The Nature of Mesolithic Activity at Selected Spring Sites in South West England R. M. Davis A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the University’s requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2012 University of Worcester Abstract This thesis examines the nature of Mesolithic activity at five spring sites in south-west England. The springs have unusual properties and the lithics associated with each site have been assessed in order to investigate whether they are indicative of unusual, or even ritualistic, behaviour related to the property of the spring. As well as lithics, some of the springs are associated with other types of material culture and in some cases features such as pits are also present. This thesis brings together the different classes of archaeological evidence and situates their study within the context of the spring and the wider landscape. Recently in Archaeology there has been an increasing interest in the significance of ‘natural places’, which has led to topographical features being seen as important, and sometimes even sacred, places in the landscape. By contrast, in Mesolithic studies, natural features such as springs are often predominantly viewed in a functional sense, as a source of potable water and a convenient focus for settlement. Occasionally however some sites, such as the Hot Spring, Bath one of the case studies presented here, have been suggested to be evidence of Mesolithic ritual behaviour. These polarised views usually arise from an analysis of lithic attributes and the contexts in which the lithics are found. The more unusual the context, and the better the quality of the artefact deposited into them, the more likely it will be equated with ‘ritual’ behaviour. The unusual nature of the five springs examined here: two hot springs at Bath Spa and three tufa depositing springs at Langley’s Lane, Somerset, Cherhill, Wiltshire and Blashenwell Dorset, allowed that premise to be questioned and the results have demonstrated that aspects of mundane and ritual behaviour are virtually indistinguishable from the lithic record alone. Yet whilst there is a variance in the treatment of materials at springs with similar properties there are also certain commonalities between them, which may suggest that shared beliefs underpinned Mesolithic cosmologies, at least in the south-west region. The springs of this study were features in what were dynamic Mesolithic landscapes and the findings suggest the practices that were carried out reflected and embodied that dynamism. Mesolithic activity at springs remains an understudied topic within British archaeology, despite the potential these sites offer to engage with theoretical concepts such as landscape, praxis, belief and cosmology. This study has attempted to redress this imbalance and reinforces the potential of springs to elicit information that will enrich current knowledge of Mesolithic lifescapes and landscapes. i Acknowledgements This thesis is dedicated to my children, Emma, Kate and Ceri, the one constant throughout my PhD journey. My sincere thanks go to my Director of Studies, Dr Jodie Lewis for all her support and encouragement throughout the research process and for allowing me access to the Langley’s Lane archive before publication. I would also like to thank the curators, staff and volunteers of the Roman Baths Museum, Bath Spa (Bath and North East Somerset Council), Wiltshire Heritage Museum, Devizes, and Dorset County Museum, Dorchester for access to their collections. Dr Hugo Lamdin- Whymark checked my flint identification and Tom Richards did the same for the geological material. Conversations with Professor Richard Bradley, Professor Paul Davies Dr Brian Meredith, Dr David Mullin, Dr Ian Maddock, Dr Bob Ruffle and Dr Sarah Hall were helpful and informative. Thank you to Robbie Austrums who helped with the maps. I would also like to thank my parents, John and Pat Booth without whose financial, emotional and practical support, I could not have completed this thesis. My friends, Victoria Goodall and Beck Williams kept me sane, shared good times and bad, and encouraged me to keep going despite all of life’s challenges. My special thanks go to Sarah for the last year and understanding me. ii List of Contents Abstract i Acknowledgements ii List of Contents iii List of Figures iv List of Tables v Appendix One Appendix Two Chapter One: Introduction and an overview of Mesolithic Britain 1 Introduction 1 Aims and objectives 5 Aims 5 Objectives 6 Thesis structure 6 The Mesolithic: an overview 7 Paradigm shifts 16 The homogeneity myth 17 Mesolithic belief (religion and ritual) 19 Religion, ritual and archaeology 20 Mesolithic belief 21 The nature of the evidence 23 Mesolithic material culture and evidence of dwelling 24 