing levels of preparation and butchery (Maltby 1985). Detailed examination may elucidate whether particular activities were carried out in one area or another. It may be particularly important to consider the material from the residues in this regard, as they appear, at least in some cases, to have a greater proportion of burned fragments. It is not uncommon that more burned material (particularly that unidentifiable to species) occurs in residues due to fragmentation, but it supplies a method for potentially identifying areas used for . There are hints from the volumes of faunal remains in some contexts at Cadbury Castle, that the area immediately to the rear of the ramparts at times attracted dumping and disposal of concentrations of refuse. This needs to be considered in order to identify any biases to the economic information introduced by this type of practice.

Depositional practice In addition to the spatial and practical considerations of disposal of faunal remains, Iron Age faunal assemblages in the region have been recognised as often being the result of particular depositional practices which are highly structured. The Ham Hill

53

pits in particular appear to be highly variable in their content, and this is a factor which has been noted at Cadbury Castle and in the Cadbury Environs (Randall 2010b). Associated Bone Groups have also been recognised in the current and previous (McKinley 1999, Lievers et al. 2006) Ham Hill assemblages and these have some similarities with those noted at Cadbury Castle (Jones and Randall 2010) and at Sigwells (Randall 2010b); broader regional contemporary comparisons may also reveal patterns of deposition, e.g. Dibble’s Farm, Christon (Morris 1988). ABGs need to be considered with respect to their individual context and location, and whether or not they occur with any other ‘unusual’ items or concentrations of material. This is most fruitful when carried out at a detailed level, considering sequence and nature of fills and taking into account type and concentration of the faunal material, alongside ceramics, metalwork, human remains and other materials and objects (Randall 2010b).

Regional comparison and other hillfort assemblages The Ham Hill assemblage is an important addition to the available faunal assemblages in the region for the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age, and the opportunity should be taken to evaluate if and how these data fit with the general picture emerging for the later prehistoric animal economy. In addition, this assemblage joins a limited suite of faunal assemblages recovered from hillforts, particularly the most proximate at South Cadbury and, slightly more distant, at Maiden Castle in Dorset. Evaluating the similarities and differences between Ham Hill and these sites may further our understanding of their function more generally.

Schedule of further work Additional work necessary to address these issues should include: a) Preparation of data and summary tables for archive purposes, split by phase (Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age (sub-phases to be confirmed), Romano- British/Early medieval) and between the Open Area and the rampart investigations (hand collected and sieved assemblages) to include:  Summary species abundance tables, with recalculated total NISP and MNI as required;  Summary tables of fragmentation, butchery, taphonomic factors, bone condition, and species and element distribution, but phase/context type;  Data tables for the above;  Charts exploring species element representation and expected representation;  Data tables for selected contexts exploring taphonomy, and species and element representation;  Data tables for NISP and MNE/I for cattle, sheep/goat, pig, horse and dog;  Data tables of epiphyseal fusion for livestock species;

54

 Data tables of tooth wear data for cattle, sheep/goat and pig;  Charts exploring the mortality profile of cattle, sheep/goat and pig, to include loose tooth data where available;  Data table of pathological material, metrical data, sex data, withers heights and butchery. b) Preparation of an archive report to discuss, by phase and location as detailed above:  the nature of each assemblage, condition, distribution, relative abundance of species and notable contexts;  abundance, age at death, herd structure, products and utilisation, element representation, treatment and disposal, metrical information and pathological conditions for each species to provide a picture of husbandry, consumption and disposal;  a discussion of the assemblage site economy and treatment of animals by phase, covering rampart and interior phases separately and providing a combined narrative;  discussion of these data in relation to previously recovered and reported material from Ham Hill;  regional and broad comparison with other hillfort assemblages. c) Production of two separate publication texts (one interior, one rampart) to focus on presentation of the main data, and most pertinent information, by phase and location as detailed above, to include similar headings as the archive report (n.b. because of the relative size of the faunal assemblages from the interior and rampart trenches, the ultimate number of pages may need to be relatively similar).

Tables likely to be needed (as a minimum) for both texts:  Summary table of abundance;  Summary tables for butchery, taphonomic factors and element distribution;  Detailed tables for particular features/contexts/groups may be required.

Figures likely to be needed for both texts:  Species element representation charts for each phase;  Mortality profile charts for sheep/goat and cattle, and potentially comparison charts to other sites.

55 d) Production of a combined discussion of the overarching elements of the Iron Age assemblages of the Rampart trenches and interior features (should they be contemporary), and broad comparison to regional and hillfort assemblages.

Timetable Action Days Collate, organise and check phasing of databases/spreadsheets 1 Preparation of datasheets and calculations (dependant on 4 number of IA phases) Intra-site analysis 3 Descriptive text for report and publication 3 Discussion 2 Contingency 2 Total 15 Table 7.1.13 Summary of timetable

7.1.5 Coprolites – Erica Rowan

Current Stage of Assessment Seven coprolite samples were recovered from the rampart in Trench 2 in Blocks BEE, BED, BEG and BGB, that represent a variety of contexts including rubble layers, soil horizons and bone and pottery scatters/layers. The coprolites were well preserved due to their high bone content. Their deposition, within a midden type deposit containing faunal and mineralized material, also contributed to the survival of this rarely preserved type of organic material. The coprolites were processed and analysed in order to assess the animal origin of the material and derive some conclusions about the diets of the individual. The coprolites contained a mixture of plant impressions from monocotyledonous plants such as grasses as well as sheep/goat bones. Eight bones were recovered from three coprolites. The high bone concentration suggests that the coprolites come from dogs. Three of these four coprolites also contained very small fragments of charcoal and carbonized material. The presence of plant impressions, and especially charcoal, indicates that the dogs probably lived with people when the site was occupied. It is possible that the dogs were consuming animal waste thrown onto the midden type deposit within the rampart and as a result they accidentally ingested both plant tissue and charcoal. Although Ham Hill was occupied from the Neolithic to the Roman period the recovery of both dogs and sheep skeletons from the mid to late Iron Age phases of the site, in association with the recovery of some of the coprolites from postholes, does suggest an Iron Age date for the coprolites. The age ranges of the sheep/goat bones within the coprolites provide the most interesting data with respect to human habitation and canine feeding patterns at the site. The faunal remains fall into three distinct age ranges: (1) newborn, (2) a few weeks old and (3) at least three months of age. Consequently, the dogs were consuming meat from at least late winter (when the lambing season begins) through

56

the spring and early summer. None of the bones are from mature animals and it is possible that the dogs only fed on sheep/goats that died young. Finally, the age range of the sheep/goat from the coprolites suggests that people inhabited the site for several months at a time; comparison with the primary faunal assemblage – particularly elements with signs of canine gnaw marks – would provide further context to these observations.

Potential and intended works The material has the potential to increase our knowledge concerning the relationship between humans and dogs in the Iron Age. For example, were dogs intentionally fed young sheep/goat or were they scavenging available carcasses? Were more mature animals also a part of the food resource available to dogs? What might this tell us about contemporary attitudes and conventions concerning the consumption of different animal species? A comparison of the ages of the bones recovered from the coprolites with the overall sheep/goat assemblage from the site should be undertaken to determine whether or not there was a special feeding pattern for the dogs. There are few comparative examples of informative coprolite from Iron Age contexts, but an Iron Age dog coprolite recovered from Barleycroft farm in Cambridgeshire was found to contain a similar combination of foetal and young sheep bones, suggesting that this feeding convention may have been commonplace in the Iron Age (Rowan 2012). A broader literature search could provide additional regional comparanda. The necessary destruction of the coprolites during their analysis means that no further laboratory work or analysis is required (or possible). Nonetheless, it is recommended that 1-2 photographs of the coprolites taken prior to their destruction be included in the publication in order to highlight the shape of the material and the high concentration of visible bone.

Timetable The estimated time required to prepare a publication-standard report is 2 days. Photographs of the coprolites have already been taken and would simply need to be processed to achieve publication standard. The rarity of coprolite finds means that there are few sites available for comparison. Comparison of the ages between the coprolites and the other sheep/goat material should be straightforward. The work would be completed by the end of March 2016.

