Saved from the grave: Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring Road Municipal Cemetery, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, 1990–2000

By TGAllen and ZKamash

with contributions by

Leigh Allen, Alistair Barclay, Alister Bartlett, Paul Blinkhorn, Paul Booth, Ceridwen Boston, Angela Boyle, Diane Briscoe, MGCanti, Bethan Charles, Peter Hacking, Martin Henig, Tom Higham, Jonathan Hiller, Hugo Lamdin-Whymark, Peter Marshall, Mark Nokkert, Peter Northover, Jvan der Plicht, Mark Robinson, RSparks, Jane Timby, Rachel Tyson

Illustrations by

Peter Lorimer, Rosalyn Lorimer, Sarah Lucas, Simon Pressey, Anne Stewardson

Oxford Archaeology Thames Valley Landscape Monograph No. 28 2008 The publication of this volume has been generously funded by English Heritage

Published for Oxford Archaeology by Oxford University School of Archaeology as part of the Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph series

Designed by Oxford Archaeology Graphics Office

Summarised and Edited by Chris Hayden

This book is part of aseries of books about the Thames Valley Landscapes –which can be bought from all good bookshops and Internet Bookshops. For more information visit thehumanjourney.net

Figures 1–2, 41–43, 45–50 are reproduced from the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, q Crown Copyright, AL 100005569 q 2008 The Oxford Archaeological Unit Ltd

ISBN 978-0-9549627-6-0

Typeset and printed in Europe by the Alden Group, Oxfordshire Contents

List of Figures ...... vi List of Plates ...... vii List of Tables ...... viii Summary ...... ix Acknowledgements ...... xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION by Tim Allen ...... 1 LOCATION, GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY ...... 1 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROJECT ...... 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THEAREA ...... 1 Prehistoric...... 1 Late Iron Age and Roman ...... 4 Anglo-Saxon, medieval and post-medieval...... 4 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SPRINGROAD CEMETERY ...... 6 LOCATION OF THE ARCHIVE ...... 6 RADIOCARBONDATES...... 7 PUBLICATION...... 7

CHAPTER 2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION by Zena Kamash andTim Allen ...... 9 NEOLITHIC AND BEAKER FEATURES ...... 9 Grooved Ware pit 2622 in Area 8...... 9 Beakerburial3037 in Area 5...... 9 Possible Beaker pitorposthole2644 in Area 8...... 9 Other possible Neolithic features...... 9 BRONZE AGE FEATURES ...... 9 Timber circle 2568 and 2726 in Area 8...... 9 Outer arc2568 ...... 9 Inner arc 2726 ...... 12 Dating ...... 12 Pit 1201 in Area 9...... 13 Ditch groups 1199, 1206 and 1210 ...... 13 Postholes in Areas8and 9...... 13 BronzeAge finds from modern graves ...... 13 IRON AGE FEATURES ...... 13 Iron Age roundhouse ...... 13 Human burials ...... 16 Grave 2126 ...... 16 Grave 2241 ...... 17 Grave 2200 ...... 17 Other possible burials ...... 18 Pits ...... 18 Other postholes and curvilinear gully 2712 ...... 19 Iron Age finds from modern graves ...... 19 ROMAN FEATURES ...... 19 Central ditch complex and fences in the 2nd century AD ...... 19 Central ditch complex in the late 2nd-early 3rd century ...... 24 Pits in Area 9...... 24 Modern graves 3509 and 3531 ...... 24 SAXON FEATURES ...... 25 Sunken-featured buildings in Area 8...... 25 Pits and postholes ...... 26 Saxon archaeology and modern graves ...... 27 MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL FEATURES ...... 28 Medieval pits in Areas8and 9...... 28 Posthole group 3034 ...... 28 Victorian quarry 2006 ...... 28

iii Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Layers and ploughsoils...... 28 Medieval finds in modern graves ...... 31

CHAPTER 3: THE FINDS...... 33 STRUCKFLINT summary of reportbyHugo Lamdin-Whymark ...... 33 Pit 2622 ...... 33 Catalogueofillustrated flints ...... 34 Mesolithic ...... 34 Neolithic ...... 34 STONE summary of report by Hugo Lamdin-Whymark ...... 35 NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZEAGE POTTERY summary of reportbyAlistair Barclay ...... 37 Plain Bowl ...... 37 Peterborough Ware ...... 37 Grooved Ware ...... 38 Beaker...... 39 Early Bronze Age ...... 39 Illustrated catalogue ...... 39 LATERBRONZE AGE POTTERY summary of report by Alistair Barclay ...... 39 Middle BronzeAge ...... 40 Mid/late BronzeAge ...... 40 Late Bronze Age ...... 40 Illustrated catalogue ...... 41 LATERPREHISTORIC POTTERY by Jane Timby ...... 42 Illustrated catalogue ...... 43 ROMAN POTTERY by Jane Timby ...... 45 Illustrated catalogue ...... 45 POST-ROMAN POTTERY by Paul Blinkhorn ...... 47 Illustrated catalogue ...... 48 SFB 2687 ...... 48 SFB 2008 ...... 48 Other groups ...... 48 STAMPED SAXON SHERDS by DianeBriscoe ...... 48 FIRED CLAY summaries of reports by Jane Timby and Alistair Barclay ...... 53 Neolithic firedclay ...... 53 Iron Age fired clay ...... 53 Roman fired clay ...... 53 Saxon fired clay ...... 53 ANALYSIS OF ACOPPER AWL summary of reportbyPeter Northover ...... 54 ROMAN COINS by Paul Booth ...... 54 OTHERMETAL OBJECTS summary of report by Leigh Allen and Martin Henig ...... 55 WORKED BONE OBJECTS summary of report by Leigh Allen and Tim Allen ...... 55 GLASS summary of report by Rachel Tyson ...... 56

CHAPTER 4: THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE ...... 57 HUMAN SKELETAL ASSEMBLAGE summary by Ceridwen Boston of reportbyPeter Hacking and Angela Boyle ...... 57 Beakerburial...... 57 Middle Iron Age burials ...... 57 ANIMAL BONES summary of reportbyBethan Charles ...... 57 SMALLANIMAL REMAINS by Mark Nokkert ...... 58 CHARRED PLANT REMAINS by Mark Robinson ...... 58 Discussion ...... 58 GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTONSOILS summary of report by MGCanti ...... 59

CHAPTER 5: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ...... 61 RADIOCARBONDATES summary of reportbyPeter Marshall, Tim Allen, Tom Higham, Jvan der Plicht andRSparks ...... 61 MAGNETOMETER AND MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY SURVEY summary of report by Alister Bartlett ...... 61

iv Contents

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION by Tim Allen and Zena Kamash ...... 67 INTRODUCTION ...... 67 MESOLITHIC PERIOD by Tim Allen ...... 67 NEOLITHIC ACTIVITY by Zena Kamash and Tim Allen ...... 67 Early Neolithic ...... 68 Middle Neolithic ...... 68 Late Neolithic ...... 68 Grooved Ware pit 2622 ...... 68 BEAKERPERIOD by Tim Allen ...... 71 BRONZE AGE by Tim Allen and Zena Kamash ...... 72 Early Bronze Age ...... 72 Middle BronzeAge ...... 72 The Timber Circle ...... 72 The context of the middle Bronze Age activity ...... 75 IRON AGE by Tim Allen ...... 76 The roundhouse ...... 77 The Iron Age burials ...... 77 THE ROMAN ENCLOSURESYSTEM IN AREAS 8AND 9 by Zena Kamash and Tim Allen ...... 79 Extent of theRoman occupation ...... 79 Date and statusofthe Roman activity...... 79 Layout and orientation of theenclosures ...... 79 Nature and function of the site ...... 81 The Roman enclosure system in its wider context ...... 83 SAXON PERIOD by Zena Kamash andTim Allen ...... 85 The sunken-featured buildings (SFBs) ...... 85 MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL PERIODS by Tim Allen ...... 88 CONCLUDING REMARKS by Tim Allen ...... 92

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 93

v List of Figures

Figure 1Sitelocation...... 2 Figure 2Plan of excavation areas, showing cemetery layout and plot numbering ...... 5 Figure 3Distributionmap of gravediggers’ finds with indication dated finds ...... 6 Figure 4Areas8and 9: NeolithictoIron Age phases ...... 10–11 Figure 5Section of GroovedWare pit 2619 ...... 12 Figure 6Plan, profileand photograph of Beaker burial 3037 and copper awl ...... 12 Figure 7Area 8: Plan of Bronze Age timber circle 2568 and sections of postholes ...... 14 Figure 8Area 8: Plan of Iron Age house ...... 15 Figure 9Iron Age house: Some possible models for its structural development ...... 16 Figure 10 Plan, sectionand photograph of grave with child burial 2126 and bonering...... 17 Figure 11 Plan, profileand photograph of grave with male burial 2241 ...... 18 Figure 12 Plan, profileand photograph of grave with male burial 2200 and clay spindle whorl ...... 18 Figure 13 Section of Iron Age pit 2299 and posthole2306...... 19 Figure 14 Areas8and 9: Roman, Saxon,medieval andpost-medieval phases ...... 20–21 Figure 15 Area 8: Romanphases including possible posthole alignments ...... 22 Figure 16 Area 9: Romanphases including possible posthole alignments ...... 23 Figure 17 Sections of Romanditches...... 25 Figure 18 Plan and sections of Sunken-featuredBuilding 2008...... 26 Figure 19 Plans and sectionofSunken-featuredBuilding 2687 with detail of bone deposit...... 27 Figure 20 Gravedigger plans and section of Saxon features foundinmodern graves ...... 28 Figure 21 Sections of medieval gravelextraction pits...... 29 Figure 22 Area 5: features of all phases ...... 31 Figure 23 Struck flint: Graphshowing length to breadthratiosofthe struck flint from pit 2622 ...... 33 Figure 24 Struck flint: Technological traits of flint from pit 2622 ...... 34 Figure 25 Struck flint: Graphplotting length to breadthratio of flint flakes against the presence of use damage...... 34 Figure 26 Struck flint: Use-wear evidence for flint frompit 2622, displayed by context and overall...... 35 Figure 27 Struck flint implements...... 36 Figure 28 Drawings and photographsofPeterborough Ware dish ...... 38 Figure 29 Other Neolithicand Beakerpottery ...... 40 Figure 30 Middle and Late Bronze Age pottery...... 42 Figure 31 LateBronze Age to Iron Age pottery...... 44 Figure 32 Romanpottery ...... 46 Figure 33 Saxon pottery: Jar rim diameteroccurrence, for sand-tempered fabric, by EVE per diameter category...... 47 Figure 34 Saxon pottery: Jar rim diameteroccurrence, for chaff-tempered fabrics, by EVE per diameter category...... 47 Figure 35 Saxon pottery from SFB 2687: Nos 1–6 ...... 49 Figure 36 Saxon pottery from SFB 2687: Nos 7–11...... 50 Figure 37 Saxon pottery from SFB 2687: No. 12; from SFB 2008: Nos 13–14...... 51 Figure 38 Other Saxon pottery: Nos 1–7, plus stamped sherd from Sutton Courtenay...... 52 Figure 39 Worked boneobjects ...... 55 Figure 40 Radiocarbondates: Probability distributions of dates fromAbingdon Spring Road (a) before taking aweighted mean, and (b) after taking aweighted mean...... 63 Figure 41 Magnetometer and magneticsusceptibilitysurveys of cemetery and area to the north west ...... 64 Figure 42 Magnetometer survey in relationtoexcavatedfeatures ...... 65 Figure 43 Spring Road in relation to Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments around Abingdon...... 69 Figure 44 Comparative plans of timber circles...... 74 Figure 45 Spring Road in relation to Bronze Age sites in the area...... 76 Figure 46 Spring Road in relation to Iron Age sites in the area ...... 80 Figure 47 Romanenclosures at Spring Road and adjacent sites...... 82 Figure 48 Romansites aroundAbingdon...... 84 Figure 49 Spring Road in relation to Saxon sites aroundAbingdon...... 87 Figure 50 Spring Road and medieval Abingdon (based on Munby, in Lambrick and Slade1991, fig.4 Medieval Abingdon: Town and Fields) ...... 89

vi List of Plates

Plate 1Aerial photograph of the site in 1951 ...... 3 Plate 2Timbercircle and Sunken-featured Building 2008,taken from the south-west ...... 13 Plate 3General view of excavation with Area 9inthe foreground, lookingnorth-west ...... 24 Plate 4Saxon Sunken-featured Building 2687 completely excavated,looking east...... 26 Plate 5Medieval gravelpits in Area 9, from the west ...... 30 Plate 6Wall of middle Bronze Age vessel from pit 1108, showing different tempering of base and wall...... 41 Plate 7Fired clay with finger-nail impressions from GroovedWare pit 2619...... 54 Plate 8Bone implement from posthole 2375 in Middle Bronze Age postholearc...... 56 Plate 9Layer of soilwith distinctive pinkish hue at the north baulk of Area 9; note also the infill of Evaluation Trench D...... 59 Plate 10 Extract from Rocque’s map of 1761 showing the site under cultivation...... 90 Plate 11 Extract from 2nd Edition OS map of 1904 showing gravel pit on the east edge of the currentsite...... 91

vii List of Tables

Table 1Neolithicand early Bronze Age pottery fabrics ...... 37 Table 2Later Bronze Age pottery fabrics...... 41 Table 3Late Bronze Age/early Iron Age and Iron Age pottery fabrics ...... 43 Table 4Romanpottery fabrics ...... 45 Table 5Anglo-Saxon pottery fabrics ...... 47 Table 6Saxon pottery: Stamped designsbytype ...... 53 Table 7Radiocarbon dates ...... 62 Table 8Summaryofcontents of GroovedWare pit 2622...... 70 Table 9Comparison of finds fromSunken-Featured Buildings 2687 and 2008 ...... 86

viii Summary

Excavations and salvagerecording carried out with- apit,and within whosecircumference agroup of in the SpringGardens municipal cemetery over the three middle Iron Age crouched burialswas found, last fifty yearshave revealedevidence of archae- formally deposited in purpose-dug graves. Other ologicalactivity from the Mesolithic to the Saxon undated crouched burialswerepresent across the period. Situated on agravelrise alongside the site, possibly indicating adispersedcemetery. There Larkhill Stream, occasional struckflints indicate that was otherwiselittleevidence of middleorlate Iron the site was visited by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Age activity, but in the Romanperiod ditched or and afew sherds of early Neolithic pottery show that fenced enclosures were laid out and the site was used the first farmers also visited. Thelocation apparently for domesticoccupation in the 2nd and 3rd centuries becamemore important in the middle and late AD. Thesite was reoccupied in the 6th century AD, Neolithic periods, as shown by aPeterborough Ware when avariety of Saxon features including sunken- vessel and aGrooved Ware pit, and by an early featured buildings and ditches were dug, but it is Beakerburial accompanied by acopper awl. Sherds unclearwhether the occupation continued intothe of early Bronze Age pottery suggest that the site 7th centuryAD. In the 13th century the east side of continued to be significant to the local community the site was usedfor gravel extraction, possibly relat- during this period, and in the middle Bronze Age an ing to the construction of achapel and cemetery at arc of substantial postholes probably indicates the the adjacent road junction, but thereafter the area construction of atimber circle, one of veryfew of this becamepart of the arable fields of Abingdon. At the date in southern Britain. This was accompanied by turn of the 19th–20th centuries the area again became various pits or postholes, and ascattering of similar agravelpit, and this extended into the north-east features was also present in the late Bronze Age. cornerofthe site. The quarry was short-lived, and The early to middleIron Age saw the erection of a the site reverted to open groundused forpasture substantial timber roundhouse, at whose centre was until taken over forburialsin1940.