Lithics 25 Stone tools as chronological indicators 27 Stone tools as technological indicators 29 Stone tools as spatial and site type indicators 30 Stone tools as social indicators 34 Approaches to artefact studies 36 Artefact and meaning 36 The chaîne opératoire 37 Scales of analysis within the chaîne opératoire 39 Chapter summary 40 iii Chapter Two: An introduction to the study area and methodology 41 The study area 41 Geology 41 Mesolithic research 44 Overview of the Mesolithic archaeological record in the study area 44 The early Mesolithic 44 The late Mesolithic 47 Overview of the Mesolithic Environment Record in the study area 49 The nature of the environmental evidence 50 The environment of the study area during the Mesolithic 52 Methodology 53 Some theoretical considerations 55 Comments on phenomenological approaches 55 Comments on the nature of lithic analysis 57 The method 58 Collation of data 62 Chapter Three: Landscape to waterscape 65 Site to landscape approaches 65 Defining landscape 66 Landscape paradigms 66 Place and space 70 Natural and cultural places 71 Environment as landscape 73 Deposition and context 74 Concerning the Mesolithic landscape 76 Water in landscapes and lifescapes 78 Water in archaeology 81 Springs in the landscape 82 Basic spring hydrology 82 Chapter summary 84 Chapter Four: The Bath hot springs and their environs 85 Introduction 85 Thermal springs 85 Location 87 The geology of Bath and its environs 90 Hydrogeology 91 Evidence for the Mesolithic environment of Bath, its springs and environs 94 iii Historical and archaeological work carried out at the hot springs of Bath 95 Results and site summaries 96 The Hot Spring 97 The Sacred Spring 104 The Cross Bath Spring 110 Bath Street 111 New Royal Baths, Spa 98 114 Beau Street 117 Hat and Feather 119 Abbey Heritage Centre 120 Bath Orange Grove 121 The Bath environs and its archaeology 122 Bath environs summary 127 Discussion: the hot springs in context 130 Raw material 130 Chronology 133 General nature of activity implied by the lithic assemblage 136 Taphonomic processes: glossing 139 Deposition: votive or functional? 139 Interpretation: the Mesolithic Bath hot springs 142 Hot springs and steam 144 A continuity of interest in the Bath hot springs 148 Chapter summary 150 Chapter Five: Tufa depositing springs 152 Introduction 152 The study of tufa 152 Tufa formation 153 The classification of tufas and travertines 154 Results and site summaries 159 Langley’s Lane, Midsomer Norton, Somerset 159 Location 159 Geology and hydrogeology 159 Historical and archaeological work carried out 161 Evidence for the Mesolithic environment 161 Lithic analysis 162 The palaeosol 162 The tufa 165 Tufa layer (1007) 165 iii Top of tufa below subsoil (1008) 167 Tufa layer 3002 168 Features 170 Shallow cut (1049) [1048] 170 Pit (3028) [3030] 171 Pit (3011) [3012] 173 Pit (3005) [3006] 174 Pit (3026) [3027] 175 Outer remains of a pit (3019) [3020] 177 Pit (3025) (3007) [3008] 178 Clay spread (3009) 179 Tufa lens (3015) 181 Pit [1032] 182 Further contexts 183 Raw Material 184 Chronology and technology 185 General nature of activity implied by the lithic assemblages and other evidence 187 Taphonomic processes 188 Deposition: votive or functional? 189 Blashenwell Pit, Dorset 191 Location 191 Blashenwell geology and hydrogeology 192 Historical and archaeological work carried out 192 Evidence for the Mesolithic environment 193 Lithic analysis 195 Raw material 196 Chronology and technology 196 General nature of activity implied by the lithic assemblages and other evidence 200 Taphonomic processes 200 Deposition: votive or functional? 201 Oliver's Field Cherhill, Wiltshire 201 Location 202 Geology and hydrogeology 202 Historical and archaeological work carried out 203 Evidence for the Mesolithic environment 204 Lithic analysis 205 The ‘working hollow’ 205 The buried soil 208 The tufa 210 iii Other contexts 211 Total assemblage analysis 214 Raw material 214 Chronology and technology 215 Taphonomic processes 216 General nature of activity implied by the lithic assemblages and other evidence 217 Deposition: votive or functional? 217 Langley’s Lane, Blashenwell and Cherhill: 218 Interpretation: Possible meanings of tufa springs 221 Phenomenological perspectives 221 Tufa as symbol 223 Chapter summary 228 Chapter Six: Conclusion 230 Introduction 230 Other springs with unusual properties in the study area 231 A summary and comparative analysis of the lithic assemblages from the five 235 selected springs Chronology 235 Technology 236 Site types 237 Sociality 238 Deposition 239 Further remarks 239 Thesis objectives revisited 241 To determine how Mesolithic artefacts were used; selected and deposited at 241 these sites To see whether there is evidence for intra- and inter-site patterning