7.1.6 Worked Bone and Antler – Ian Riddler Current Stage of Assessment The Open Area Investigations Nine worked antler and bone objects were recovered from the open area excavations. They include a comb, a handle, a cheekpiece or toggle, a miniature pick,

57

two small pointed blades, an awl, a metapodial tool and a toggle. All of them have been examined, identified and catalogued. All nine objects are stratified and almost all of them come from the fill of pits. The exception lies with one object, which was found in the fill of the gulley of Structure 1. The precise location of each pit has been identified and this work has been extended to plotting the spatial distribution of the objects from the nearby Wessex Archaeology excavations. The raw material of each object has been established, although one of them <1070> has been cut from a bird bone, which has not yet been identified to species. Further work on the objects lies mainly in discussing the significance of each object type in the light of material from nearby excavations. In the first instance they should be compared with the four objects retrieved from excavations by Wessex Archaeology. Only one of these objects has been illustrated, and the others have merely been briefly described. They have all been deposited in Taunton Museum. All four of those objects were also stratified and their contexts have been phased. A wider perspective on the objects can also be added by considering published work from nearby, including the , the Meare Lake Villages and South Cadbury hillfort, as well as sites in Wiltshire and Dorset. It appears that most of the nine objects come from contexts of Late Iron Age date, although this will need to be confirmed. Some of the objects are typical of the period and the region, whilst others are more unusual and may require a slightly more detailed treatment.

The Rampart Trenches Eight objects were recovered from Rampart contexts, but only seven of them are worked. They include a pendant, an awl, a modified cattle scapula, a scoop, a small pointed and two fragments of the lower part of the shafts of needles or pins. The small pointed blade came from an Early- to Middle Iron Age context in Trench 1 and it accords well with that dating. Five objects came from Late Iron Age or Roman contexts in Trench 2 and, once again, the context dating fits well with the typological dating for the objects themselves. The two needle or pin shafts both came from Roman contexts. In addition a pendant was recovered from the topsoil of Trench 4 and it is of Late Iron Age date. The objects can be divided into three distinct groups by date. A small pointed blade from Trench 1 is of Early- to Middle Iron Age date, and four objects from Trenches 2 and 4 are of Late Iron Age date. The two needle or pin shafts from Trench 2 are likely to be of Roman date. All but one of the objects is stratified and their context locations within their trenches have been established. The raw material can be determined for all but one of the objects (one of the needle or pin shafts) and all of the objects have been identified to type and placed within a functional category. As with the objects from the open area excavations, a wider perspective can be added by considering published work from nearby, including the Glastonbury Lake Village, the Meare Lake Villages and South Cadbury hillfort, as well as sites in Wiltshire and Dorset. In this case there are three main periods to be considered, although little can be said about the two objects from contexts of Roman date. All of

58

the objects are of known types, although the function of some of them has yet to be determined. They have all been catalogued and the main work that remains is to provide a discussion text for them.

Timetable

Action Days Open Area Identification of bird bone species for object <1070> Examination of Wessex Archaeology objects 0.5 Writing of Publication Text 1.5 Ramparts Writing of Publication Text 1.5 Total 3.5 Table 7.1.14. Summary of timetable and costings

Timeframe: it is only a small piece of work and could be fitted in to my schedule at any time from November 2015 onwards

Illustrations

Cat Description no. 1062 Cheekpiece or Toggle 1070 Toggle 1642 Miniature Pick Open Area 1899 Handle 1964 Small Pointed Blade 1965 Awl 39 Pendant 1757 Awl Ramparts 1771 Scoop 1774 Modified Scapula 2582 Small Pointed Blade Table 7.1.15. Recommended illustrations

7.1.7 Human Remains – Natasha Dodwell

Human bone was identified in each of the four phases of excavations undertaken by the Cambridge Archaeological Unit and Cardiff University between 2009 and 2013. Disarticulated and partially articulated skeletal elements were recovered from the rampart excavations and, within the open area (in pits and the main enclosure) burials as well as disarticulated/partially articulated bone were identified. Human skeletal material has also been found during earlier excavations of the hill fort (Keith in Gray 1925, McKinley 1999) and will need to be incorporated for comparative purposes into the final publication.

59

Current Stage of Assessment, and Required Further Analysis The Rampart Trenches Disarticulated and partially articulated skeletal elements were recovered from Trenches 2 and 3 in 2012 and 2013 (Table 7.1.16). The basic analysis and quantification has been completed. Of particular interest are the elements that have been modified; there are examples of animal gnawing, charring, axial splitting and cut/ marks. No. Year Comments fragments From 6 contexts. Evidence of charring on humerus [3940], axial splitting of 2012 14 humerus, femur & metatarsal [3942] and fine cut marks on humerus & metatarsals [3942] From 11 contexts .Evidence of cut marks on humerus, [3957] of charring [3927] 2013 28 and animal gnawing [3993] Table 7.1.16. Summary of bone elements from the Rampart Ditch

 All of the fragments need to be numbered so that spatial distribution and potential refitting of fragments can be assessed.  Degree of surface/cortical bone preservation has been recorded for fragments excavated in 2013 but still needs to be recorded for the elements identified in 2012 (McKinley 2004). All of the elements need to be recorded by zone (Knüsel and Outrum 2004) so that their character/how they have been modified can be compared to the faunal assemblage.  All fragments need to be examined under magnification to check for any further taphonomic changes. All modification needs to be described and recorded in detail – SEM & photographs (these images could be included in the publication).

The Open Area Investigations The majority of human bone from this area derived from the enclosure ditch, F.1531 where disarticulated and partially articulated skeletal elements were recovered as well as burials (Table 7.1.17). Of particular significance are the partially articulated torsos and disarticulated skulls with penetrating injuries/blunt force trauma which were excavated in 2013. In addition, disarticulated bone and crouched burials were recovered from pits (Table 7.1.18).  All of the fragments need to be numbered so that spatial distribution and potential refitting of fragments can be assessed. This is particularly important for the elements recovered from the enclosure ditch in 2013.  Degree of surface/cortical bone preservation has been recorded for those bones excavated in 2013 but elements from earlier phases of excavation still need to be recorded (McKinley 2004). All of the elements need to be recorded by zone (Knüsel and Outrum 2004) so that their character and how they have been modified can be compared to the faunal assemblage.

60

 The trauma to the skulls needs to be recorded in detail and the other elements examined for further, less obvious wounds.  All fragments need to be examined under magnification to check for any further taphonomic changes. All modification needs to be described and recorded in detail – SEM & photographs (these images could be included in the publication).

Disarticulated/ partially articulated Articulated Burials Year No. Comments No. Comments fragments From 3 contexts (F.1011), and 2009 127 - - cremated bone from F.1019 Foetal, neonate in basal silts of 2011 20 From 3 contexts 3 ditch & adult cut into the silts and sealed by collapsed bank From 4 contexts (F. 1011). Femur 2012 5 with canine puncture mark [4438], - - axially split tibia [4438] From 19 contexts (F.1531). Blunt 2013 c. 700 force and/or penetrating trauma - - to at least 3 skulls. Table 7.1.17. Human bone from the Enclosure Ditch

Disarticulated Articulated Burials Year No. Comments No. Comments fragments From 8 pits, predominantly skull 2011 84 - - frags. 2013 - - 2 Crouched (F.1014, F.1024) Table 7.1.18. Human bone from pits

Timetable

Action No. Days Marking disarticulated bone fragments (Finds) 2 Examining all bone under hand magnification, recording surface erosion and 2 fragmentation (zonation method) SEM of all bone with ancient modification 1 Detailed recording all trauma & taphonomic changes inc. diagrams & photographs. 2 Analysis of spatial distribution of all elements/fragments and possible refitting. 3 Intra site analysis/comparison with other British Iron Age Hill Forts 4 Text for publication (incorporating previous excavations) 5 Photographs for publication (1-3 in addition to SEM images). D. Webb 0.5 Editing final text 0.5 Contingency 2 Finds 2 Photography 0.5 Totals Analysis and Report 19.5 TOTAL 22 Table 7.1.19. Timetable of further analysis prior to publication & publication text

61

4.1.8 Strontium (87Sr/86Sr) and oxygen (δ18O) isotope analysis of human remains – Richard Madgwick

Current Stage of Assessment A pilot study of oxygen and strontium isotope analysis was conducted on a sample of the remains of eight human individuals from the open area investigations at Ham Hill. Seven of these were contained within the main Late Iron Age rectilinear enclosure ditch F.1531, and the eighth sample was of a crouched burial from pit F.1014. The vast majority of the human sample was broadly consistent with a local origin, with the 87Sr/86Sr results showing that seven of the eight individuals are within the expected range for regions surrounding Ham Hill. In the absence of comprehensive biosphere mapping data, all seven individuals could be assumed to derive from the south or south west of England. Lying outside of this range was an adult female buried within a grave cut into the base of the enclosure ditch. The 87Sr/86Sr value for this individual was far more radiogenic than the rest of the sample, with equivalent values only found in pockets in northern Scotland, the Lake District and the Scottish borders. However, greater potential for origins lies in the Continent at Aquitania or Gaul.