Zusammenfassung

Aus- und Notgrabungen, die auf dem Gela¨ nde des bekannt sind. Der Kreiswurdebegleitet von vers- Gemeindefriedhofs von Spring Gardens in den letz- chiedenen Gruben und Pfostenlo¨ chern, eine a¨ hnliche ten fu¨ nfzig Jahren durchgefu¨ hrt wurden, enthu¨ llten Ansammlung solcher Befundeist auch aus der archa¨ ologische Zeugnisse, welchevom Mesolithikum spa¨ ten Bronzezeit bekannt. bis hin in die Sachsenzeitreichen. Die fru¨ he bis mittlere Bronzezeit sah die Errichtung Auf einerKiesanhebung entlangdes Flusses eines enormen Rundhauses, in dessen Mittelpunkt Larkhill gelegen, deuten gelegentliche Flintabschla¨ ge eine Grube plaziert war. In ihrer Peripherie wurde daraufhin,dass die Stelle von mesolithischen Ja¨ gern eine Gruppe von drei Hockerbestattungen gefunden. und Sammlern besucht wurde. Desweiteren geben Diese Gra¨ ber wurden zweifelsohne formell und Funde einiger Neolithischer Keramikscherben dar- einzig fu¨ rden Zweck der Bestattung ausgehoben. auf Aufschluss,dass auch die erstenAckerbauern Weitere undatierte Hockerbestattungen wurden den Standortaufsuchten. Vermutlich stieg die u ¨ berall auf dem Gela¨ nde verzeichnet, diese ko¨ nnten Bedeutung der Fundstelle im mittleren und spa¨ ten mo¨ glicherweise auf ein weit zerstreutes Gra¨ berfeld Neolithikum, was durch Peterborough Ware hinweisen. Ansonsten gab es nur wenige Indizien Gefa¨ ßfunde, einer GroovedWare Grubeund fru¨ hen auf mittlere-oder spa¨ teisenzeitliche Aktivita¨ ten. BeakerBestattungen denen Pfriemen beigegeben In der Ro¨ merzeit, im 2. und 3. nachchristlichen waren unterstrichen wird. Jahrhundert, wurden Bereiche der Fundstelle durch Fru¨ hbronzezeitliche Tonscherben deuten darauf Gra¨ ben und Za¨ une eingegrenzt und es ist von einem hin, dass der Fundplatz auch wa¨ hrend dieser Zeit- ha¨ uslichen Gebrauch der Fla¨ che auszugehen. periode eine wichtigeRolle fu¨ rdie kommunale Im 6. Jahrhundert kommt es zu einer Wiederbe- Gemeinschaft gewesensein muss. Ausder mittleren wohnung und eine Auswahl sa¨ chsischer Befunde, Bronzezeit ist eine bogenfo¨ rmigeAnreihung großer unter anderem abgesenkte Geba¨ ude und Gra¨ ben, Pfostenlo¨ cherbekannt, die scheinbar auf die Kon- konntennachgewiesen werden. Es bleibt jedoch struktion einesHolzkreises hindeutet, einemvon nur unklar, ob die Besiedlung sich bis in das 7. Jahr- sehr wenigen, welcheaus dieser Zeit in Britannien hundert fortsetzte.

ix Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Im 13. Jahrhundert wurde die Ostseite der Fla¨ che Am U ¨ bergangvom 19.zum 20.Jahrhundert wurde als Kiesgrube genutzt, eventuell in Verbindung mit dasLanderneutals Kiesgrubegenutzt,diesmal jedoch dem Bau einerKapelle und eines Friedhofs bei der einschließlich dernordo¨ stlichen Ecke.Die Abbau- benachbarten Straßenkreuzung. Nach dieser Zeit grubewurde nach kurzer Zeit geschlossenund von wurdedie Grabungsfla¨ che Teil der landwirtschaf- da an wurdedas Gela¨ ndeals Viehweideverwendet, tlich genutzten Felder von Abingdon. bisesschließlich 1940 zumGemeindefriedhofwurde.

Markus Dylewski

Re´ sume´

Au cours des cinquante dernie` res anne´ es, les ope´ ra- Premier et le Deuxie` me Age du Fer, ce site accueille un tions d’arche´ ologie pre´ ventives effectue´ es dansle e´ difice circulaire renfermant en son centre une fosse a` cimetie` re municipal de SpringGardens ontre´ ve´ le´ triple inhumation d’accroupis directementcreuse´ e l’existence de vestiges remontant du Me´ solithiquea` dans le sol. La de´ couverte d’autres se´ pultures de la pe´ riode Saxonne. meˆ me type, non date´ es, confirme la vocation fune´ raire La de´ couverte sporadique de silex en amont de la du site.Toutefois, seuls quelquesvestiges e´ pars gravie` re qui jouxte la rivie` re Larkhill yatteste la semblent attester une activite´ sur le site a` l’Age du pre´ sence de chasseurs-cueilleurs au Me´ solithiqueet Fer Re´ cent. La pe´ riode romaine, elle, se caracte´ rise par celle de tessons de poteries, l’installation d’une com- l’e´ rection d’enclos, en fosse´ souenpalissades. Aux II munaute´ agricole au Ne´ olithique Ancien. Le site et IIIe` sie` cles,lesite aune vocation clairement sembletoutefois avoir pris une ve´ ritable importance domestique. Au VIe` sie` cle, il est a` nouveau occupe´ . a` partir du Ne´ olithique Moyen et Final, ce dont Les divers vestiges de la pe´ riode saxonne qui yont e´ te´ te´ moignent un re´ cipient de type Peterborough ware et exhume´ sconsistent notamment en des fosses et en une fosse ou` l’on ade´ couvert de la ce´ ramique de type e´ difices construits a` un niveau infe´ rieur a` celui du sol Grooved ware (typiques du Ne´ olithique Tardif brit- naturel. Il n’est en revanche pas certain que cette annique) et une se´ pulture du Campaniforme Ancien occupation perdure au-dela` du VIIe` sie` cle. renfermant, entre autres, une aleˆ ne en cuivre.D’autres Au XIIIe` sie` cle, la portion Est du site sert a` tessons de ce´ ramiques confirment l’occupationdusite l’extraction du gravier.Cette exploitation est tre` s jusqu’au Bronze Moyen. Par ailleurs, la mise au jour certainement lie´ ea` la construction de la chapelleet d’un ensembledetrous de poteauxcontemporainsde du cimetie` re, situe´ sa` la jonction de routes adjacente. ces tessons de´ montre l’existence d’un enclos circu- Par la suite, l’ensemble du site est exploite´ a` des fins laire, un des rares du genrepour cette pe´ riode dans le agricoles et devientune partie des terres arables sud de l’Angleterre.L’e´ difice jouxtait vraisemblable- d’Abingdon. Au tournant des XIX et XXe` sie` cles,on ment d’autresconstructionscomme le laissent sup- yextrait a` nouveau le gravier, de l’est au nord-est. La poser une se´ rie de fosses varie´ es, de trous de poteaux carrie` re n’a pas subsiste´ ,lesite ayant une fois encore ainsi qu’un ensemble e´ parsdefaits similaires date´ s e´ te´ transforme´ en terres agricoles. Ce n’estqu’a` partir entre le Bronze Moyen et le Bronze Re´ cent. Entre le de 1940 qu’il adenouveau servi de cimetie` re.

Magali Bailliot Nathalie Haudecoeur-Wilks

x Acknowledgements

Oxford Archaeology is extremely grateful to English of all the volunteerswho took partisgratefully Heritage for funding this project. In particular we acknowledged. would like to acknowledge the assistance of English We would also like to thankAlisonRoberts, Heritage Inspectors Tony Fleming and Rob Perrin ArthurMacGregor and JulieClementsatthe Ashmo- and Chief Archaeologist DavidMiles for the field- lean Museum,LaurenGilmour at the Oxfordshire work, and Helen Keeley forher help with the post- County MuseumsStore at Standlake and CherryGrey excavation process. We are also indebtedtoAbingdon at Abingdon Museum fortheir assistance in locating Town Councilfor giving permission to excavate, and and loaning finds from the earlier excavations for would like to thank Brian Tonkin, formerly Clerk to analysis during post-excavation. We would also like Abingdon Town Council, for his co-operation. At the to acknowledge the part played by David Brown cemetery the support of successive superintendents and Tania Dickinson (formerlyofthe Ashmolean John Belland RichardKell, and the information pro- Museum and the Institute of Archaeology at Oxford vided by Bill Skellington from retirement, is grate- respectively)inattempting to trace the Saxon pottery fully acknowledged. given by Bill Skellington. The excavations were carried out by amixture of The authors would like to thank all the contribu- professional and amateurarchaeologists, all of whom tors to the report. For the illustrations we would like we would like to thank. Martin Hicks supervised to thankPeter and RosalynLorimer; the flint illustra- the 1990 evaluation, ably assisted by Jeff Parsons, tions were drawn by SimonPressey. We are particu- and the 1994 excavations by the Abingdon society larly grateful to Chris Hayden of Oxford Archaeology were run by Alison Gledhill and RogerAinslie. The for summarising muchofthe full textfor publication. 2000 excavations were directed by Tim Allen, and The volume was copy edited by Ian Scott of Oxford managedon-site by Jonathan Hiller, who also wrote Archaeology. muchofthe post excavationassessment. The support

xi Chapter 1: Introduction

by Tim Allen

LOCATION, GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY preceded by ageophysical survey of the unused part of the cemetery and part of the immediately adjacent Spring Road municipal cemetery (Fig. 1; Pl. 1) is sports field (Figs 41–42). Excavationtook place situatedinAbingdon,Oxfordshire (SU 4875 9755), within Areas8and 9atthe east side of the cemetery north-west of the town centre, on Summertown- and in Area 5inthe north-west corner (Fig. 2). Radley2nd gravelterrace deposits (BGS 1971). The gravelterrace deposits on which Abingdon lies are divided by aseries of streams flowing south into the ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL rivers Ock and Thames. Thesite itself is boundedon BACKGROUND OF THEAREA the west and north by the valleyofthe Larkhill Prehistoric Stream, whiletothe south the terrace dips gradually to Kimmeridge Clay deposits and, beyond that, to The town lies in an area rich in archaeological 1st terrace floodplain gravels adjacent to the river remainsofall periods (Fig. 1), and has seen human Ock some 400 maway. Only on the east is the gravel occupation andsettlement foratleast five and ahalf terrace uninterrupted, and the site thus occupies a thousand years. North-east of the town at Daisy slight eminence (BGS 1971). Banks,Radley, lay acausewayed enclosure with an To the north the site is boundedbyhouses built associated earthen long mound(Case and Whittle between the 1st and 2nd World Wars, and on the 1982; Bradley 1984). South-west of the river Ock was east by housing added afterthe 2nd World War anothercomplexofmonuments: acursus, along (Pl. 1). To the west of the site are the levelled playing mortuary enclosure and along barrow (Benson and fields of Larkmead School and to the south is Miles, 1974, 61–2, map 33; Ainslie and Wallis, 1987; the previous municipal cemetery situatedbetween Gledhill and Wallis, 1989; Barclay et al. 2003). Cemetery Road and Spring Gardens. Another long barrow has been identified from aerial The site has beenusedfor burialssince 1940 and photographsnearTesco’s, west of Abingdon, only is landscapedand divided intonumbered blocks 1kmsouth-west of Spring Road,and has recently (Fig. 2). The areas still unused for burialsatthe time been evaluated(OAU 1997). of the excavations comprised blocks 8, 9and 5. Evidence of late Neolithic activity was foundeast of the causewayed enclosureatDaisy Banks (Barclay CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROJECT and Halpin 1999). Apit containing Grooved Ware was excavated during the construction of the A34 The Spring Road municipal cemetery is owned by just west of the Tesco’s long barrow (Parrington Abingdon TownCouncil, who purchased the land 1978, fig. 25), and aClass II henge was foundsouth before the Second World War and convertedpre- of the Ock close to the ThamesatCorporation Farm viously agricultural landinto acemetery in 1940.The (Henderson in Barclay et al. 2003). depth and close spacing of the gravesmeant that The Neolithic monumentcomplexes later became most archaeologicalfeatures within the boundaryof foci for Beakerand Bronze Age barrow cemeteries. the cemetery were destroyed. As the site fell outside The linear barrow cemetery at Barrow Hills, east of the PPG16 planning framework,and in the light of DaisyBanks, Radley, is the best known (Barclay and significant finds made during grave-digging, Tim Halpin1999). Groups of roundbarrowsare present, Allen of the Oxford Archaeological Unit (OAU) however, all aroundAbingdon, one group closeto approached EnglishHeritage and the town council the Class II henge at Corporation Farm (Benson and in 1990 for funds to record the remainingundis- Miles1974, Map 33) and anothertothe north-west, turbed areas of the site ahead of the gradualexpansion one of which was excavated at Saxton Road (Leeds of the cemetery population, and EnglishHeritage and Harden 1936). Further roundbarrows are located provided funds foranevaluation (Fig. 2; OAU 1990). just north of the Ock, groupedaround the long In 1994 the Abingdon Area Archaeologicaland His- barrow south of Tesco’s. Beakers have also been torical Society (AAAHS) dug several small trenches foundoutside the barrowsinarecent evaluation of (Fig. 2; Ainslie 1999a), but the societydid not wish to this site (OAU 1997). Closer to Spring Road,two ring- commit itself to along-runningcampaign of excava- ditches were excavated at Ashville Trading Estate tions. By 2000 modern burial had filled muchofthe (Parrington 1978, 24–28) and further ring-ditches cemetery. An areaofc3500m2 remained unused for show as cropmarks c 400 mnorth-east of Spring burial.Inthe summerof2000 the OAU was commis- Road at Barrow Field (Benson and Miles1974, 57–8, sionedbyEnglishHeritage (with the co-operationof map 30). Beakerpottery has also been recovered from Abingdon Town Council) to undertake archaeologi- the town centre (Wilsonand Wallis1991, 4; Allen cal excavations (OAU 2000). The excavations were 1990, 73).

