Title: Updated Project Design – Ham Hill, Somerset (SAM No. 100) Authors: M. Brittain, N. Sharples and C. Evans Derivation: Su
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Title: Updated Project Design – Ham Hill, Somerset (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 England; South Somerset 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 Neolithic to Bronze Age 11 2.2 Iron Age 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 Pottery – 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 hillfort 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 Somerset Levels. 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 Cornwall, 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 Hod Hill, 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 Taunton 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 Meare ‘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 Taunton Castle 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.