Analytical Programme The strontium and oxygen isotope analysis of the humans from the enclosure was a small stand-alone pilot study supported by Cardiff University. Areas in which the research could benefit include: 1. Enhancement of confidence in identification of non-local individuals with refinement of their origins:  Increase sample size to address the local signature; include within the analysis the human remains (x2) from the Wessex excavations (McKinley 1999)  Expand the study to sulphur isotope analysis to look at the individuals’ proximity to the coast in the years before death. Further resolution of the individual that is highly likely to have derived from the Continent would be most likely of limited value.

2. The human and faunal carbon and nitrogen isotope study would benefit from extension. Most of the humans have been sampled and show fairly typical values for the Iron Age. As it currently stands, the faunal dataset is small and would certainly benefit from a higher sample size. There are tantalising outliers within the dataset hinting that animals are not being raised uniformly and may be drawn from a number of different landscape locations. The range of nitrogen values is high for domestic herbivores but additional samples are required to be in a position to make sense of this. However, in its current state the dataset is of relatively limited interpretative value. An additional 30-40 samples of the main three domesticate species would make this a really valuable dataset and would mean ideas of

62

hinterland could be explored in a similar way (though still with smaller sample sizes) as Stevens et al. (2010) have been able to do at Danebury.

Timetabling & Costing Further C/N analysis will take several weeks (on and off) of sampling, collagen extraction and mass spectrometry. The preparation could be undertaken as part of a student project. Report writing for the two isotope projects would take about three weeks. I would hope all analysis could be done in the next 12 months (principally May-July 2016) and report writing could take place in the autumn. As a lecturer at Cardiff University, and as Ham Hill is a part-Cardiff project, I would not charge for my time. The carbon and nitrogen samples can be analysed at Cardiff. The costs of £16 per specimen (40 = £640) would be covered by the Bioarchaeology laboratory budget and additional processing work can be undertaken by students. The only expense that the project would be required to cover is a small budget of £100 for travel to Cambridge to sample the bones.

7.1.9 Flint and Chert – Lawrence Billington Current Stage of Assessment and Required Further Analysis. The Rampart Excavations Summary of the assemblage The entire assemblage of flint and chert from the rampart trenches has been subject to basic analysis and quantification. Whilst the assemblage is large, a significant proportion (up to 50%) is made up of small chips (<10mm) and flake fragments recovered both by hand excavation and from bulk soil samples. There is a correspondingly low number of retouched forms and larger pieces such as cores. A notable feature of the lithic assemblage from the rampart trenches is the dearth of diagnostically post- Neolithic material, which is relatively abundant in the assemblage from the open area excavation. The vast majority of the assemblage was recovered from deposits making up elements of the Iron Age rampart construction and, as such, represents residual material caught up in these later deposits. A very small proportion of the assemblage was derived from pre-rampart contexts in Trench 3 and it is possible that this material may be contemporary with earlier prehistoric activity associated with these deposits.

Further analytical work required The assemblage should be reviewed in light of the full analysis of the dating and sequence of the rampart deposits, especially in terms of any ‘pre-rampart’ contexts. This would require a definitive list of these contexts and their suggested date which would allow the lithic material associated with them to be quantified and described. This should not require any further detailed analysis of the lithic artefacts but it may

63

be useful to briefly look over any assemblages from specific contexts which have the potential to represent earlier prehistoric activity.

Illustration Provision should be made for illustration of a few selected pieces. At this stage it is possible to highlight three retouched pieces that could be usefully illustrated (a leaf shaped and a bifacially retouched piece from Trench 2 and a from a possible pre- rampart context in Trench 3).

The Open Area Excavations Summary of the assemblage The entire assemblage of flint and chert from the open area excavation has been subject to basic analysis and quantification. The assemblage includes large amounts of material recovered during systematic sampling of surface deposits/buried soils together with material recovered as a residual element in later prehistoric features. A very small proportion of the assemblage was recovered from potentially contemporary deposits. These include a single flake which appears to accompany an inhumation burial (F.1021) and an assemblage of 81 worked flints from seven Neolithic pits. As a whole the assemblage includes abundant evidence for activity from the Mesolithic through to the Early Bronze Age. There is very little evidence for any flint working of Middle Bronze Age date or later.

Further analytical work required:  The report on the 2011 excavations (Slater et al. 2011) included analysis of the lithic assemblage recovered from systematic sampling (test pitting and surface collection) of the sub soils/buried soils of the excavation area. This analysis needs to be updated by incorporating the lithic material recovered in the 2012 and 2013 fieldwork. In 2012 a further three worked flints were recovered from additional test pitting and 54 worked flints were recovered from additional surface collection. In 2013 a further 27 worked flints were recovered as surface finds.  The assemblage should be reviewed in light of the full analysis of the dating and sequence of the features of the site. Especially useful here would be a definitive list of all potentially earlier prehistoric contexts (notably the Neolithic pits) to allow the lithic assemblages associated with them to be quantified and described.  A chert artefact (recovered as SF1186 in 2013) was highlighted in the assessment report as possibly representing a Lower Palaeolithic . This piece requires further analysis and consideration, preferably with advice from a specialist in the Lower Palaeolithic archaeology of the region.

64

 The lithic assemblages recovered from the earlier excavations of the Central Unit and Wessex Archaeology have been quantified and described in the relevant publication texts (Smith 1990, McKinley 1999, Leivers et al. 2006). The combined total of worked chert and flint reported on in these publications comes to 497 and the character of these assemblages appears to be closely comparable to that from the CAU/Cardiff excavations. Given this, further work on this material is not seen as a necessity and it should be sufficient to cite the existing reports. Nonetheless, if the archive is readily accessible it might be useful to briefly examine some of the material from these earlier investigations.

Illustration It is recommended that a series of illustrations are produced showing a range of diagnostic pieces represented in the assemblage from different timeframes within the open area excavation (Mesolithic; earlier Neolithic; later Neolithic; Early Bronze Age). These should be accompanied by illustrations of selected pieces from earlier prehistoric contexts (notably the Neolithic pits). A provisional list of lithic artefacts recommended for illustration includes 20 pieces which, depending on the publication format, should equate to 1 to 1.5 pages.

Timetable 1. Prior to undertaking any further work it would be useful, in the first instance, to get final details of potentially earlier prehistoric contexts from both the rampart trenches and the open area excavations and details of any dating evidence. At this stage it would also be useful to discuss the final plotting and presentation of the distribution of the lithics derived from the systematic sampling of surface deposits in the open area excavation. 2. Following this an estimated two days are required with access to the lithic assemblage in order to select and extract pieces for illustration and review the material from key contexts. 3. An estimated three days are required for final quantification and analysis of the assemblage and preparation of the publication texts.

7.1.10 Early Prehistoric Pottery – Henrietta Quinnell This is based on the assessment prepared by Mark Knight. The assemblage of 462 sherds contains the first Early Neolithic, Peterborough and Early Bronze Age material from Ham Hill and amplifies that of Beaker date from earlier work. (The Early Bronze Age was used, for assessment purposes, for sherds likely to be of Early and Middle Bronze Age dates). The whole assemblage requires categorization into clearly defined fabrics, by sherds numbers, weight, minimum vessel numbers, for each context. The petrography of each fabric should be studied aided by a thin- section, with colour micrographs published where appropriate. The formal and

65

decorative characteristics of the vessels represented should be presented, supported by appropriate comparanda, for each of the four chronological groupings present. The discussion of each grouping should place it within its regional background. Here the author’s familiarity with assemblages from Devon and Cornwall, including much material yet to be published, will go some way to counterbalancing the much larger body of published data from areas to the east and south of Ham Hill (e.g. Quinnell & Taylor forthcoming).