1 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 1Site location.

Evidence of the later Bronze Age is focussedin there are cremations at BarrowHills, Radley(Barclay two areas, onewest and oneeast of Abingdon. On and Halpin 1999, 167) and afieldsystematEight the west, the evidence comprises amiddle Bronze Acre Field, Radley(Mudd 1995). There is also late Age enclosure at Corporation Farm (Shand et al. BronzeAge activityatthe latter site,and there are 2003), awaterhole south of Tesco (OAU 1997) and two late Bronze Age inhumations in earlier burial cremations at Ashville (Parrington 1978). On the east monuments at Barrow Hills.

2 Chapter One

Plate 1Aerial photograph of the site in 1951.

3 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

An extensive early and middleIron Age settle- Anglo-Saxons up the Thamessimilar to that at ment lay justwest of the Larkhill Stream only afew Dorchester (Chadwick Hawkes 1986, 69–71). This hundred metres from SpringRoad, and has been may have been the burial-place of the Saxon com- excavated at Ashville Trading Estateand Wyndyke munityatCorporation Farm, Drayton (Benson and Furlong (Parrington 1978; Muir and Roberts 1999). Miles1974, 61–3 map 33), but probablyalso contains Traces of anothermiddle Iron Age settlementhave burialsfrom the settlement in the town centre. Finds been found at Tithe Farm south of the river Ock from Wyndyke Furlong west of the Larkhill stream (Ainslie 1992b). Alarge early and middle Iron Age suggest some Saxon activity, although no settlement settlement lay beneath the presenttown centre was located (Muir and Roberts 1999, fig. 3.7). South (Miles 1975; Jones 1983; Allen 1990) and another of the town there was asignificant Saxon complex at early Iron Age site lay south of Audlett Drive Drayton and Sutton Courtenay (Hamerow et al.in (Keevill 1992; OAU 1998). East of the town further prep.), but west of this very little material has come settlement evidence has been recovered, notablyat to light through recent evaluation (Hearne 2000), Thrupp (Wallis 1981; Everett and Eeles 1999) and at suggesting that Saxon settlement was focusedclose Barton Court Farm (Miles 1986). to the Thamesitself. Just east of the town centre at Audlett Drive a Late Iron Age and Roman settlement of sunken huts and postholebuildings was found (Keevill 1992). Further north-east at By the late Iron Age, anative oppidum was estab- Radley, Barrow Hills, alarge settlementconsisting lished at Abingdon, defended with two or three of sunkenhuts and posthole timber buildings has ditches and an internal bank, which continued as a been excavated (Chambers and Halpin 1986; Cham- market-centreinthe early Romanperiod (Allen 1991; bers and McAdam 2007.), and asmaller settlement of 1993a; 1995; 1997). In the 2nd century it developed the same type was excavatedatBartonCourt Farm into asmall town spreading beyond the defences (Miles 1986), probablyanoutlier of the Barrow Hills (Thomas unpublished; Allen 1994; 1996), with sub- settlement. stantial buildings (Thomas unpublished; Allen 1990; The early medieval abbey was founded in c 675 on Wilsonand Wallis1991, JMoore pers. comm.), and the site of an earlier pagan settlement(Rodwell 1975, cemeteries or burials immediately adjacent on the 33). The church of St Helens is supposed to have north-west, north and east sides (Atkinsonand originatedasasisterfoundation that did not last, but McKenzie 1946; Atkinson 1947; Ainslie 1995; Wilson the church survived as aminster serving avery large 1979; OAU 1998). Thelater Romanlevels have been area (Blair 1994, 64–8). The abbey was sacked by the severely truncated by medieval and more recent Danes and was refounded in the 10th century. The housing developmentwithin the town, but the quan- abbey cametodominatethe town’saffairs, and in tity of pottery and coins show that the town conti- the medieval period alarge number of chapels were nued to flourish until the very end of the 4th century. founded including two at opposite ends of Ock Villas such as that at Barton CourtFarm (Miles Bridge.Another chapel may have beenlocated at the 1986) were the centres of rural estates, and while no junction of SpringRoad andFaringdon Road, where estatecentre has beenconfirmed west of the town, asmall medieval cemetery is known (Harman and ditches, wells and other features have beenidentified Wilson1981; Chambers and Fuller 1986). Rocque’s at Ashville Trading Estateand Wyndyke Furlong map of Berkshire shows that there was previously a (Parrington 1978; Muir and Roberts 1999). Asmall triangleoflandatthe roadjunction here, and this late Romancemetery is recorded close to Marcham may have been the site of awayside chapel, or per- Road (Parrington 1978, 23–5) to the south-west, and haps agallows (Plate 9). the site of abuilding, interpreted as atemple, lies at Munby has mapped the relationship of the town Tithe Farm, south of the river Ock (Brown 1968, 137; and its parishes to the medieval three-field system: Bensonand Miles1974, 57–8, map 30). ARoman the Spring Road site lies between ‘Hitching Field’ building has also been recorded to the west of Saxton and anorth-south strip known as Lower Furlong im- Road cemetery (Benson and Miles 1974). mediately west of Upper LarkHill (Munby in Lamb- Anglo-Saxon, medieval and post-medieval rick and Slade 1991, fig. 4). In the post-medieval period thisareacontinued to be agricultural, as maps Within the town two Grubenha¨ user of 5th-century of the 18th and 19th centuriesshow. The 2nd edition date were foundduring excavations in The Vine- Ordnance Survey 6 00 map of 1900 (and that of 1904) yard. Saxon loomweights have also beenfoundin shows that asmall gravel pit was in operation west the High Street and BoxhillWalk, north of the town of the Spring Road junction with Faringdon Road, centre (Allen 1990; Rodwell 1975; ADodd pers. and the southern end of this appears to have exten- comm.). ded into the cemetery site. The areabetween Spring West of Abingdon and south of the river Ock at Road and the Larkhill Stream was incorporated into Saxton Road alarge Saxon cemetery containing over the suburban development of Abingdon in the 20th 200 mixed inhumations and cremations was exca- century, and the plot of landnow occupied by the vated in 1934 (Leeds and Harden1936; Myres 1968; cemetery is visible on the Ordnance Survey600 map Myres1977). The cemetery began in the 5th century, of 1938, although the site was not usedasamunici- providing evidence of early penetration by the pal cemetery until 1940.

4 Figure 2Plan of excavation areas, showing cemetery layout and plot numbering.

5 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SPRING ROAD CEMETERY No records were kept of the any finds from the earliest gravesinthe south-west partofthe cemetery (mostofplots 1and 2). The first recorded discoveries were of two extended inhumations in one grave, heads to the north, from the north end of cemetery plot 2, reported by aDrO’Connell to the Ashmolean Museum in the 1950s (Case 1957, 104). In 1962 Bill Skellington, akeen amateur archaeologist, became Cemetery Superintendent, and recorded finds of a varietyofperiods. These included struck flints and Beakerpottery (Gray1972, 238; Ashmolean Museum Acc. No. 1971.21-3), and Saxon pottery (eg Berisford 1973, fig. 39.6–8). Skeletons found by Bill Skellington were re-interred in modern graves; bones foundin the 1950s, before Bill Skellington’s appointment, were kept at the Superintendent’s office, but were re-interred at the site before Bill Skellington retired. Much other material was kept at the Super- intendent’s office, and Mr Skellington’s successor, John Bell, continued to curate and add to thiscollec- tion. Some of thismaterial, including alargelycom- plete late Bronze Age fine-ware bowl (Fig. 31, 1) and early Iron Age pottery is nowheld by the County Museums Service (Accession No. 1994.29). Many finds have been precisely locatedasaresult of careful recording (Figs 2and 3). The 1990 evaluation comprised six trenches (Fig. 2, A-F) which showed that Iron Age and Roman features including gullies and postholes were present in the eastern part of the cemetery. Saxon occupation was inferred from linesofpostholes, from apossible sunken-featured building, and from an occupation layer which contained asherd of Saxon pottery and seemed to seal Roman ditches (OAU 1990). Owingto the substantial build up of soil in this part of the site, the remainswere well-preserved. In the face of continuing burial,the AAAHS exca- vated four test pits in 1994–5, mostly near to the site of the trenchespreviouslyexcavatedbyOAU (Fig. 2). Gulliesand postholes were found together with pottery of Iron Age, Romanand Saxon date(Ainslie 1999a). In 1999 grave diggersfoundacrouched inhumation in cemetery plot5in the north-west part of the site (Fig. 2). OAUmade abrief record of the burial,but there were no directly associated finds and no bone was retained for dating.

LOCATION OF THE ARCHIVE The finds from the 1990, 1994 and 2000 excavations, together with the paper archive and acopy of the digitaldata, have beendeposited with the Oxford- shire County MuseumsService at Standlake, Oxon. Some of the finds made by Bill Skellingtonand

Figure 3Distribution map of gravediggers’ finds with indication dated finds.

6 Chapter One others were donated to the Ashmolean Museum in radiocarbon years, the end points have beenroun- the 1960s, and remain within their collection. Acopy ded out to the nearest 10 years. of the digital data has also been deposited with the Ashmolean Museum. PUBLICATION This volume is asummary of amoredetailed report RADIOCARBONDATES (hereafter ‘Detailed report’) which can be download- All radiocarbon dates in this textare quoted as ed as PDF filesfrom the Oxford Archaeology website calibrated date rangesattwo standard deviations (http://thehumanjourney/springroad). The online re- (95.46% confidence). They have beencalibrated with port includes amoredetailed introduction and site the calibration data provided by Stuiver et al. (1998), description (Chapters1–2) and full versions of all of using OxCal (v3.5; Bronk Ramsey 1995; 1998). The the specialistsreports (Chapters 3–5), including their date ranges have been calculatedusing the max- accompanying tables. The discussion (Chapter 6), imum intercept method (Stuiver and Reimer 1986), however, is the same as that provided in this volume. and are quoted in the form recommended by Mook All of the figures on the website are also reproduced (1986).Since the error terms are all greater than 25 in this volume with the samenumbering.