Early Neolithic The pit group in the north corner of the open area investigations contained parts of at least five undecorated vessels, with suggested conjoins in one case between sherds from two of the pits. There were also two sherds with lugs and a single decorated sherd. These all belong to the South-Western/Hembury tradition as does a small amount of material from the buried soil/colluvium. The only comparable published assemblage in this area of south east Somerset is that from the small causewayed enclosure at Netherfield Farm, South Petherton supported by radiocarbon dating and detailed thin-section study of fabrics (Mudd and Brett 2013). An Early Neolithic assemblage was identified at South Cadbury, to the east of Ham Hill, and is now being published by Richard Tabor, who is also working on assemblages of the same broad date from Milsoms Corner in its immediate vicinity. Preliminary drafts of this work are available for study and include petrology and a series of radiocarbon dates. The detailed analysis of the Ham Hill assemblage, supported by fabric thin-sections and radiocarbon dating, will usefully integrate with and draw upon these recent and ongoing studies to provide a statement on Early Neolithic ceramics in south east Somerset. This has hitherto been largely blank within a ring of well-studied, dated and published assemblages such as Whitesheet, , Hembury and the , which provide a good bank of comparanda on forms and fabrics. Cleal’s (2004) survey of these and related ceramics provides a useful overview with references to the principal sites. Chronology has now been updated for the causeway enclosure sites by the Gathering Time project (Whittle et al. 2011).

Peterborough Two pits in the open area investigations produced parts of single vessels, with a scatter of material from other areas. This material will be considered against the published assemblage from Netherfield Farm and that being studied by Tabor from Sigwells near South Cadbury. For this period radiocarbon dating is highly desirable. Analysis of the Ham Hill material, drawing on data from these sites, will again provide a statement on Peterborough material from south east Somerset which has hitherto been lacking.

66

Beaker The small Beaker assemblage, all from layers of soil in different areas, is of a period currently poorly represented in south east Somerset with the only other assemblage being that from Milsoms Corner.

Earlier Bronze Age The small assemblage appears largely lacking in pieces with significant form or decoration. Its further study will be aided by data from Netherfield Farm, South Cadbury and Sigwells. The provision of radiocarbon dating from contexts producing these ceramics should help to define their chronology.

Fabrics and suggested thin-sections The Fabric Series Nos 1-8 presented for 2013 does not entirely mesh with fabrics referred to in previous seasons. In addition some features of sherds seen in photographs suggest additional complexity. Overall it seems reasonable to allow for c. 12 thin-sections.

Illustrations Early Neolithic 2011 decorated carinated bowl; 2013 five different vessels from pits, also two lugs, one sherd with decoration. So potentially 9 illustrations.

Peterborough (2009) decorated sherd residual in [1066]; (2011)T-shaped rims from vessels with incised and impressed decoration x 2; (2013) parts of two separate vessels from two different pits, sherds with ‘maggots’, T-shaped rim with finger-nail, body sherd with herring bone and maggots. So potentially 8 illustrations.

Beaker (2009) part of vessel with some conjoining sherds with incised decoration; rusticated sherd; (2013) sherd with comb-impressed triangle. So potentially 3 illustrations.

Early Bronze Age (2011) base angle sherd x 2; (2013) base angle sherd. So potentially 3 illustrations. A potential total of 23 illustrations

67

Timetable Preparation of the report should allow 7 days, to include one day liaising with Simon Timberlake who will study thin-sections. (The initial day spent on the preparation of the statement will be in addition). It would also be helpful to allow £50 towards travel from Exeter to the Museum of Somerset, Taunton, from which the loan of thin-sections and fabrics from Netherfield farm are being negotiated, and also costs incurred in transfer of material between the author and Lisa Brown who is working on the later prehistoric pottery. First quarter 2016 material delivered to HQ. Second quarter 2016 basic quantifications, selection of thin-section samples and sherds for illustration. Third quarter 2016 preparation and study of thin-sections and illustrations. Fourth quarter 2016 preparation of report.

7.1.11 Later Prehistoric and Roman Pottery – Lisa Brown Current Stage of Assessment The current assessment documents and data for later prehistoric pottery include:  Pottery records: five separate sets of records (2011; 2012. 2012; 2012.2013; 2013)  Separate reports for assemblages by year 2011, 2012, 2013 The records are broadly standardised in Excel spreadsheet format. They include fields for fabric/form/decoration/residue/diameter/quantification by sherds count and weight (in grammes), residues, spot-date, etc. Each report is essentially stand- alone, and includes a codified fabric type series, some description of forms (but not a full codified form type series), a summary of key groups or area assemblages and varying levels of discussion. The total assemblage of later prehistoric pottery recovered from the 2011-2013 excavations amounts to approximately 9501 sherds weighing 53,817g. This figure includes pottery from topsoil deposits and disturbed contexts, such as animal burrows, etc. but excludes pottery recovered from sieving. The average sherd weight (ASW) of the total assemblage is relatively low at 5.7g. The site total is approximate because some sherds or sherd groups require more accurate identification and the pottery recovered from sampling has not yet been recorded. Although during recording efforts were made to identify and date the pottery as precisely as possible, one of the aims of analysis will be to filter out remaining examples of earlier prehistoric or post-prehistoric pottery, along with other ceramic materials such as fired clay and briquetage, which may be reflected in the current figures. Furthermore, pottery that is deemed to be unstratified or to have uncertain provenance will be identified and eliminated from certain aspects of analysis, whilst being retained within the overall record. During assessment fabric and form typologies were constructed for each season’s reporting, or the typologies of previous season’s assemblages were revised and

68

enhanced to include new types and varieties. Therefore, these typologies need to be reviewed, and individual sherds or sherd groups re-examined and checked for accuracy of identification. Then a final rationalised and coherent type series for forms and fabrics will be devised and systematically codified. This will require revisiting the actual pottery in some cases. Vessels and vessel parts will be selected for illustration with a view to presenting as far as possible the entire form and rim/base range as well as key stratified groups and significant individual vessels. Codification and an illustrated catalogue will facilitate all levels of analysis and comparison to other local, regional and national pottery assemblages. Several examples of carbonised residues on internal surfaces of sherds were recorded, and these can be candidates for radiocarbon dating. These sherds will be highlighted along with recognisable vessel forms or fragments that could be submitted for analysis of lipids and other substances.

The Rampart Trenches The ramparts were investigated in Trenches 1-4 during the 2012 and 2013 seasons of the current project. Trench 3 involved the reopening and partial excavation of the trench excavated in 1929 by St George Gray, whilst Trenches 1, 2, and 4 were new interventions. Later prehistoric pottery was recovered from all four rampart trenches, yielding a combined total of approximately 4884 sherds /33404g, with an ASW of 6.8g. The rampart sequence assemblage represents roughly 51% by sherd count and 62% by weight of the total pottery assemblage from the project. Pottery from Trenches 1-4 was found in a variety of deposits - topsoil, buried soils, stone-built revetments, rubble and finds-rich soil dumps, levelling dumps, abandonment horizons, and pits and buildings sealed below the rampart tail. The ASW of this group is slightly higher than that of the assemblage from the hillfort interior. It is generally more commonly the case that prehistoric earthwork sequences incorporate small and abraded sherds, representing casual discards or accidental losses during construction work. However, the Ham Hill rampart trenches collection includes material that derived from finds-rich deposits associated with what was apparently intensive occupation of locations just within the ramparts, apparently more intensive than in the open areas which they encircled. Some of these finds-rich deposits were used to enhance the ramparts at various times, and others accumulated during periods of stability in the construction sequence. It is possible that some of this material was quarried from waste/midden deposits or building clearance associated with the hillfort settlement. Each of these particular provenances represents a specific catchment for pottery (and other finds), and the character of each of those assemblages correlates in particular ways to their provenance. For example, in the case of finds-rich soils used to enhance a rampart, the possible source of those soils requires investigation.