7

Chapter 2: Archaeological Description

by Zena Kamash andTim Allen

NEOLITHIC AND BEAKER FEATURES (Fig. 4) Awell-preserved Peterborough Ware dish(Fig. 28) was recovered during modern grave-digging. Un- Grooved Ware pit 2622 in Area 8 (Fig. 5) fortunately its provenance was notrecorded. Asinglepit containing Grooved Ware (2622) was foundinthe south-western corner of Area 8. The pit was circular in plan, was 1.45 mwide and0.55 m BRONZE AGE FEATURES (Fig. 4) deep, with steeply sloping sides and aslightlycon- Timber circle2568 and 2726 in Area 8 (Fig. 7; Pl. 2) cave base. There were four fills. The primary fill (2621) probably derivedfrom natural erosion of the At the north end of Area 8adouble arc of postholes pit sides, and contained only afew finds. The dark (Plate 2), probablypart of atimber circle, was exposed. colour of the two major fills of this pit (2620 and The surviving postholes formed an arc makingup – 2619), as well as the high density and character of the 60–80 of acircle. The diameter of the circle would finds from them, suggests that they were deliberately have been around 18–20 m. deposited. Theuppermost fill (2623) contained very The postholearc was sealed by alayer of dark few finds, and may have resulted from natural brownish-red silty loam and gravel(2648) that was erosion of the surrounding subsoil. cut both by Saxon features and by posthole 2016 which contained five sherds (154 g) of middleIron Age pottery. This sealinglayer, which was up to BeakerBurial 3037 in Area 5 (Figs 6and 22) 0.10 mdeep, contained asignificant proportion of Asingle Beaker burial was found in Area 5(Fig. 22). graveland may have been aploughsoil. The subrectangular grave (3037),1.6 mby0.96 m wide and 0.14 mdeep, had gently sloping sides and Outer arc 2568 aflat base. Its shallowdepth may be due to the com- Because of their spatial arrangement, their common pact nature of the periglacial clay within the gravel characteristics,and because many of them were (3002) through which the grave was cut. overlainbylayer 2648, 17 postholes have been Although the grave was veryshallow, it contained assignedtothe outer arc (group 2568) of the timber the intact skeleton of a20–24 year old female (3036), circle. orientedsouth-east (head) –north-west (feet), and With oneexception (2360) the postholes were crouched with the legs flexedand the head resting to large: 0.36–0.52 mwide and 0.45–0.66 mdeep. The the right. Acopper awl (Fig. 6, SF 4) was positioned one smaller posthole (2360: 0.20 mwide and 0.41 m alongside the upper legs. Aradiocarbon dateof deep) was cut by amore substantial posthole (2357) 2460–2200cal BC was obtained from the skeleton. and may have predated the circle. Thepostholes were either circular or oval in plan, and generally Possible Beaker pit or posthole 2644inArea 8 had flattish bases. Where they were oval, the long axis of the oval was generally alignedradially. Acircular postholeorpit (2644),0.47 mwide and Post pipes were recognised in five postholes. The 0.33 mdeep, was found on the western side of Area post pipes were all filled with friable mid to dark 8. It had nearverticalsides and aflat base. It con- brownish-red clay silt,and the post packing was re- tained averyweathered, and hence probablyresi- deposited natural graveland subsoil. Thepost pipes dual Beakersherd (Fig. 29, 8). were invariably on the inner sideofthe arc, and the sections suggest that some of the post-pipes were Other possible Neolithic features (Fig. 4) only clipped when the postholes were half-sectioned. The sectiondrawings do not, therefore, give an accu- Posthole2122, in the central western part of Area 8, rate indication of the original size of the post. may be of Neolithic date. It was circular, 0.35 mwide One of the oval postholes (2357) had avertical and 0.13 mdeep, with gently sloping sides and a inner side andasloping outersidewhich may have concave base. It contained18pieces of Neolithic been dug to assist in sliding the postinbefore struckflint. The density and number of flints suggest standing it upright. The ovalshape might, however, that the material was not residual. However, the also have beenformed if the post had been rocked to postholecut an unexcavatedsoil mark which might removeit. The sides of postholes 2094, 2090 and 2024 have been atree-throw hole from which the flint were irregular and widened on one or both sides may have derived. towards the base (Fig. 7), possibly as aresult of rock- Modern grave 3506 (4 D26) also containedanota- ing. However, some of the postholes containing post ble concentration(27 pieces) of Neolithicworkedflint. pipes also had irregularsides.

9 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

10 Chapter Two phases. Age Iron to Neolithic 9: nd 8a reas 4A Figure

11 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

friable mid brownish-red sandysilt,0.15 mwide and 0.3 mdeep, and surrounded by afriable mid yellowish-red sandysilt deposit (2327).Posthole 2096 (0.8 mby0.4 mwide and 0.3 mdeep) was subrectangular with an irregularbase, and may have been adouble posthole. It containedtwo fills, afriable greyish-red sandysilt (2097) overlainbyathin layer of friable dark greyish-brownclayey silt (2322). Whether this group of postholes did form an arc is uncertain. The distribution of the postholes was not as regular as those in the outer arc, and none of them Figure 5Section of Grooved Ware pit 2619. was sealed by layer 2648. Furthermore,two of them (2473 and 2032) mighthave been associated with The postholes were closely andfairly evenly aSaxon sunken-featured building (2008).These two spaced, the gaps between them being never less postholes were notmarkedly different from the than 0.2 mand never more than 0.4 m. The gap others in the circle, but the fill of posthole 2473 was between any two posts aboveground is unlikely to very similar to the fills of the otherinternal Saxon have been more than 0.5 m, and most couldhave postholes. Nevertheless, whatdating evidence there been arranged within the postholes to give an even is, is consistent with that from the outerarc. spacing of 0.3–0.4 m. Dating Inner arc 2726 Threeofthe postholes containedNeolithicpottery: a Seven postholes, spacedat c 1mintervals (except single, abraded sherd of early-middle Neolithic pot- c 2mbetween 2328 and 2473), mighthave formedan tery came from the secondary fill (2091) of posthole inner arc. Allofthese postholes were circular except 2090, asinglesherd of Peterborough Ware (Fig. 29, 2) 2096, and varied in diameterfrom 0.23 mto0.43 m from the secondary fill (2093) of posthole 2092, and a and in depth from 0.08 mto0.34 m. Most had steep single sherd of GroovedWare (Fig. 29, 3) from the sides, aconcave base and asingle fill of mid to dark primaryfill (2368) of posthole 2367. Radiocarbon greyishorreddish-brown sandy or clayeysilt. Only dates on animal bone from the primaryfill (2329) posthole2325 had apost pipe (2326), filled with a of posthole 2328 in the inner arc, and from the post

Figure 6Plan, profile andphotograph of Beaker burial 3037 and copper awl.

12 Chapter Two

base, was foundinthe centre of Area 9where it was cut by aRomanditch (1629).The pit containedthe base andlower sides of alarge vessel that sat upright within, and almost filled, the pit (Plate 6).

Ditchgroups 1199, 1206 and 1210 (Fig. 4) Small quantities of Bronze Age pottery were found in two east-west ditches near the southern edge of Area 9: alarge sherd from aDeverel-Rimbury Bucket Urn in ditch 1206 and four middle-late Bronze Age sherds in ditch 1199. Ditch 1199 also containeda burin, aside- and endscraper and aflake, and ditch 1206, seven flint flakesand aretouched flake. Des- pite solely Bronze Age finds, the spatial relationship of 1199 and 1206 to Romanditches 1626 and 251 at right angles (see Fig. 14) suggests aRomandate. Ditch 1206 cut an undated ditch (1210) which may have been prehistoric.

Postholes in Areas8and 9 (Fig. 4) BronzeAge pottery was foundinasmall number of furtherpostholes: asmall early-middle Bronze Age sherd in aposthole(2133) in Area 9; small numbers of middle-late BronzeAge sherds in six postholes in Area 9and the southern part of Area 8, and asmall late Bronze Age sherd in posthole1442 in Area 9. The postholes do not form any coherentstructures, the only indication of afocus of activity being four postholes (1329, 1442, 1298 and 1224) near the middle of Area 9.

BronzeAge finds from modern graves (Fig. 3) Seven modern graves containedBronze Age pottery: Plate 2Timber circle and Sunken-featuredBuilding middle-late BronzeAge pottery in grave3502 (plot 2008, taken from the south-west. 4A3) (5 sherds), grave 3514 (6 sherds)and grave 3501 (1 sherd); late BronzeAge pottery in grave 3522 (1 sherd),grave3521 (1 sherd) and grave 3516 pipe (2375) of posthole 2373 in the outer arc pro- (a nearly complete bowl). Grave 3508 contained two duced dates of 1690–1510cal BC and 1520–1310cal late Bronze Age sherds and onemiddle-late Bronze BC respectively.The animal bones were sizeable and Age sherd. although one, which had beenworkedinto agouge or hide scraper, had been gnawed,were otherwise unabraded. Although the dates are notstatistically IRON AGE FEATURES consistent, they maybracketthe period of use of the Iron Age roundhouse (Figs 8and 9) monument, as the earlier date came from abone within the packing of aposthole, whilethe later date On the western edgeofArea 8anIron Age round- came from abone within the fill of apost pipe, and house was identified, the eastern side of which had so presumably post-datesthe abandonment of the been partly destroyedbyRomanditches. Several monument. Asingle, verysmall sherd of Iron Age slightlydifferent posthole circuits are evident, not all pottery was foundinthe post pipe (2630) of posthole of which need have been contemporary. The post- 2629. It is conceivablethat the bones, like the holes have therefore been divided into the groups Neolithic pottery, were residual, but on balance it described below according to their possible relation- seems more likely that the Iron Age potsherd was ships with the structure (Fig. 9). They consist of a intrusive. symmetricallyarranged post ring andporch (2719), inner (2724) and outer (2725) rings, internal parti- Pit 1201 in Area 9 (Fig. 4) tions (2720 and 2721) and other central features (2723).Asecond phase of the roundhouse may be An oval pit (1201),0.6 mlong, 0.55 mwide, and 0.12 represented by afurther ringofposts (2722).(The mdeep, with gently sloping sides and aconcave postholedimensions and fills are tabulated in

13 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 7Area 8: Plan of Bronze Age timber circle 2568 and sections of postholes.

14 Chapter Two

Figure 8Area 8: Plan of Iron Age house in. 15 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Appendix 1inthe DetailedReport availableonline; only the cut numbers are referred to in the text.) Perhaps the clearest group (2719) consists of 21 postholes distributed symmetrically about anorth- south axis. They define aring and porch with the entrancefacing south. Thepostholes defining the doorway were large compared to most of the others in the post ring. The finds from this group consist of asmall number of early and early-middle Iron Age sherds in 2140 and 2100, an unusual, probablylate Bronze Age rim in posthole2227, three fragments of unidentified animalbone in postholes 2339, 2227 and 2100, and a residual flint flake in posthole 2339. Another ring of ten postholes (2722),slighly to the west of post ring 2719, may have beenrelated to a preceding or succeeding structure with its entrance perhaps in almost the samelocation. Theonly finds from this group of features were 14 sherds of early- middleIron Age pottery and five fragments of ani- mal bone (including two of sheep mandible and one of sheep maxilla) in posthole 2061. Posthole 2066 contained aresidual Neolithic levalloiscore. Within the house, ten further postholes may have definedaninner post ring (2724).However, the dis- tributionofthe posts in this ring was rather irregular, and the postholes varied considerably in size.Only posthole2306 contained any finds: seven sherds of early Iron Age pottery. Another (2616) was cut by a Romanditch (2709). Some of the postholes may have belonged to later fences (Fig. 14, 2715 and2717). Afurther ten postholes mayhave definedanouter ring of posts (2725).Again, however, they varied con- siderably in size and shape, and their distribution was rather irregular. Theonly finds were two early Iron Age sherds in posthole2107 and two late Bronze Age sherds in posthole2180. Near the centre of the roundhouse were two groupsofpostholes (2720 and 2721) that may have formedtwo symmetricallyplacedL-shaped parti- tions. The only finds in these postholes were asherd of early-middle Iron Age pottery in fill 2129 and a residual early-middle Bronze Age sherd in fill 2133. It is, however, possible that posthole(2219) belonged to aRomanfence (2717). At the verycentre of the roundhouse lay two furtherpostholes (2723) cutting apossiblesolution hollow. Oneofthese (2122) contained the Neolithic flint mentioned above, and is unlikely to be contem- porarywiththe roundhouse.

Human Burials (Figs 8and 10–12) Threeburialswere found in the area of the round- house.Radiocarbon determinations on samplesof humanbonesuggest theydate from the 4th–3rd centurycal BC.

Grave 2126 (Fig. 10) Figure 9Iron Age house: Some possiblemodels for its structuraldevelopment. Grave 2126was subcircular with arounded base and steeply sloping sides at the south-eastern (head) end,

16 Chapter Two

Figure 10 Plan, section and photograph of grave with child burial 2126 and bone ring.

becoming more gentle towards the north-western the upper legs broughtuptowards the chest and the (foot) end. It was 0.68 mlong, 0.55 mwide and lower legs flexedbeneath them. The grave pit ap- 0.27 mdeep(Fig. 11), and contained the skeleton pearedtobetoo small for the burial, and feature 2454 (2125) of afour-five year old child (complete except may have been dug to accommodate the head. for the upper right arm) as well as some bones from Alternatively feature 2454 mighthave been alater athree month-old infant. Thechild’s body was postholethat had removed the skull. No grave goods crouched with the legs bent back underthe patella, were found, but the grave containedseven residual and the head to the right. Abone ring (Fig. 10, SF 5) early Iron Age sherds and some burnt limestone. was found nearthe skull. The grave also contained six sherds of residual early Iron Age pottery and Grave 2200 (Fig. 12) some burnt limestone. Grave 2200 was also subrectangular. It was 1.10 m long, 0.70 mwide, and 0.48 mdeep, with aslightly Grave 2241 (Fig. 11) irregular base and steeply sloping northern and Grave 2241 was roughly subrectangular. It was southern sides. The eastern edgehad amoregentle 1.09 mlong, 0.51 mwide and 0.20 mdeep, and slope and the westernedge was undercut, possibly had aflat base with asteeply sloping edge on the to accommodate the right humerus and radius of south-eastern (foot) end which becamemore gentle the skeleton. The grave contained anearly complete towards the north-western (head) end. At the head skeleton (2199) of a20–24 year old man. The body end, acircular feature 2454, 0.21 mwide and 0.13 m was oriented north-south withinthe grave and was deep with gently sloping sides and aconcave base, supine, with the back lying against the northern edge had been cut.The grave contained the skeleton (2243) of the grave and the knees raised in ahalf-sitting of a19–21 year old male, the skull (except one frag- position. Afragmentary spindle whorl and 21 resi- ment of occipital),mandible and some neck verteb- dual sherds of early Iron Age pottery were retrieved rae were missing. Thebody was interred in aprone from the uppermost fill of the grave, but may not position (possibly pushedforwards into the pit) with have been deliberately incorporated into the grave.

17 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 11 Plan, profile andphotograph of grave with maleburial2241.

Other possible burials (Fig. 3) In 1999 grave diggers foundacrouched inhuma- tion which might have beenofsimilar date in the Afurther burial possibly of Iron Age datewas distur- north-westernareaofthe cemetery. OAUmadea bed by gravediggers in modern grave 3503 (4 A4). brief record of the burial,but there were no directly This burial was crouched, laid on its left side and associated finds and no bonewas retained for dating. facing west. The skull was missing. Two sherds of early Iron Age pottery were recoveredfrom the fill, as well as onesherd of 2nd-century AD pottery; this Pits (Figs 4, 8and 13) last may have come from the ploughsoil or topsoil Four probably early Iron Age pits were foundscat- overlying the grave. tered across the site: 2299 (within the roundhouse)

Figure 12 Plan, profile andphotograph of grave with maleburial2200 andclayspindlewhorl.