69

The analysis programme will involve an examination of aspects of the life histories of sherds and sherd groups from the various elements of the rampart sequence, including an attempt to separate out sherd groups that represent casual loss or incorporation during the actual construction work as distinct from redeposited occupation deposits. It is important to consider whether, in the case of Ham Hill, the mechanisms by which the pottery entered the rampart deposits were distinct to those relating to pits, postholes and other features within the hillfort interior. The life histories of pottery sherds recovered from these disparate provenances may also have been quite different. The correlation between the character of particular pottery groups and their position within the rampart sequence, and in contrast to hillfort interior assemblages, will be investigated during analysis. Other rampart excavation assemblages The excavations conducted by Wessex Archaeology in 1994/1998 and 2002 did not involve investigation of the ramparts. However, one of the trenches opened in 1929 (Cutting XV) but unpublished by St George Gray was reopened and examined as Trench 3 of the 2012 excavations. The analysis should include the small assemblage of pottery recovered in 1920 for Cutting XV catalogued as P27 in the Gray Archive in Taunton. The pottery from the Ham Hill ramparts trenches should be compared to assemblages from other major hillfort investigations of earthwork sequences, including those from Cadbury Castle, Somerset (Barrett et al. 2000), Maiden Castle, Dorset (Sharples 1991) and Danebury, Hampshire (Cunliffe 1984; 1991). Few other hillforts in the region have been excavated (beyond the basic earthworks survey or minor trenching), but it will also be useful to compare the Ham Hill pottery with minor regional rampart assemblages, such as Kingsdown Camp (Gray 1927; 1930).

The Open Area Investigations Approximately 4617 sherds weighing 20,413g were recovered from the hillfort interior, excavated as four contiguous Areas close to the southern ramparts. The ASW of this total group is only 4.4g, a relatively low figure considering that most of the pottery came from pit fills. Over 70% of the total finds recovered from features investigated within Areas 1-4 were dated to the Middle to Late Iron Age (Phases 1 and 2) on the evidence of artefacts, including pottery, the few stratigraphic relationships and spatial relationships (e.g. groupings of pits). Later prehistoric pottery was found in the fills of gulley-defined structures, pit groups, isolated pits, boundary ditches and a ditched enclosure. The pottery recovered from deposits associated with the interior of the hillfort will be considered separately to that from the rampart trenches, and then the assemblages compared. The mechanisms by which the pottery was deposited in features in the hillfort interior will be examined in the same way as the ramparts collections.

70

Rectangular Enclosure The ditches of the rectangular enclosure yielded 244 sherds (921g) of pottery with a very low ASW of under 4g, much of it recorded as abraded and/or leached. Pottery recovered as small fragments in a poor condition is a common feature of ditches that filled gradually through natural silting. Nonetheless, it will be important to scrutinise the record for possible example of unusual components, as pottery was known during the later prehistoric period in Britain to have been deliberately placed in boundary ditches, with terminals often the favoured locations.

Pits The Ham Hill pits assemblage totalled 3179 sherds (15,591g) but with an ASW of only 5g. Pits dating to the British Iron Age are often found to be repositories of considerable quantities of pottery that can include complete vessels or substantial vessel parts. However, some of the Ham Hill pits are more accurately described as shallow scoops and do not fit the criteria for the “storage” pits that commonly yield deliberate deposits of pottery and other artefacts. Nonetheless, the ASW for this pit assemblage is notably low, and few deposits of pottery were regarded as “special” or deliberate during initial recovery and assessment. However, it is a well-recognised feature of pit deposits that it is not the degree of completeness, embellishment, fragment size, condition or quality of a vessel or vessel part that necessarily qualifies it as a component of a special deposit. Rather it can be the combination of the elements present, and these should all be considered in the round. Pottery fragments which may, on their inherent merit, appear unprepossessing could, in association with other materials (e.g. articulated animal parts, metalwork, loomweights, etc.) form part of a very deliberate array of materials selected for a particular deposition event. Analysis will therefore involve a consideration of the pottery component of pit fills with a view to examining the possibility that any sherds or collections of sherds may have been intentionally included in pit fills. The same intentions and patterns can be discerned in the fills of postholes or other structural features, and this line on inspection will also be pursued.

Pottery from earlier excavations Excavations of the hillfort interior undertaken by Wessex Archaeology (WA) in 1994 and 1999 (McKinley 1999) produced small assemblage (941 sherds/6821g) of later prehistoric pottery dating to 7th-5th centuries to 1st century BC and reported to be equivalent to Cadbury Phases 1, 2 and 3. Further excavations by WA in 2002 yielded an additional 1095 sherds/8638g dating to between the 4th and 1st centuries AD (equivalent to Cadbury Phases 2 and 3). These collections should be regarded as part of the combined hillfort interior assemblage, and will enhance the overall work of analysis. The pottery from Cadbury Castle itself and substantial assemblages from Maiden Castle and sites further afield, will also provide scope for useful comparison, as will Morris’s 1988 review of pottery from Ham Hill (Morris 1988).

71

Timetable

Task Days Record pottery from samples 1 Upgrade and check records (including codification of forms/fabric/decoration) 4 Statistical analysis/quantifications 4 General analysis 7 Research (library) 2 Illustrated catalogue 1 Drawing briefs 1 Discussion 4 Total 24

Petrological analysis (?10 samples) Residue analysis Table 7.1.20. Task breakdown for Rampart Trenches Assemblages

Task Days Record pottery from samples 1 Upgrade and check records (including codification of forms/fabric/decoration) 4 Statistical analysis/quantifications 4 General analysis 8 Research (library) 2 Illustrated catalogue 1 Drawing briefs 1 Discussion 5 Total 26

Petrological analysis (?12 samples) Residue analysis Table 7.1.21. Task breakdown for the Hillfort Interior

7.1.12 Metalwork – Grahame Appleby and Andrew Fitzpatrick 277 individual items of metalwork were recovered from the entire 2011-13 excavations; these are catalogued as 214 entries, some comprising multiple pieces (Table 7.1.22). Of the 214 entries, 53 are attributed to the ramparts with 161 from the open area where 74 entries relate to later Iron Age features (one being Romano- British) and the remaining 86 items deriving from the buried soil and colluvium subsoils. A small number of copper alloy Bronze Age items were identified from the subsoil in the open area investigations, including a Middle or later Bronze Age two- edged dagger. The majority of the finds are from later Iron Age contexts, with both the open area and rampart investigations producing a small assemblage of Romano- British items. Of the ramparts, Trench 2 produced by far the greatest quantity of metalwork, of which over 75% was iron and 22% copper alloy. All of the metalwork has been examined and documented by means of type, use, preservation condition and archaeological context. Where it has been considered appropriate, items have also been x-rayed and photographed. Further analysis and contextualisation of the assemblage is required due to the secure recovery of the

72

metalwork from archaeological features or deposits from the interior of the hillfort and associated ramparts. Metalwork from Ham Hill has been recovered over several decades and is currently dispersed between different locations. Consideration should be given to a reassessment of the ‘whole’ assemblage in light of the material recovered between 2011 and 2013 as one of the few large-scale collections retrieved during archaeological investigations of a hillfort. Much of the Iron Age assemblage may be classed as of regional importance, although the groups from the pits are of national importance and enhance the evidence from the small number of comparable groups from recent excavations. The Roman assemblage is similarly of national importance and includes items of military equipment. Copper Area Iron Lead Silver Gold Total Alloy Trench 1 2 - - - - 2 Trench 2 38 11 1 - - 50 53 Trench 3 - - - - - 0 Trench 4 - 1 - - - 1 Open Area (Features) 62 9 4 - - 75 161 Open Area (Subsoil/spoil) 72 11 - 2 1 86 Total 174 32 5 2 1 214 214

Table 7.1.22 Summary of catalogued metalwork

The assessment reports define all metalwork as a category of special deposit. This will need to be re-addressed in order to tighten this distinction from items resulting from discard or casual loss. The reports also catalogue items that are likely to be of modern origin and which have been relegated to the archive and will not be included in the final analysis. The remaining assemblage is fairly small, with 128 items deriving from secure contexts dated predominantly to the last two centuries of the 1st millennium BC with a small conquest component. Radiocarbon dating of deposits associated with larger metal groups (socketed items do not appear to contain mineral replaced wood), particularly in the open area’s pits, would be valuable and could also provide comparative data to assemblages currently undergoing radiocarbon dating from Danebury hillfort. The size of the assemblage limits the potential for greatly expanding discussion of everyday life in the Iron Age and conquest periods. However, the role and importance of iron at this time may be usefully considered and compared to broader and national overviews. Metalwork previously published from Ham Hill (e.g. Fitzpatrick in McKinley 1999, 111-115) will need to be incorporated into the discussion of the project’s assemblage. Together this will be considered in light of a broader regional and period-specific context. As an aid to the significance of metalwork at Ham Hill, particularly with regards to its circulation and exchange, it is advised that a programme of (portable) X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) and metallurgical analysis is conducted on items recovered from secure contexts. This is also recommended for items of Bronze, silver and gold.

73

The catalogue prepared for the post-excavation assessment report is comprehensive and will be enhanced as appropriate during the analysis. This will primarily be by confirming and/or refining identifications and by adding appropriate comparanda. Separate reports will be prepared for the open area investigations and the rampart trenches.

The Open Area Investigation Careful consideration to the periodisation, type and archaeological context is required in respect of the following:  Gold: <392> – metallurgical analysis is recommended to help determine the age and source of this piece, despite its unstratified nature.  Silver: <575>, <1889> – subjecting the two Iron Age coins to further metallurgical analysis will shed little light on the production of these two examples. Nonetheless, these coins need to be considered within the socio- political context of the region during the Late Iron Age. A single copper alloy object, a socketed knife of Late Bronze Age date, is currently dated to the Bronze Age. The dating of the knife (Ewart Park) will be related to the Late Bronze Age pottery from the site and the occurrence of single finds of Late Bronze Age metalwork from prominent topographic locations in the south-west. The presence of Late Bronze Age metalwork within the site highlights the potential for examining the manufacture, use and deposition of copper alloy items. pXRF and metallurgical analysis is recommended to provide comparative data with other Bronze Age material from the region. The discussion will review the Iron Age finds, including the silver coins, in the context of earlier finds from Ham Hill, which will include St George Gray’s archive and the closed groups from the more recent excavations. This site assemblage will then be analysed in relation to excavated assemblages from south-west hillforts, notably Cadbury Castle, Hod Hill and Maiden Castle, and the Somerset Lake Villages. Reference will also be made to the assemblage from Danebury hillfort further to the east. Particular attention will be paid to the groups from pits as these appear to be relatively frequent at Ham Hill and are a distinctive feature of the Late Iron Age activity at the site. Fittings such as joiner's dogs and latch lifters provide information about the architecture of the settlement but the number of finds from pits means that a relatively high proportion of tools are identifiable and these provide important information about the daily lives of the inhabitants. The tools include awls, files, saws and sickles and the analysis of them will also refer to important comparable groups from selected sites further afield, such as Burrough Hill, Leicestershire, and Fiskerton, Lincolnshire.

74

The Rampart Trenches The recovery of metalwork from the rampart trenches provides a rare opportunity to assess material that was deposited or disposed of within these features aiding analysis of dating and sequencing of activity on site. A relatively small number of Roman finds are present but these include a number of certain or possible pieces of military equipment including projectile heads and fittings from horse harnesses. The bronze brooches and possible tent pegs may also be associated with this phase of activity. In contrast to Devon and Cornwall, recently only little attention has been paid to the Roman conquest of Dorset and Somerset, but the new finds allow attention to be focussed once again on this dramatic episode. Numerous pieces of military equipment are recorded amongst the earlier finds but the precise nature of the activities they represent has not been clear. They might relate to one or more assaults on the hillfort, a temporary camp or camps, or a base that was occupied for a longer period. Alternatively, as has been suggested for some of the projectiles found at Hod Hill, these may relate to practice by forces garrisoned at the site. The ballista bolt found within the rampart at Trench 2 would seem likely to be associated with an assault. The location of the earlier finds of militaria will be plotted and the site assemblage will be analysed in the context of other hillforts in the south-west that have evidence for Roman assaults (Cadbury Castle, Maiden Castle, Hod Hill) and/or early Roman military occupation (Hembury, Devon, Cadbury Castle, Waddon Hill, Dorset). The evidence from other Roman bases such as Exeter, Hamworthy and Lake Farm will also be utilised.

Illustrations It is recommended to illustrate closed groups rather than an assortment of the ‘nicest’ items from the assemblage as a whole, for which symbols can be used in distribution plots to indicate the presence of the finds that don't merit illustration. The Roman militaria should also be illustrated.

Timetable Days required for analysis and reportage are: AF – 6

7.1.13 Slag, Stone and Clay – Simon Timberlake The following separately covers Slag and Metalworking Debris, Fired and Worked Clay, Burnt Stone, Utilised Stone, Quarried Stone, Worked Stone, and Ceramic Petrography. The quantities of finds for each of these categories, by area, are summarised in Table 7.1.23.

75

No. of items (weight g) Area Burnt Burnt Worked Fired Stone Stone flint stone clay

2810 161 36 925 1246 Open-area (159,646) (601) (78,328) (36,928) (8138) 2189 47 14 307 843 Rampart trenches (16,805) (1216) (19,705) (9360) (2005) 4999 208 50 1232 2089 TOTAL (176,451) (1817) (98,033) (46,288) (10,143)

Table 7.1.23. Summary of finds categories from investigation areas

Current Stage of Assessment, and Required Further Analysis Slag and Metalworking Debris The assemblage comprised 14.715kg of slag and metalworking debris, of which 99.3% was found in the later phases of rampart Trench 2. This was ferrous slag with the exception in the open area investigations of 36g of non-ferrous slag, 8g of which was found adhered to a greyware sherd most likely of a crucible in the later Iron Age enclosure ditch F.1531. The open area investigations also registered 1.664kg of iron oxide nodules from features which, although naturally occurring in the Yeovil sands, may also have been collected for use as an iron ore. This was illustrated by the presence of some chalk-derived deposits that must have been imported to the hill. Although this contrasts with the lack of documented evidence for smelting on the excavated sites, this does not serve as absence for smelting upon the hill overall. The following analyses remain outstanding: Non-ferrous:  Slagged crucible fragment <1114>. Non-destructive analysis for copper, tin and lead (plus arsenic and zinc) using portable x-ray fluorescence (pXRF). This would be a rapid analysis to confirm whether or not this represents the melting of a tin or tin-leaded bronze, or just the melting of copper.  Microscope photography of the crucible sherd. Ferrous:  Re-examine iron slag in Trench 2 suggested as being primary bloom smithing debris, in order to evaluate possible role in iron production.  Plot distribution of metalworking evidence in open area investigations for both features/deposits. Use areas may also be determined by plotting slag against evidence (fired clay and burnt stone) and looking for areas of correlation.

Total illustrations: 1-2 Number of days: 3

76

Fired and Worked Clay Fired and worked clay was recovered either as degraded amorphous lumps or as fragmentary or complete utilitarian objects such as loom weights, spindlewhorls and clay sling bullets. 80% by weight of the total 10,143g of fired and worked clay was derived from the open area investigations, predominantly from later Iron Age pits. The remaining 20%, collected from the ramparts, was sealed in layers of cultural debris and land mass that developed between construction phases. Further analysis of the fired and worked clay assemblage would need to separate the open area and rampart assemblages into separate analytical discussions that may then be considered together as localised zones of particular frames of activity. This would also take into account the material retained during the 2009 trenched evaluation that was previously unrecorded, and further examine previous reports from adjacent excavations. Map plot distribution of fired clay daub would be required to identify concentrations which might indicate nearby locations of dwellings or perhaps clay ovens or . This would include hearths associated with iron smithing – a process that has not previously been located at Ham Hill. The whole assemblage would further undergo complete re-examination for the presence of metalworking mould fragments, and a record would be collated of wattle stick diameters and other features linked to house walling (including vitrification and degree of burning). M. The assemblage includes a number of exceedingly well preserved loomweights which provides an opportunity to examine loomweight perforation widths and both macro and micro-wear with the aim being further insight into practices of and textile production. Lastly, a number of clay sling bullets are represented across the assemblage, and whilst not uncommon on mid to Late Iron Age sites these may be cross-referenced with the considerable stone sling bullet assemblage.