18 Chapter Two

Figure 13 Section of Iron Age pit 2299 andposthole 2306. and 2055 in Area 8, and 1207 and 605 in Area 9. Pits proportion of early Iron Age pottery came from 2055 and 1207 were small, vertical-sided circular pits Area 11. (0.6–0.78mwide and 0.36–0.54 mdeep), 2299 was large and shallow(1.64 mwide and 0.36 mdeep; ROMAN FEATURES (Fig. 14) Fig. 13) and 605 was irregular(1.70 mwideand 0.96 mdeep). They all containedIron Age pottery as Romanenclosure ditches belonging to two phases well as occasional residual earlier prehistoric sherds; were found. Ditches of the first phase, dating from pit 605 also contained one intrusive Romansherd. the 2nd century AD,weregenerallyaligned NNW- The only other finds were asmall quantityofanimal SSE (although the largestditch runs almost N-S at bone and burnt limestone. Early Iron Age sherds its southern end).Ditches of the second phase, dat- were the only finds from pit 1008, but were probably ing to the late 2nd-3rd century AD, were aligned residual. NNE-SSW. One of the later ditches (1627) cut aposthole alignment on the sameline (1631).Anumber of other Other postholesand curvilinear gully 2712 (Fig. 4) possible postholealignments were identified either Asmall number of probably Iron Age postholes parallel to, or at rightangles to,these ditches, and were found scatteredwidelyacrossthe site, in no may have been further Romanboundaries (see Figs apparent pattern. These have been dated by the 14–16). It must be stressed, however, that there is pottery they contained, but the possibility that the almost no dating evidence to link these postholes to pot was residual cannot be excluded, especially in one another, or to the Romanperiod. (The details of the case of posthole 2588, which may have belonged these postholes are giveninAppendix1of the to asunken-featuredbuilding (2687).Ofthese post- Detailed Report availableonline.) holes,13have been dated to the early Iron Age, three to the early-middle Iron Age,and four to the middle Central ditch complex and fences in the2nd Iron Age. century AD (Figs 15–17; Pl. 3) In the north-western corner of Area 8, one of the early-middle Iron Age postholes (2288) lay within a The earlier Romansystem consisted of four parallel shallow, curvilinear segmented gully (2712; 0.10 m sets of ditches and possiblefence linesrunning deep). This gully containedeight sherds of early- NNW-SSE, 10–25 mapart, between which further middleIron Age pottery similar to that found in post- ditches and fencelines ran at right-angles, at similar hole 2288. Theposthole might have formed part intervals, forming small rectangular enclosures. of structure contemporary with the gully. Afurther The NNW-SSE alignedfeatures consist of two eight postholes were foundwithinthe areadefined parallel ditches (2710=1626and 2711=1628) (Fig. 17, by the gully, but none containedany dateable arte- sectionA)running through the centre of both Areas facts, and since one was cut by the gully and another 8and 9, ashort stretch of fence (1637) alongside by posthole 2288, theycannot all have been contem- 1626, two shallowditches 2584 (Fig. 17,section F) porary. Theevidence for astructure is thus slight. and 2583 forming asingle boundaryinthe north-east Alongside the small quantities of pottery,the cornerofArea 8(with areturn 2586 and aparallel postholes contained small quantities of fired clay and ditch 2585 at rightangles –Fig. 17, sectionG), two burnt stone. parallel ditches and afence line (619, 615 and 1630) in the south-west cornerofArea 8, and apossible short length of fence (2715) near the western edge of Iron Age findsfrom modern graves (Fig. 3) Area 8. Iron Age pottery has been found in several modern Both the central NNW-SSE aligned ditches and graves, mostly in small quantities (graves3507 and ditch 2584 terminated in line with oneanother just 3518) but occasionally in larger groups (grave 3525: short of the northern edge of Area 8, where the end 27 sherds of early andearly-middle Iron Age pottery). of 2710 was cut away by aditch (2709) belonging to More mixed assemblages, containing late Bronze- the later system. Just to the north of the end of these early Iron Age (grave 3515)and Saxon (graves 3521 ditches, apossible long fence line (2713) ran at right and 3516) pottery, as well as large quantities of angles to them much of the way acrossArea 8. To the Iron Age pottery, have also beenfound. The largest south of this, anumber of otherfences and ditches

19 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

20 Chapter Two phases. post-medieval and medieval Saxon, Roman, 9: nd 8a Areas 14 Figure

21 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 15 Area 8: Roman phases including possible posthole alignments. ran on the same alignment: ditches 2585 and 2586– The largest of the ditches in this group was which may have continued as fence 2714 –inArea 8; 2710=1626, which was up to 1.80 mwide and 0.55 m fence 746 at the northern edge of Area 9; ditch 1414 deep (Fig. 17, sections A&B). Most of the other at the westernedgeofArea 9; fence 1644 starting ditches were smaller,measuring 0.20 m–0.85 mwide from the south end of fence 1637, and ditches 1199 and 0.04–0.22 mdeep. (Fig. 17, sections C&D) and 1206 (Fig. 17, section E) Most of these features containedfew finds. How- near the southern edge of Area 9. ever, large quantities of 2nd century pottery were

22 Chapter Two

Figure 16 Area 9: Roman phases including possible posthole alignments.

23 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery foundinditch 2710=1626, including some in its pottery. The fact that ditch 2709 cutacross the very primaryfill. Similar pottery was found in ditch 1414 end of 2710, and that 1629 was dug westwards from (Fig. 16), and Romanceramic building material was it, suggeststhat the earlier ditches were still visible, so foundinditch 2586. The remaining features have that the new ditches would have formed atriangular been dated on the basis of their alignments. Asmall enclosure with its entrance to the south. number of residual, earlier finds, including aDeverel- Ditch 1627 cut alineofpostholes (1631) on its Rimbury sherd in ditch 1206 and middle-late Bronze westernedge;ditch 2709 may also have had afence Age pottery in ditches 2710=1626 and 1199 were also (2717) alongside (Fig. 14). Asecond possible fence found. Later material was also recovered, including (2716) ran parallel to ditch 2709, 4mto the west. probablyintrusive 3rd–4th-century pottery and a Furtherpossible fences on thisalignment were found very fresh-looking 4th-century coin in the secondary to the east of ditches 1627 and 251 (1632, 1633, 1636 fills of ditch 2710=1626, and clay pipe and early medi- and 1645), and another(1635) lay at right angles eval pottery in adisturbed section (1112) of the same (Pl. 3). One 2nd centurysherd came from the post- ditch. hole lines; otherwise finds were of Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery. Four postholes (1292, 1225, 1438 and 1240) in fences 1632, 1633 1645 and contained Central ditch complex in the late 2nd–early 3rd century (Figs 14–17; Pl. 3) small Anglo-Saxon sherds, and it is possible that some of these fence lines were post-Roman. Towards the end of the 2nd century, new ditches (2709 and 1627), up to 1.25 mwide and 0.43 mdeep Pits in Area 9 (Fig. 16) (Fig. 17, sectionH,ditch 1627), were dug running NNE, 2709 cutting the end of one of the earlier ditches Two pits containing small quantities of 2nd-century (2710).Although on the same alignment, these two pottery were found in Area 9, pit 1425 near the later ditches (2709 and 1627) do not line up, and so westernedge and pit 505inthe south-west corner. presumably ended in the baulk between Areas 8and Both were ovalwith gently sloping sides and flat or 9. Ditch 1627 containedmuch 2nd- and 3rd-century unevenbases (1.3–1.5 mwide and 0.24–0.7 mdeep). pottery, especially at the southern end (Fig. 32); ditch One Roman pottery sherd, believedtobeintrusive, 2709 later 2nd-century pottery. Asmaller ditch (251; was found in anearby Iron Age pit (605). 0.30 mwide), running from the southern edge of Area 9, forms acontinuation of the sameline.Ashort Modern graves 3509 and 3531 (Fig. 3) length of ditch (1629) (0.75 mwide and 0.20 mdeep) (Fig. 17, section B) was dug at rightangles to 1627 Romanpottery has been foundintwo recent graves: from the western edgeofearlier ditch 1626, and was three sherds of 2nd-century pot with one early- alignedjust south of the end of 1627. Ditch 1629 also middleIron Age sherd and one 11th-century sherd contained asizeable assemblage of 2nd-century in grave 3509, and 54 Romansherds in grave 3531.

Plate 3General view of excavation with Area 9inthe foreground, looking north-west.

24 Chapter Two

Figure 17 Sections of Roman ditches.

SAXON FEATURES Postholes were found within bothSFBs at the eastern and westernends: oneateach end (2706 and Sunken-featuredbuildings in Area 8 (Figs. 14 and 2702) of SFB 2687 (Fig. 18; Pl. 4) but two (2624 and 18–19; Pls 2and 4) 2626) at the west and one deepexample (2477) at the Two sunken-featured buildings (SFBs) were foundin east in SFB 2008 (Fig. 19; Pl. 2). Furtherpostholes Area 8, one (2008) near the northern edge,the other were also foundwithin both: two (2473 and 2475) in (2687) nearthe southern, where it cut aRomanditch the south-east corner of SFB 2008 andone (2698) in (2710).Both were subrectangular features, similar in the south-west cornerofSFB 2687.However, post- size (2008: 3.05 mby2.26 mwide and 0.28 mdeep; hole 2473 may have been part of the Bronze Age 2687: 3.12 mby2.90 mand 0.26 mdeep). timber circle and thus unrelated to the SFB. All of

25 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Furtherpostholes were also foundaroundboth of the SFBs (Fig. 14). Therewere six around SFB 2008, although oneofthem(2032) may have be- longedtothe timber circle, and another contained five middleIron Age sherds.The six postholes around SFB 2687 mighthave beenrelatedtoastructure, postholes 2683 and 2595 forming the north-western and south-western corners,between which lay post- hole 2685. Posthole 2540 lay on the northern side, and postholes 2588 and 2704 near the north-eastern corner. However, posthole 2588 containedtwo sherds of early Iron Age pottery, and may datefrom that phase. SFB 2687 had three fills. The primaryfill (2686) contained just 15 sherds of undecorated early Saxon pottery, but the secondary fill (2673) contained 79 Saxon sherds including some that were stamped and incised, and the upper fill (2672) contained 147 early Saxon sherds as well as large quantities of articulated animal bone. SFB 2008 had only a single fill, which contained55sherds of undecorated Anglo-Saxon pottery,daub,aniron nail and animal bone.

Pits and postholes (Fig. 14) Saxon pottery was also found in aposthole(2209) in Area 8, in apit or quarry (1449) south-east of SFB Figure 18 Plan andsections of Sunken-featuredBuilding 2687, in four postholes (1292, 1225, 1438 and 1240) in 2008. the SW of Area 9, and in apit (245) in the samearea. The postholes in Area 9were all attributed to fences (1225 and1438 to fence 1632, 1292 to fence 1645, and the internal postholes were covered by the fills of 1240 to fence 1633), and it is possiblethat these the SFBs.Posthole 2690 in SFB 2687 was partially alignments were not Romanbut Saxon.Anumber covered by alimestone slab,one of two such slabs of postholelines at right angles are evident, but foundwithin this SFB. no convincing buildings couldbefound. Pit (245)

Plate 4Saxon Sunken-featured Building 2687 completely excavated,looking east.

26 Chapter Two

Figure 19 Plans andsection of Sunken-featuredBuilding2687 with detail of bone deposit. contained aperforated Romancoin and aperforated Saxonarchaeology andmoderngraves (Figs3and20) Romanbrooch as well as early-middle Saxon pot- tery. Feature 1449 contained awide varietyoffinds – Saxon pottery has beenfound in numerous modern bone, glass, flint and Saxon pottery –and is probably graves. Thelargest concentration, consisting of 103 amedieval quarry that had disturbed aSaxon grass-temperedsherds (Berisford 1973, fig. 39, 6–8), feature. came fromone or more large features cut by agroup of

27 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

four graves(Figs 3and 21, 3526 (3 E26), 3527(3F26), 3528 (3 F27), and 3529 (3 F28)). It is possible that modern graveshave also disturbed Saxon burials. Case (1957) records the extended burial of ayoung adult which was partially overlainbyafurther ske- leton. The skullsofboth lay to the north. Twofurther possibly Saxon burials, this timecontracted, seem also to have been found, but were not recorded in detail.

MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL FEATURES Medieval pits in Areas 8and 9 (Figs 14 and 21; Pl. 5) Several groups of intercuttingpits were found running along the eastern side of Areas 8and 9, east of the Roman ditch 2710=1628.InArea 8the pits cut into Romangully 2584. The pits were very varied in shape, profile andsize (0.80–2.4mwide and from 0.15–0.95 mdeep). This variation suggeststhat they were dug for gravel-extraction. Gravel spills in some of these pits indicate that theywere left openafter the gravelwas extracted, filling slowly thereafter. They contained awide range of finds, usually in quite small quantities, and of varying dates. Some, eg Pit 1008 (Area 9), contained only prehistoric finds. The latestfinds in agroup sectionedinArea 8were early-middle Saxon;inArea 9middle-late Bronze Age, early-middle Iron Age,Roman, early-middle Saxon and 12th- to 13th-century pottery was found. The majority of the pottery is believedtoberesidual from features through which the medieval pits were cut. Themedieval pits have,therefore, been dated by the latest, and largest sherds of pottery they contained: 12th- to13th-century pottery in pits 1071, 1139 and 1146. Allofthe pits were overlainbythe ploughsoils of late medieval datethat covered the whole excavation area.

Posthole group 3034 (Fig. 22) In Area 5, aline of eight postholes (seven large and one small) was found. Their stratigraphic position, and afragment of clay pipe foundinone of them suggest that they were post-medieval.

Victorian quarry 2006 (Fig. 14) In the north-eastern corner of Area8alarge Victo- rian quarry filled with domesticrubbish, including 19th-century ceramicsand glass, was excavatedby machine. It had obliterated any archaeology in this area of the site.

Layers and ploughsoils Following the Saxon occupationthere was abuild- up of soilacross the site. In general,the archaeology was sealed by aploughsoil0.4 mto0.6 mdeep that was directly overlain by the topsoil. This ploughsoil contained awide range of residual Iron Age and Figure 20 Gravedigger plans and section of Saxon Romanpottery as well as medieval, post-medieval features found in modern graves. and modern wares whichsuggest that it was cultivated in the medieval and post-medieval period.

28 Chapter Two pits. extraction gravel medieval of Sections 21 Figure

29 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery west. the from 9, Area in pits gravel edieval 5M Plate

30 Chapter Two

Figure 22 Area 5: features of all phases.

The post-medieval map evidence indicatesthat the burial which was revealed in amodern grave cut by site was used as agricultural landand allotments the hedge in Section 3ofthe municipalcemetery. until it was convertedinto acemetery. The burial was alignedsouth (head) –north (feet). The skull was missing. Medieval finds in modern graves (Fig. 3) The only other significant medieval finds in modern graveswere twenty-six sherds of 13th century pottery Awire-wound pin, datingfrom the 13th century or foundinmodern grave 3513 (6 C16). later, was found near to the shoulder of an extended

31

Chapter 3: The Finds

STRUCKFLINT (Figs 23–27) The pit contained atotal of 8.6% blades, which Summary of report by Hugo Lamdin-Whymark falls within Ford’s(1987, 79) 7–14% bracket forthe proportion of bladesinlater Neolithicassemblages. Atotal of 667 flints and 88 gofburnt unworked flint The average size of the flint from the pit is relatively was recovered from the excavations and from recent small at 25 mm long by 22 mm wide (Fig. 23). grave digging.Athird of all of the flint came from The majorityofthe flints recoveredare non- late NeolithicGroovedWare pit 2622. Much of the cortical flakes (Fig. 24,1–4), perhaps indicating that rest of the flint, some of Mesolithic date, but mostly the nodules were prepared away from the pit. The of mid-late Neolithicdate, was residual.The collec- presence of three rejuvenation flakes, including areju- tion of flint from recent graves seems to have been venation tablet, suggests that the cores were worked biasedtowards retouched flints and bladesrather relatively carefully; platform edge abrasion on 41% than flakes,and Bronze Age flint may be under- of the flakes and the dominance of feather termina- represented. tions also supports thissuggestion. No flint occurs naturally in the gravels on which The three cores recovered from the pit are the the site lies, and all of the flint has been imported – three heaviest from the site (bar asingle unstratified mid to dark grey flint perhaps from chalkoutcrops example), suggesting that the cores in the pitmay to the south, brown flint perhaps from river gravels not have been exhausted before disposal. to the south-east, and Bullhead flint from an un- Ahigh proportion of flints (91) boreedge damage known source. resulting from use. Whilst, however, the majority of The Mesolithic flint consists of six narrow blades, a flakes under 20 mM2 have not been utilised, all of single platform bladelet core, atruncated blade, a the flakes over 40 mM2 in the pit have beenutilised burin, and an end scraper. (Fig. 25), perhaps indicating that whilst asmall pro- The mid-late Neolithicmaterial includes flakes, portionofknapping debris was present, the larger mainly relatively thinbroad flakes of mixed hammer flints have all been utilised. The fact that use-wear mode (a similar technology to the group frompit was present on boththe heavily worn artefactsand 2622), amixture of single and multi-platform flake the majorityofthe fresh flints suggests that ‘unused’ cores, and alater Neolithiclevallois core. There- or ‘still functional’ flakes were not deposited. touched flint includes three later Neolithicchisel The use damage identified in the pits shows abroad arrowheads, five serrated flakes –two of which exhi- range of actions and hardness of contact materials bit silica gloss–numerous scrapers, two backed knifes (Fig. 26, 1–6). Scraping forms asignificant proportion and two flakes from reworkedpolishedimplements.

Pit 2622 The Grooved Ware pit 2622 contained atotal of 221 flints, mostly in the secondary deposits (2620 and 2619). Thetertiary deposit (2623) contained only two flakes.The composition of the assemblages in layers 2620 and 2619 is very different:whereasfill 2620 contained asinglecoreand sevenretouched tools, fill 2619 containedtwo cores, atested nodule and only asingleretouched artefact. The flint was in averyfresh, uncorticated con- dition; no post-depositional edge damage was noted, indicating that none of the flint was residual. Atotal of 74 flints were broken, and fifteen were burnt. Anumber of deliberate breaks were noted, some perhaps for the creation of fragmentsfor use,assome of these pieces were well used (although not along the snappededges).The breaks could also have occurred after use. Deliberate non-functionalbreakage is also present: end scraper SF 44 (Fig. 27, 4) was deliberately struckinto two pieces and only the distal fragment deposited in the pit. It is possiblethat the snapping Figure 23 Struck flint: Graph showing lengthtobreadth relates to transverse arrowhead manufacture. ratios of the struckflintfrom pit 2622.

33 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 24 Struck flint: Technological traits of flint from pit 2622. of the actions, and the presence of five rounded edges The flintwork recovered from GroovedWare pit resulting from scraping possiblyindicates flints asso- 2622 forms arelatively large, coherentassemblage, ciated with hide processing (Akoshima 1987, 76). comparable to assemblages from GroovedWare pits However, cutting and whittling actionspredominate, at BarrowHills, Radley (Barclay 1999) and Cassing- comparatively few of which were on soft materials, ton (Case 1982). The high proportion of utilised flints indicating that the cuttingand whittling of flesh or is comparable with that from the Peterborough Ware fleshy plant materials represented aminimal element and Grooved Ware pits at Dorney in the Middle of the use-wear. ThamesValley (Lamdin-Whymark forthcoming).The Silica gloss was locatedbehind the teeth of a low proportions of soft cutting and whittling acti- serrated flake. Silica gloss commonly occurs on the vities in pit 2622, and the higher frequency of hard teeth of serrated flakes,where it accumulatesasa cuttingand whittling actions, is also comparable to result of the cutting and whittling of silica-rich plants that in the Peterborough and Grooved Ware asso- (Juel Jensen 1994, 62–63; Unger-Hamilton 1988). ciated assemblages at Dorney.

Catalogue of illustrated flints (Fig. 27) Mesolithic 1 Blade,broken. Unstratified.OCMS 1994.34. 2 Burin manufactured transversely on aflake. Context 1193. Acc. No.89.121.

Neolithic Late Neolithic pit 2622 3Distal fragment of asnapped flake.Snapped by a blow to the ventral surface. Note the fracturing present on the ventral surface. Context 2620. SF 30. 4 End and side scraper.Distal fragment, snapped by ablowtothe dorsal surface. Context 2620. SF 44. 5Medial fragment of asnapped blade.Context 2620. SF 103. 6 Snapped flake.Context 2619. SF 50. 7Conjoining fragments of asnapped flake.Context Figure 25 Struck flint: Graph plotting lengthtobreadth 2619. SF 153 and SF 154. ratio of flintflakes againstthe presence of use damage. 8 Multi-platform flake core.Context 2619. SF 53.

34 Chapter Three

Figure 26 Struck flint: Use-wear evidence for flint from pit 2622,displayed by context and overall.

Other Neolithic flintwork STONE Summary of report by Hugo Lamdin-Whymark 9 Chisel arrowhead .Context 3506,OCMS 1994.34. 10 Fragmentary chisel arrowhead.Unstratified. Numerous piecesofironstone, quartzite, sandstone OCMS 1994.34. and limestone were recovered during the excava- 11 Chiselarrowhead?Context 1134. Acc. No. tions. None showed any signs of use, but apiece of 89.121. water-worn shelly limestone, from sunken-featured 12 Levallois-style flake core.Context 2065. Acc. No. building 2008, mighthave beenused as aworking 89.121. surface or as astructural elementsuch as apost 13 Backedknife .Context 2123. Acc. No.89.121. pad. Two belemnite fossils and one ammonite were

35 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 27 Struck flint implements.

36 Chapter Three recoveredfrom the samesunken-featuredbuilding. Peterborough Ware Although they occur locally theymighthave been collected. Peterborough Ware is represented by just over half of an irregularellipticalmouthed dishwith arounded profileflattened at the base (Fig. 28,1), and asingle, NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZEAGE very abraded residual sherd with cordimpressed POTTERY decoration (Fig. 29, 2). The context of the dishis Summary of report by Alistair Barclay unknown. Its entire surviving external surface was Although only asmall assemblage of 36 sherds decorated with an incised herringbone patternwhich (372 g) of earlier prehistoric pottery was founddur- extends also into the interior and onto the base. An ing the excavation and as aresult of recent grave impressed pattern of three possibly interlocked groo- digging, every major ceramic tradition, from the early ves on the base may be the result of the vessel being Neolithic to the early Bronze Age is represented. placedonamat before it had dried. The fabrics (Table 1) are all typical of their periods, Oval dishesinthe Peterborough Ware tradition and could all have been made locally. Theearly and have beenfoundinWiltshire (Piggott 1962, fig. 13. middleNeolithic Plain Bowl and Peterborough Ware P25; Cleal 1990, 30 and fig. 21 P273), Yorkshire traditions are flint tempered(although onegrog (Manby 1995, fig. 55.1), Middlesex (Grimes 1960, fig tempered middleNeolithic fabricwas identified), the 78, 20) and Oxfordshire (Barclay and Edwardsin late Neolithic GroovedWare is grog and shell tem- prep.) in association with both Mortlake and Fengate pered,and the Beakerand early Bronze Age pottery style vessels.The herringbone decoration and the is grog tempered. rounded, flattened based profile perhaps relate the Spring Road dish to the Mortlakestyle. However, the grog tempered fabricismore typicalofthe Fen- Plain Bowl gate style in the Upper ThamesValley. It probably Just five, small, abraded, plain, flint tempered sherds dates from the late 4th to the early 3rdmillennium probablybelonging to the Plain Bowltradition were cal BC. Asufficient number of shallow disheshave found. They were all residual. Plain Bowl pottery now been found to suggest that the early Neolithic was probably in use from c 4100–3300cal BC. ceramic set of bowl and cup was expanded in the

Table 1Neolithic and early Bronze Age pottery fabrics.

Early Neolithic (Plain Bowl) Flint-tempered F2/EN Hard fabric with sparse medium angular flint (1–3 mm) F3/EN Hard fabric with sparse medium to coarse angular flint (3 mm) FA2/EN Hard fabric with sparse medium angular flint (1–3 mm) and rare coarse quartz sand Middle Neolithic (Peterborough Ware) Flint-tempered F2/MN Hard fabric with sparse medium angular flint (1–3 mm) Grog-tempered GAV2/MN Hard fabric with moderate medium-size angular grog (1–3 mm), moderate rounded voids (?leached calcareous grit) and rare quartz sand Late Neolithic (Grooved Ware) Grog-tempered G2/LN Hard fabric with moderate medium angular grog (1–3 mm) GF2/LN Hard fabric with moderate medium angular grog (1–3 mm) and rare angular flint Shell-tempered S2/LN Hard fabric with common shell platelets (sometimes leached) (1–3 mm) Late Neolithic/early Bronze Age (Beaker) Grog-tempered G2/LNEBA Hard fabric with moderate angular grog GA2/LNEBA Hard micaceousfabric with moderate angular grog and common black, red and quartz sand GAF2/LNEBAHard fabric with moderate angular grog, rare sand and rare flint GF2/LNEBA Hard fabric with moderate angular grog and rare flint Early Bronze Age Grog-tempered G1/EBA soft fabric with moderate small grog (1 mm) GF2/EBA soft fabric with moderate small to medium angular grog (up to 3mm) and sparse flint (up to 3mm). Fabric also contains rare flint gravel, quartz and organics (voids)

37 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery middleNeolithictoinclude avariety of shallowand in one of the postholes of the timber circle (Wain- deep oval dishes. wright and Longworth 1971, 238–40, fig. 60 P478–89). The formerinclude thin walled sherds, decorated Grooved Ware with horizontal and oblique bandsofplain and deco- rated raisedcordons (Fig. 29, 4). Another sherd has Asmall number of GroovedWare sherds were found finger-tippeddecoration (Fig. 29, 5). Similar Durring- (Fig. 29, 3–5), 5sherds in the Woodlandssubstyle in ton Walls style pottery has beenfound at Radley pit 2622 (Fig. 29, 4–5) and one rim from aplain vessel (Barclay and Halpin 1999, fig. 4.4 P9) and Yarnton possibly in the DurringtonWalls substyle(Fig. 29, 3) (Barclay and Edwards in prep.), and comparable

Figure 28 Drawings andphotographs of Peterborough Ware dish.