Illustrations: 6 x4 loomweight <772> <671> <149> <2883> spindlewhorl <564> clay sling bullet <691> Total illustrations: max. 6 Number of days: 6 Burnt Stone The rampart and open area assemblages would be separated for analytical and comparative purposes. The open area investigations accounted for 90.5% of the project’s burnt stone by weight. This would need to be combined and integrated into the values and distribution for burnt stone in the previously investigated areas adjacent to the site, with locations of find spots requiring of plotting into categories covering hearth evidence (i.e. cooking/ metalworking), postholes (as packing), ditch terminal/ pit deposits and revetment material etc. Currently remaining unresolved,

77

the 2011 burnt stone assemblage would need a complete re-examination for evidence of broken-up quern or other worked stone amongst it (unresolved)

Total illustrations: 1 (distribution plot) Number of days: 2

Utilised Stone (sling bullets) Stone pebbles have been provisionally sourced from Chesil Beach in Dorset and were of broadly consistent weight and dimensions that may have been a requirement in the selection of the stone for use, most likely, as sling bullets. The assemblage would benefit from a ‘quick’ physical re-examination as a test to ensure consistency in recording; this would include numbers, weight, lithology, dimensions and sphericity. A particle (pebble) size analysis would better define the shape, size and preferred lithology of the sling bullets and, once quantified, may be checked against evidence for impact. The open area and rampart investigations will be quantified separately in order to enable ease of comparison, and the former of these will be combined with data from the evaluation trenching (2009) and pre-2007 investigations of the adjacent sites. Data from these investigations should be presented in an updated version of the distribution map produced in Brittain et al. (2013, Figure 47). Further investigation – ideally by a site visit to Chesil Beach – is required to confirm and refine the source provenance of the stone sling bullets, and additional documentary research is necessary to contextualise these against the occurrence and possible uses of slings within British Iron Age hillforts and particularly those in Wessex. Finney (2006) provides a relevant list of potential comparanda. The clay sling bullets may also be included within this analysis. Total illustrations: 6 (including histograms) Number of days: 4 (include 1 day fieldwork: Chesil Beach and 1 other site)

Quarried Stone (utilisation & procurement)  Examine/assess stone used in rampart revetment construction.  Check on hillfort’s local stone source(s) and quarrying techniques.  Assess and interpret expedient use of quarried and minimally-worked Ham Hill stone for thatch weight; loom weights; spindlewhorls.  Produce 10 km radius geological map.

Total illustrations: 2 Geological map Photograph of large circular (utilised?) fossil <3306>

78

Number of days: 1 (examining excavation evidence for quarrying plus antiquarian documents).

Worked Stone The worked stone assemblage, by number of items, is dominated by the open area investigations (72%). The open area and the rampart assemblages will need to be separated out for comparison and discussion. In addition to incorporating worked stone data from previous investigation areas adjacent to the site, a number of key areas of analysis will need to be addressed:

Primary analysis:  Neolithic/Bronze Age tools: thin section slides have been prepared from two objects which now require analysis and reportage (including the option of two more additional thin sections); Two thin section cuts: <485b> Neolithic axe & <1368> shaft-hole implement Suggested additional thin section slides for querns <3245> + <3063>  Check existing data for a) and anvils, b) whetstones, c) stone loomweight/spindlewhorls, d) miscellaneous (e.g. thatch weights, tethers etc.);  Photograph micro-wear (using USB digital microscope) on selected examples of the above, where relevant;  Saddle quern: an attempt should be made to confirm the geological sources of <810> and <857> using the Cambridge geological reference collections and relevant on-line databases;  Rotary quern & saddlequern (total 15): try to establish provenance of objects of Dorset Purbeck limestone (resource: Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences, Cambridge), Blackdown Sand and SW Lower Greensand (resources: Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge; Museum of Somerset, Taunton; Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery, Exeter), as well as Mendip sources for the Old Red Sandstone. In addition, more information on the Exeter trap rock quern material would be advantageous (Exeter Museum collections). Also check Blackdown Sand source for whetstone. Method is visual (macro or semi-magnified) petrographic analysis through comparison with reference material in museums (except for thin section of the two suggested above).

Broader research:  Visit Museum of Somerset stores in Taunton to look at other Ham Hill quern and worked stone acquired pre-2009: one task is to check out the existence of a ‘Ham Hill type’ Wessex Iron Age quern (as implied by Curwen 1937).

79

 Plot distribution of quern deposition in features; compare with environmental evidence for crop processing to outline possible use areas within the hillfort.  Produce a map showing source areas and also trading networks for stone (with Marcus Brittain);

Total illustrations: 10-15 max, choose some of: <063> the end of a finely-worked whetstone <674> a complete stone spindlewhorl <521> stone loomweight made of Ham Hill stone <554> fragment of a rotary beehive quern <573> a possible thatch weight made of Ham Hill Stone <971> a fragment of a stone basin or mortar made of Ham Hill Stone <133> Kimmeridge shale bracelet frag <3243> <2857> <3177> Wessex type quern rotary querns <475> <857> <3245> various saddlequerns <2927> Old Red Sandstone quern <3147> <3163> hammerstones <1368> stone macehead

Number of days: 9* *The includes one full day at the Museum of Somerset (Taunton, high priority), a half day at Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery (Exeter), a half day at Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences (Cambridge), and an additional 2 days for rock thin-section analysis (see timetable & costing).

Ceramic Petrography Work will be carried out in conjunction with Lisa Brown (Later Prehistoric pottery), for which at least a 1 day visit/meeting is suggested, and potentially also with Henrietta Quinnell (Early Prehistoric pottery) to look at grog and lithic inclusions within Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery.  Sampling pottery for thin sections – 22 samples (by McBurney Laboratory, University of Cambridge).  Analysis, including liaison with pottery specialists, and production of a formal report to them.

Number of days: 5

80

Timetable

Additional Number Number of cross-over with of days illustrations other specialists (ST) Fired and Worked Clay - 6 6 Burnt Stone - 1 2 Utilised Stone (Sling Stone) - 6 4 Quarried Stone (Building Stone) - 1 1 Worked Stone * 10 7 Ceramic Petrography * 0 5 Rock thin-sections - 0 2 Slag and metalworking debris - 2 3 TOTAL - 26 30 Table 7.1.24 Summary of timetable and costings

7.1.14 Glass – Vicki Herring A total of 10 glass fragments were recovered from the combined open area and rampart investigations: eight from the open area and two from the ramparts.

Current Stage of Assessment Open Area Investigations Only two of the eight glass pieces are likely to be of a non-modern origin. These include a claw beaker of either Romano-British or Saxon date <981> from the base of a posthole identified in test pit 1 and a fragment of green glass <1581> from the upper fill of a Bronze Age ditch.

Rampart Trench Investigations Two glass fragments were recorded from the phase 4 rampart in Trench 2. This was a small colourless fragment <1395> from [3986] and a fragment of intricately decorated bracelet <315> from rubble layer [3996]. This latter -coloured specimen, with a D-section and three cord mouldings of translucent blue and opaque white running lengthwise around the outer surface, belongs to Kilbride- Jones’s (1938) Type 2, dated to the late 1st – early 2nd century AD.

Analytical Programme All of the glass pieces require a complete review as a composite assemblage. Given the small size of the dataset there would be little to gain from any chemical or other scientific analysis. However, further research is required to situate the claw beaker within the context of the site which appears to strongly suggest that a Romano- British date is more appropriate than that of a Saxon provenance.

81

Timetable One day of work is recommended to go through the objects and make any necessary updates to the report for publication.

7.1.15 Scientific Dating A programme of radiocarbon dating is proposed to date the different phases of activity on the hilltop. It has now been demonstrated that radiocarbon dates from stratigraphically associated contexts can, with Bayesian analysis, provide an accurate chronology for the construction and use of the hillfort (Garrow et al. 2009; Hamilton 2010; Jay et al. 2012). The current (Re)dating Danebury project, for example, provides a directly relevant case of the work that can be done and the results provide a model for the approach taken.