38 Chapter Three

Woodlands style pottery has beenfound in pits at core &int. black. Condition average to worn. both Radley (Cleal1999) and Sutton Courtenay Context 2368. (Leeds1934). 4 Grooved Ware,Woodlandssubstyle, Late Neo- lithic,. Rim and body sherds (10 g) decorated Beaker with applied cordons. Fabric S2/LN. Colour: ext. greyish-brown; core black; int. greyish-black. Atotal of five Beaker sherds, as well as sevenplain Condition average to worn. Black carbonaceous sherds which could be late Neolithicorearly Bronze residue below rim. Context 2620. Age, were found (Fig. 29, 6–8). Allwere residual, 5 Grooved Ware,?Woodlands substyle, LateNeo- unstratified or in uncertain contexts. TheBeaker lithic. Finger-tip impressed body sherd. Fabric sherds derived from at least three fineware vessels. S3/LN. Colour: ext. reddish-brown; core &int. The decoration consists of horizontal bands of comb grey. Condition averagetoworn. Context 2620. impressions, aboundedcross-hatched motif and 6 Beaker ,Late Neolithic/early Bronze Age.Rim horizontal lines, which relate these sherds to Clarke’s and neck sherds with banded comb decoration. (1970) European and Wessex/MiddleRhine groups. Fabric GAF2/LNEBA. Colour: ext. reddish- These groups may be early in the Beaker period, brown; black core; int.reddish-brown.Condition c 2500–2000 cal BC (Needham 1996). Comparable average. Ashmolean Museum 1972.21. Unstrati- vessels have beenfound, mostly in graves, at Radley fied. (Cleal1999), Drayton (Barclay et al.2003) and 7 Beaker ,LateNeolithic/early Bronze Age,. Dorchester-on-Thames(Whittle et al. 1992). Similar Two body sherds with comb decoration filled pottery has, however, also been found on buried with white inlay. Fabric GAF2/LNEBA. Colour: groundsurfaces and in pits at Drayton (Cleal2003) reddish-brown throughout.Condition worn. and Yarnton (Barclay andEdwards in prep.), and it Ashmolean Museum 1972.21–2. Unstratified. seems that early Beaker finewareswereusedin 8 Beaker ,Late Neolithic/early Bronze Age. Body both domestic and funerary contexts (Barclay and sherd (10 g) with all-overcombdecoration. Fabric Edwards in prep; Barclayand Lupton 1999, 515). GA2/LNEBA. Colour: ext. reddish-brown;core black; int.yellowish-brown. Condition very Early BronzeAge worn. Context 2645. 9 Vessel ?early/middle Bronze Age.Four base Just four sherds might date from the early Bronze sherds and ashoulder sherd (74 g) The shoulder Age. The grogtempered fabricissimilar to afabric sherd has two comb impressed lines. The base used at Yarnton to make Biconical Urns. The pottery has multiple perforations that were madedur- included base sherds with multiple perforations in the ing manufacture. Fabric GF2/BA. Colour: ext. base and walls (Fig. 29, 9) which could be compared reddish-brown; core grey; int. reddish-brown. to early Bronze Age accessory vessels, although these Condition average-worn. Unstratified. have perforations in the walls only (Longworth 1983, fig. 23; Abercromby1912, pl. LXXX, 239). LATERBRONZE AGE POTTERY Illustrated catalogue (Figs 28–9) Summary of Report by Alistair Barclay 1 Peterborough Ware.Mortlake/Fengate substyle. Atotal of 98 sherds (2.7 kg) of middle and late Bronze Middle Neolithic, Five conjoining sherds (158 g) Age pottery in the Deverel-Rimbury and post- make up just over halfofanovaldish-shaped Deverel-Rimbury traditions was recovered, almost vessel. It has arounded profile with aflattened all of which was residual (Fig. 30). Some of the pottery base. Decorated all-overwith ahorizontal incised could not be assigned with confidence to either one of herringbone pattern, which spreads over the rim these traditions and is classified as mid/late Bronze and also on to the base. The pattern on the sides Age. In the Upper ThamesValley the Deverel-Rim- runs in the samedirectionand converges near to bury style appears to go out of use by c 1150 cal BC, the point of maximumrim diameter. Thedecora- and is replaced by arange of simple ovoid and tion is haphazardand asymmetrical with three straight-sided jars and bowls. After 1000 cal BC this and two rows of herringbone on different sides. range of vessels is expanded to include shouldered Fabric GAV/MN. Colour: ext. yellowish-brown; forms such as jars, cups and bowls. By 800 cal BC there core grey; int. yellowish-brown. Condition aver- is an increase in the use of decoration which includes age. OCMS 1994.29. Unstratified. finger-tippingoncoarseware jars and incision on 2 Peterborough Ware,Middle Neolithic, Deco- fineware jars(Barclay et al.2001). rated body sherd (6 g) with horizontal bands of Atotal of 20 different flint, grog,quartzite and impressed whipped cord maggot. Fabric F2/MN. shell tempered fabrics were identified (Table 2). In the Colour: black throughout.Condition very worn. Upper ThamesValley Deverel-Rimbury pottery was Context 2093. usuallymadefrom fossilshell, flint and quartzite 3 Grooved Ware,?Durrington Walls substyle, fabrics, depending upon which was locally available. Late Neolithic. Simple pointedrim (5 g). Shell temperwas usedless frequently over time, Fabric GF2/LN. Colour: ext. yellowish-brown; whilst the use of flint and quartzite increases during

39 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 29 Other Neolithic andBeaker pottery. the late Bronze Age.The figure of around 60% for Mid/late BronzeAge flint/quartzite at SpringRoad falls between the 49% at Eynsham (Barclay et al.2001) and the arguably Atotal of 56 sherds (1121 g) can only be assigned to later site at Wallingford (Barclay 2006) where 80–90% the mid/late Bronze Age, most of which were plain of the pottery was flint and/or quartzite tempered. body sherds.

Middle Bronze Age Late BronzeAge Just 13 Deverel-Rimbury sherds (1264 g) were found, Atotal of 29 late BronzeAge sherds (295 g), includ- all in pit 1201. These sherds include asimple plain ing some from ovoid or bipartite jarswere found. lug (Fig. 30, 5) and ten refitting sherds from abase They are mostly comparable to the early Post- from two Bucket Urns. The base is from awell-made, Deverel-Rimbury pottery from Eynsham (Barclay large vessel. There is adifference in the size of the et al.2001) and Rams Hill (Barrett 1975, fig. 3.5), and flint temper usedfor the base andwalls, that for the probablydate from c 1150–900 cal BC. There were, walls being notablymuchcoarser (Pl. 6). however, afew sherds, including one from afine

40 Chapter Three

Table 2Later Bronze Age pottery fabrics.

Flint-tempered F1 hard fabric with fine angular flint 2sherds, 6g F2 hard fabric with medium angular flint 6sherds, 72 g F3 hard fabric with coarse angular flint 18 sherds, 1520 g FA1 hard fabric with fine angular flint and quartz sand 1sherd, 7g FA2 hard fabric with medium angular flint and quartz sand 11 sherds, 113 g FA3 hard fabric with coarse angular flint and quartz sand 1sherd, 32 g FG1 hard fabric with fine angular flint and rare grog 1sherd, 14 g Grog-tempered G2 soft fabric with angular grog 1sherd, 5g GF1 soft fabric with fine grog and flint 1sherd, 84 g GQ3 soft fabric with coarse grog and quartzite 1sherd, 27 g GS3 soft fabric with coarse grog and coarse shell 1sherd, 3g Quartzite-tempered Q2 hard fabric with medium angular quartzite 6sherds, 18 g Q3 hard fabric with coarse angular quartzite4sherds, 84 g QA2 hard fabric with medium angular quartzite and quartz sand 12 sherds, 230 g QB2 hard fabric with medium angular quartzite and black glauconitic sand 1sherd, 2g Shell-tempered S1 Hard fabric with fine shell inclusions1sherd, 2g S2 Hard fabric with medium shell inclusions 4sherds, 12 g S3 Hard fabric with coarse shell inclusions 20 sherds, 399 g SG3 Hard fabric with coarse shell inclusions and rare angular grog 1sherd, 4g SQ3 Hard fabric with coarse shell inclusions and rare angular quartzite 4sherds, 41 g

reddish-brown. Condition worn. Grave 3514 (7/C/17). 2 Large bipartite jar,late Bronze Age. Shoulder sherd (84 g). Fabric GF1/LBA. Colour: ext. reddish-brown; core black; int. reddish-brown. Condition average. Grave 3514 (7/C/17). 3 Bipartitejar,late Bronze Age.Finger-tip decora- ted shoulder sherd (5 g). Fabric Q2/LBA. Colour: ext. reddish-brown;core grey; int. brown. Con- dition average. Grave 3521 (10/F/4). 4 Rim sherd (2 g) from a cup or small bowl.Late Bronze Age.Fabric FA1/LBA.Colour:ext.brown; core black; int. brown. Condition worn. Context 1154. 5 Simple lug (5 g) probably from a Bucket Urn. Middle Bronze Age.Fabric F2/MBA. Colour: ext. brown-grey; corered; int. brown grey. Condition Plate 6Wall of middle Bronze Age vesselfrom pit 1108, average to worn. Context 1180. showing different tempering of base and wall. 6Two refitting sherds (48 g) fromthe rim of a straight-sided or ovoid jar.LateBronze Age. Fabric/LBA. Colour: ext. buff;core black; int. grey brown. Condition average. OCMS 1994.34. bipartite cup or bowl andanother with finger-tipped 7Two shoulder sherds (14 g) from a bipartite jar decoration from ashouldered jar, which are more or bowl .LateBronze Age.Fabric QA2/LBA. comparable to the large assemblage from Walling- Colour: ext. brown; core &int. black. Condition ford (Barclay 2006), which probably dates from a worn. OCMS 1994.34. later period, c 900–700 cal BC. 8 Simple rim (14 g). LateBronze Age.Fabric Q3/ LBA. Colour: ext.black; corebrown; int. grey. Illustrated Catalogue (Fig. 30) Condition average to worn. OCMS 1994.34. 9 Simple rim (6 g). LateBronze Age.Fabric F3/ 1 Plain bipartitejar,late Bronze Age. Rim LBA. Colour: ext.reddish-brown; core black; int. and shoulder sherd (27 g). Fabric GQ3/LBA. reddish-brown. Condition average to worn. Colour: ext. reddish-brown; core grey; int. OCMS 1994.34.

41 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 30 Middle and Late Bronze Age pottery.

10 Simple everted rim (3 g). Late Bronze Age.Fabric assemblage is not well preserved and nearly half was Q2/LBA. Colour: ext.brown; core &int. black. residual. Condition average to worn. OCMS 1994.34. The assemblage complements the material already 11 Threesherds including abase (35 g). Late Bronze published from Ashville Trading Estate(De Roche Age. Fabric S3/LBA. Colour: ext. pinkish red; 1978) and Wyndyke Furlong (Timby 1999). Although core grey; int. grey pink. Condition worn. OCMS considerably smaller, it appears to contain adistinc- 1994.34 sect 11. tively earlier component.The slender ceramic evi- 12 Simple rim (8 g). Late Bronze Age.Fabric S3/ dence from Spring Road suggests that settlement in LBA. Colour: ext. orange-brown; core grey; int. this areaceasedduring the earlier partofthe middle brownish-grey. Condition worn. Context 704. Iron Age and did not recommence until the later 1st 13 Simple rim (4 g). Late Bronze Age.Fabric S3/ or early 2nd century AD. LBA. Colour: ext. mottled grey and reddish- Coarseware fabrics augmented by asmall number brown; core grey; int. reddish-brown. Condition of finer or decorated waresdominatethe later worn. Context 704. BronzeAge/early-middle Iron Age pottery. In total some 27 fabricswere definedwhich fall into eight broad ware groups (Table 3).Inbroad terms cal- careous wares dominateaccountingfor 52% by LATERPREHISTORIC POTTERY count,followedbysandy wares(23%), ferruginous by Jane Timby wares (6%) andthe sand and limestone group (5.5%.). The later prehistoric assemblage, including material Fabricsthat hint at alater Bronze Age pedigree in considered transitional between the later Bronze Age particular, include grog and flint-tempered sherds and early Iron Age, comprises 715 sherds weighing and sandywares. Featured sherds belongingtothis 6.7 kg (Fig. 31). Most sherds appear to date to the phase includethe biconical bowl(Fig. 31, 1), atri- later Bronze Age-early Iron Age with asmall pro- partitejar (Fig. 31,8), ashoulderedjar (Fig. 31, 16) portionextending into the middleIron Age period. and the use of finger-pressed or slasheddecora- Afew sherds represent the later Iron Age. The tion (Fig. 31, 11, 14–5). More typical of the early Iron

42 Chapter Three

Table 3. Late Bronze Age/early Iron Age and Iron Age horizontal lines. Two rims had slashed diagonal lines pottery fabrics. aroundthe rim edge (Fig. 31, 14–5). One small sandy ware sherd with ahaematite slip was recovered ACalcareous from Iron Age grave 2126 and asherd with an L1 sparse coarse fossil shell orange-red burnished finish imitating ahaematite L2 sandy, alluvial shell slip came from modern grave 3525. L3 sandy, iron, alluvial shell L4 common fossil shell, iron L5 oolitic limestone Illustrated catalogue (Fig. 31) L6 limestone some shell 1 Biconical bowl with ahigh carination, near L7 sparse limestone verticalrim and asmall base. Approximately L00 other limestone wares 75% complete. Patchy firing. The rim is partially BSandy wares vitrified although it is notclear whether this S1 well-sorted fine quartz is from the original firing or subsequent use. S2 ill-sorted quartz, iron, limestone The exterior is burnished,the interior is care- S3 glauconitic sand fully smoothed with visible tooling marks. Dark S4 sandy, micaceous, glauconite brown to reddish brown or black in colour. The S5 ill-sorted quartz, iron, limestone underside of the base is slightlypitted and rough. S6 fine black sandy, iron, mica, lime Fabric FIS. Modern grave 3517. S7 granular sandy, ill-sorted quartz 2 Bodysherd with incised line decoration, probably S8 fine micaceous with iron infilled triangles. Slightly rounded profile sug- S9 fine sandy, haematite imit. Slip gesting aglobular bowl. Fabric S5 but with some S00 miscellaneous other sandy subangular quartz accompanyingthe rounded CSand and limestone grains.Pit 1008 (secondaryfill 1006). SL1 sand and alluvial shell 3 Carinated bowl with deeply incised chevrons on SL2 sand and fossil limestone the rim edge. Dark grey-brown sandy ware. Fabric S1. Redeposited in ditch 1077 (1076). DFerruginous 4Two joining bodysherds from a tripartite bowl 11 Iron rich decorated with incised continuous chevrons on 12 oolitic iron the upper body. Matt darkbrown surfaces. Fabric EIron- and limestone-tempered S2. Pit 2299 (primary fill 2251). IL1 oolitic iron and limestone 5 Rim and joining bodysherds.Dark red-brown to IL2 iron rich and limestone grey in colour with an irregular external surface. ISL mixture iron, quartz and limestone Fabric L1. Pit 2299 (primary fill 2251). FFlint-tempered 6 Sharplycarinatedbodysherd from a bowl ,dark FI iron rich with flint grey in colour.Burnished on the interior and FIS flint and iron in sandy matrix exterior surfaces, Fabric S6. Pit 2299 (2184). GGrog-tempered 7 Rim from a jar with aslightly internally beaded G2 grog-tempered rim and decorated with finger depressionsbelow the rim.Brownish- orange in colour with a HGrog- and limestone-tempered hackley fracture. Fabric L1 variant with very GL grog and limestone-tempered sparse coarse shell and occasional rounded lime- IOrganic stone. Pit 2299 (2184). O2 organic with limestone 8 Tripartite jar or large bowl .Acoarseware fabric, O3 organic with quartz sand orange-brown in colour with matt surfaces. unclassif Fabric I1. Pit 2299 (2184). OO less than 10mm 9 Flared rim fineware bowl .Orange-redincolour with agrey core. Finely micaceous. Fabric L2. Posthole2055 (tertiary fill 2052). 10 Flared rim bowl .Light brown exterior, darkgrey Age are tripartitebowls with flaringrims and interior. Thesmooth surfaces were probably aburnishedfinish (Fig. 31,10 and 13), and jars originally burnished internally and externally. A with verticalwalls andplain undifferentiatedrims finely micaceous fabriccontaining sparse iron, (Fig 31, 5). quartz sand,limestone and organicmatter. Fabric Eleven decorated sherds were noted: three with FIS. Tree throw 3050 (3049). finger depressions on the body ( cf. Fig. 31.11); two 11 Slackly carinatedsherd with finger depress- with finger-tippedrims and six with incised decora- ions on the carination. Fabric L1. Tree-throw tion. Thelatter included atripartite bowl with incised hole 2113. chevrons on the upper wall(Fig. 31, 4), arim sherd 12 Jar with afinger-depressed rim broken on the with deeply incised chevrons on the rim edge lower edge at the point of acarination. Matt dark (Fig. 31, 3), onebodysherd with asinglecurvilinear brown in colour. Fabric SL. Modern grave 3522 line, and onebodysherd with at least five incised (11/E/14).