The main goals of the radiocarbon dating programme are: 1. To establish the beginning of the hillfort (this can be accurately dated due to the dates, already obtained, from the pre-rampart ditch) 2. To establish an accurate chronology for the different phases of rampart construction in trench 2. 3. To correlate this sequence with the sequences in trenches 1 and 3. 4. To accurately date the different phases of occupation in the main area excavation (Neolithic, Middle Neolithic, Early to Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, later Iron Age). 5. To provide a detailed chronology for the various Iron Age features in the main area excavation (pits, house gullies, rectangular enclosure) and to correlate these with the rampart chronology. 6. To date various material categories that have significant chronological implications (e.g. human remains, ceramic residues, mustard seeds, tubers). The contexts dated are chosen for their contextual security and because they represent a particular event or series of events that inform the overall goals outlined above. Samples will be specifically chosen to indicate the formation of the contexts and include articulated bone, discrete and distinctive charred plant materials or materials charred in situ, and distinctive carbonised residues from diagnostic and stratified ceramics (Table 7.1.25). A total of 58 potential samples are listed in Tables 7.1.25a and b, dividing 27 from the rampart trenches and 31 from the open area and springline investigations. It is important to further draw a distinction here in the allocation of funds for these samples. The developer’s commitment is expected to cover the costs of the 31 samples from the open area and springline investigations only. The Department of Archaeology at the University of Cardiff will cover the funds for seven of the rampart trench samples that will provide a baseline upon which application to NERC/AHRC will be administered. The baseline dates will also provide adequate comparative data for the open area.

82

Phase Stratigraphic block Sample type Context Early Iron Age rampart Trench 1 ADC Emmer grain 3743 Early Iron Age rampart Trench 1 ADC Hordeum grain 3743 Early Iron Age rampart Trench 1 AB-AF? TBC TBC Early Iron Age rampart Trench 1 AB-AF? TBC TBC Middle Iron Age rampart Trench 2 BCC T Dicoccum 4046 Middle Iron Age rampart Trench 2 BCC Hordeum 4046 Middle Iron Age rampart Trench 2 BC TBC TBC Middle Iron Age rampart Trench 2 BDB T Spelta 4044 Middle Iron Age rampart Trench 2 BDD T Spelta 4038 Middle Iron Age rampart Trench 2 BD TBC TBC Middle Iron Age activity Trench 2 BEA T Dicoccum 4005 Middle Iron Age activity Trench 2 BED T Spelta 4013 Middle Iron Age activity Trench 2 BED TBC TBC Late Iron Age rampart Trench 2 BFB Vicia Faba 4056 Late Iron Age rampart Trench 2 BFC TBC TBC Late Iron Age rampart Trench 2 BFG T Spelta 3953 Roman activity Trench 2 BGA Vicia Faba 3932 Roman activity Trench 2 BG? TBC TBC Roman activity Trench 2 BG? TBC TBC Pre-rampart soil horizon Trench 3 CBC TBC 3805 Early Iron Age rampart Trench 3 CCC T Spelta 3791 Early Iron Age rampart Trench 3 CCC TBC 3804 Early Iron Age rampart Trench 3 CCD T Spelta 3803 Early Iron Age rampart Trench 3 CDC Hordeum 3802 Early Iron Age rampart Trench 3 CDC T Diccocum 3802 Middle Iron Age rampart Trench 3 CEB T Spelta 3800 Middle Iron Age rampart Trench 3 CED Hordeum 3784

Table 7.1.25a Summary of proposed samples to be submitted for radiocarbon analysis from the rampart trenches

Phase Category Sample type Feature Neolithic Pit (Plain ware cluster) Charred nut shell 1722 Neolithic Pit (Plain ware cluster) Charred nut shell 1722 Neolithic Pit (Plain ware cluster) Charred nut shell 1728 Neolithic Pit (Plain ware cluster) Charred nut shell 1728 Neolithic Pit (Peterborough isolated pit) Charred nut shell/Bone 1747 Neolithic Pit (Peterborough pit cluster) Bone 1743 Early to Mid Bronze Age? Ditch (field system) Charcoal TBC Late Bronze Age Post hole in palisade Bone 1586 Mid to Late Iron Age? Burial (pit in PG5) Human Bone 1024 Mid to Late Iron Age Field system Bone 1677 Mid to Late Iron Age Structure 1 Bone 1523 Mid to Late Iron Age Structure 2 Bone 1578

83

Phase Category Sample type Feature Mid to Late Iron Age Structure 3 Bone 1899 Mid to Late Iron Age Structure 4 Bone 1733 Mid to Late Iron Age Enclosure ditch Phase 3 Charred tubers 1531 Mid to Late Iron Age Enclosure ditch Phase 3 Charred tubers 1531 Mid to Late Iron Age Enclosure ditch Phase 3 Charred Mustard Seed 1531 Mid to Late Iron Age Enclosure ditch Phase 2 Human/Animal Bone 1531 Mid to Late Iron Age Enclosure ditch Phase 2 Human Bone 1531 Mid to Late Iron Age Enclosure ditch Phase 2 Human Bone 1531 Mid to Late Iron Age Enclosure ditch Phase 1 Human Bone 1531 Mid to Late Iron Age Pit (PG2) Charred Mustard Seed 1524 Mid to Late Iron Age TBC Charred Mustard Seed TBC Mid to Late Iron Age Pit (PG4) Charcoal 1559 Mid to Late Iron Age Pit (PG4) Bone/charcoal 1897 Mid to Late Iron Age Pit Pot residue/bone 1504 Mid to Late Iron Age Pit Pot residue/bone 1593 Mid to Late Iron Age Pit Pot residue/bone TBC Mesolithic-Medieval Springline deposits Pollen n/a Mesolithic-Medieval Springline deposits Pollen n/a Mesolithic-Medieval Springline deposits Pollen n/a

Table 7.1.25b Summary of proposed samples to be submitted for radiocarbon analysis from the open area investigation

7.2 Allied Research Programme 7.2.1 Wessex Archaeology archive Integration of the previous investigations’ data into the current programme is an important outcome of the aims and objectives (see Section 2). In particular, the published data (Leivers et al. 2006) from the 2002 investigations by Wessex Archaeology from the excavation area adjacent to the southwest edge of the 2011- 2013 open area investigations contains only summary form data. Access to the original datasheets is required to fulfil its integration with the full excavation assemblage. The querns were re-recorded during the field season in 2013 (S. Timberlake), and their morphology and geological properties have been described. This will contribute to broader regional artefact studies (e.g. Watts 2014) as well as the context at Ham Hill, but additional elements of the archive require a similar examination.

7.2.1 Museum Collections The collection of finds from the previous work on the hilltop is an extremely important archive which needs to be analysed and published. Indeed, improving the ‘knowledge and study of under-utilised museum assemblages’ was regarded as an important research aim in the recent agenda for research in the Southwest (Webster 2008, 240). The collections from the hilltop have been documented in detail by S.

84

Minnitt (Somerset County Museum Service) and Ann Woodward, who provided a detailed plan for a publication project in 1997 (the estimated costs for this were £142,264, but it was rejected by English Heritage). Whilst it may be possible to include some aspects of the archive in the current programme of analysis and publication, it is proposed that the existing research design for a full analysis of the archive be reinvigorated and revised. It is envisaged that the current programme of works would provide a solid foundation for an application and that this new design would be submitted to research funding bodies for consideration.

7.3 Main Tasks Sequence and Product Descriptions Product 11: Final Publication and digital archive Purpose: Book: academic and public dissemination of excavation results (and allied projects); archive: direct access to site records, data files and specialist reports, etc. Composition: Digital Derived from: Products 9 &10, project records, data files and specialist appraisal texts. Format and presentation: 400-500 page volume; electronic files Allocation to: Niall Sharples, Marcus Brittain and Christopher Evans, (principal authors) with specialist contributions (Appendix 7.1, above) Quality criteria and methods: SCCHG and Historic England’s peer review Responsibility for quality assurance: Niall Sharples and Christopher Evans Responsibility for approval: SCCHG and Historic England Planned completion date: 30/12/17

85