43 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 31 Late Bronze Age to Iron Age pottery.

44 Chapter Three

13 Rim and neck from a flaredrim bowl .Burnished flasks (4.8%). Jars dominateonmost Roman sites, interior and exterior surfaces. Black slightly but on rural sitesinparticular. micaceous fabric. Fabric S4. Modern grave 3522 Most of the Roman pottery, 466 sherds (72%), (11/E/14). came from the two ditches crossing Area 9(1626/ 14 Plain, sharply everted rim decorated with 2710 and1627). This suggests that afocus of Roman incised slashes on the outer edge. Matt darkred- activityisfairly close by and that these are not brown in colour with agrey core. Fabric S7. isolated fieldditches. Modern grave 3525 (10/A /9). Later Romanactivity is sparse.Onlyfive sherds of 15 Plain internally bevelled rim decorated with Oxford colour-coated ware, which generally signal incised slashes along the outer edge.Orange occupation from the second half of the 3rd century brown in colour with agrey core. Fabric L1. throughtothe later 4th century, came from the site Modern grave 3521 (10/F/4). and of these only two were stratified. The Saxon and 16 Crudelyhandmade jar with irregular finger later features on the site produced 38 sherds of moulded surfaces and aslightlythickened rim. redeposited Romanpottery and 58 sherds of later Jar with aweakly carinated shoulder, quite thin- prehistoric date. walled.Orange-brown in colour. Fabric L1. The shorterduration of occupationatSpring Road Unstratified. Ashmolean Museum, 1972.23. contrasts with the development at Ashville/Wyn- dyke Furlong where occupation seems to have continued from the Iron Age into the late Roman ROMAN POTTERY period. by Jane Timby Illustrated catalogue (Fig. 32) The Romanassemblage comprised 647 sherds (6.17 kg) of well fragmented and generallypoorly 1 White globular beaker with sharply out-turned preserved pottery (Fig. 32). Most of the sherds date rim similar to Young (1977) form W37. Decorated to the 2nd century with asparse scatter of 3rd to 4th- with orange slip. Fabric OXF WHF. Ditch 1077 centurywares. The assemblage is largely composed (1076). of local products from the Oxfordshireindustries 2 Cordoned bowl decorated with azone of (Table 4). The only imports present are two small burnished line decoration. Fabric OXF RE. Ditch fragments of CentralGaulish samian and two sherds 1077 (1076). of Dorsetblack burnished ware,suggesting asite of 3 Whiteware mortaria,Young (1977) type M1. modestorlow status. The assemblage is dominated Stamped either sideofthe spout with adouble- by grey sandywares, which account for 65.5%.Jars line illiterate stamp.Ditch 1077 (1076). accountfor 67% by EVE followedbybeakers 4 Handmadefossil shell-tempered jar.Fabric: (11.5%), bowls/dishes(10.7%), mortaria (6%) and C10. Ditch 1077 (1076).

Table 4Roman pottery fabrics.

National Fabric code OA code

Import CGSAM S30 Central Gaulish samian 2sherds, 5g Regional DORBB1 B11 Dorset black burnishedware 2sherds, 24 g Local OXF FR R10/11 Oxfordshirereduced ware (fine) 281 sherds, 1891 g OXF RE R21 Oxfordshirereduced ware (medium-coarse) 158 sherds, 1484 g OXF FO O11 Oxfordshireoxidised ware (fine) 18 sherds, 83 g OXF OX O21 Oxfordshireoxidised ware (medium-coarse) 6sherds, 51 g OXF RS F51 Oxfordshirecolour-coated ware 4sherds, 73 g OXF RSM M41 Oxfordshirecolour-coated mortaria 1sherds, 10 g OXF WHF W12 Oxfordshirewhiteware(fine) 30 sherds, 210 g OXF WH W22 Oxfordshirewhite ware (medium-coarse) 51 sherds, 562 g OXF WHM M22 Oxfordshirewhitewaremortaria 5sherds, 707 g OXF WS Q21 Oxfordshirewhite-slipped ware 36 sherds, 110 g OXF BWH W23 Oxfordshireburnt whiteware18sherds, 569 g SHELL C10 shelly ware 4sherds, 50 g OXF GR Oxfordshiregrog-tempered storage jar 13 sherds, 219 g GROG E80 miscellaneous grog-tempered 9sherds, 52 g GROG1 wheelmadegrog-tempered 2sherds, 6g GREY00 miscellaneous Roman 7sherds, 66 g 647 sherds, 6172 g

45 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 32 Roman pottery.

46 Chapter Three

POST-ROMAN POTTERY potting clays (Blinkhorn forthcoming), although an by Paul Blinkhorn alternative source of greensandoutcrops on Culham Heightsjust south of Abingdon. The early to middle Anglo-Saxon assemblage (Figs The range of Anglo-Saxon vessel forms was extre- 35–8) consists of 680 sherds (10,431 g, EVE =4.36), mely basic. Only simple bowland jar forms were and the medieval and early post-medieval assem- noted, with chaff-tempered fabrics less commonly blage of 111 sherds (902 g, EVE =0.05). The rest of used forbowls than for jars. The chaff-tempered jars the post-Roman pottery dates from the late 19th- had alarger mean rim diameter than the sand- century(183 sherds, 9087 g). tempered vessels, suggesting that the former were The range of early to middle Anglo-Saxon pottery larger, and had adifferent function, perhaps as water fabricsistypical of the regionand are described in jars (Figs 33–4). Table 5. The calcareous gravels of the second terrace The decorated pottery comprised stamped wares, and the Lower Greensand deposits at Bagley Wood showing that there was domesticoccupationatthe seem the most likely sourcesfor the bulk of the site during the 6th century. Fifth-century types were

Table 5Anglo-Saxon pottery fabrics.

F1 Fine quartz Moderate to dense sub-angular quartz up to 0.5 mm. 236 sherds, 2760 g, EVE =1.52 Rare calcareous material of the same size and shape F2 Quartz and chaff Sparse to moderate subrounded quartz up to 2mm, 168 sherds, 3170 g, EVE =1.38 sparse to moderate chaff voids F3 Coarse quartz Moderate to dense subrounded quartz up to 3mm. 20 sherds, 289 g, EVE =0 Rare calcareous material of the same size F4 Calcareous quartz Sparse to moderate sub-roundedcalcareous material up to 1mm. 5sherds, 40 g, EVE =0.03 Sparse subrounded quartz up to 0.5 mm. Sparse chaff voids and fine silver mica F5 Ironstone Sparse to moderate rounded red ironstone up to 3mm. 1sherd, 6g,EVE =0 Sparse quartz up to 0.5 mm, rare flint up to 5mm F6 Chaff no other visible inclusions250 sherds, 4166 g, EVE =1.43

Figure 33 Saxon pottery: Jar rim diameter occurrence, for sand-tempered fabric, by EVE per diameter category.

Figure 34 Saxon pottery: Jar rim diameter occurrence, for chaff-tempered fabrics, by EVE per diameter category.

47 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery entirely absent. Similarly, there is no diagnostic 8 Rim sherd from jar.F6. Dark grey fabricwith ceramic evidence for occupation during the middle unfinishedsurfaces. Context 2673. or late Saxon periods. Themedieval pottery shows 9 Rim sherd from jar.F6. Uniform black fabric, that occupation in the vicinity of the site began again browner on rim,smoothed surfaces. Context aroundthe timeofthe Norman conquest, and 2673. continued almost until the presentday. 10 Shoulderedjar,shoulder and neck. F1.Black Over halfofthe Anglo-Saxon pottery assemblage fabric with browner, lightly-burnished outer (by weight) derivedfrom the two sunken-floored surfaces. Context 2673. buildings (SFBs)excavatedin2000. SFB 2687 pro- 11 Rim sherd from ajar.F6. Uniform dark grey duced an assemblage of 293 sherds (4727 g, EVE = fabric with asmoothed outersurface. Context 2.27; Figs 35–7). The sherds were largely plain. The 2703. decorated pottery comprised agroup of stamped 12 Base sherd.F6. Uniform black fabricwithlight and incised sherds, sevensmall incised sherds, and brown, unfinished outer surface. Patchesofburnt two rusticated sherds. This whole group suggests a black residue on the inner surface. Context 2703. date no earlier than the 6thcentury for the back- filling of the feature. SFB 2008 produced consider- SFB 2008 (Fig. 37) ably less pottery (55 sherds, 1025 g), and none of it was decorated (Fig. 37). This could mean that the 13 Large bowl,large sherd from. F2.Uniform black featuredates to the 7th century, but the assemblage fabric, patches of sooting on the burnished outer is too small to be certain. Furthersignificant groups surface. Context 2010. were foundinmodern graves (Fig. 38). Agroup 14 Rim sherd from jar.F2. Uniform black fabric with of vitrifiedsherds from grave 6/C/16 is worthyof browner outersurfaces. Context 2479. note.Althoughtheir condition might be the result of otherfactors,thiscould be evidence of domestic Other Groups (Fig. 38) pottery production. Most of the excavated Anglo-Saxon sites in and 1 Globular jar,upper portionof. F6. Uniform black aroundAbingdon have produced 5th-century pot- fabric, brown patch on the smoothed, evenly bur- tery, although generallyinsmall quantities. Such nished outer surface. Modern grave 3512 (4/M/8) pottery was noted at BarrowHills, Radley(Blinkhorn 2 Stamped andincised vessel.F1. Uniform black 2007), Barton Court Farm (Miles 1986, fiche 7), Audlett fabric, burnished surfaces. ‘From the OCMS’ Drive (Underwood-Keevill 1992), The Vineyard 3 Stamped and incised vessel.F6. Uniform grey- (Allen 1990), and the Saxton Road cemetery (Leeds ish-brown fabric, burnished outer surface. ‘From and Harden, 1936). It would seemtherefore that the the OXCMS’ SpringRoad cemetery area was, during the Anglo- 4 Rim sherd from jar.F1. Slightly warped, with Saxon period, largely peripheral until the 6thcentury. extensive vitrification and some cracking on the outer surface. Modern Grave 3513 (6/C/16). 5 Rim sherd from ajar.F6. Uniform black fabric Illustrated catalogue (Figs 35–8) with lightly burnished surfaces. Modern Grave SFB 2687 (Figs 35–7) 3501 (3/E/32). 6 Bowl rim sherd.F2. Uniform dark grey fabric, 1 Stamped and incised sherds.F1. Dark grey smoothed outersurface. Modern grave 3501 (3/ fabric with variegated grey and brown surfaces. E/32). Context 2672 and 2673 (SFB). 7 Stamped and incised vessel.F2. Uniform dark 2 Stamped and incised sherds.F1. Uniform black grey fabric, smoothed outer surface. Modern fabric with lightly burnishedouter surface. grave 3530 (3/O/6). Contexts2672, 2673 and 2703. 3 Rusticated sherds .F6. Dark grey fabricwith light reddish-brown outer surface. Contexts 2672, 3511 STAMPED SAXON SHERDS by Diane Briscoe (4/M/7) and ‘from the OXCHS’. 4 Rusticated sherd.F6. Uniform dark grey fabric The Archive of Anglo-Saxon Pottery Stamps covers with lighter outer surface. Context 2703. the period from c AD 325 to c AD 725, and maintains 5 Jar with fragment of upright, rim-mounted adatabase, comprising over 23,000 examples, of lug.F1. Dark grey fabric with variegated stamped designs on Anglo-Saxon pottery both as reddish-brown and grey surfaces. Outersurface casts and on indexcards. Thedatabase was used to evenly burnished. Context 2672. comparethe stamps from Spring Road with those 6 Rim sherd from small jar.F1. Uniform black from other sites. There are five stamp-producing fabric, lightly burnished outer surface. Context sites within modern Abingdon: Saxton Road (28 2672. stamps), RadleyRoad (6), Barton Court Farm (11), 7 Rim sherd from vessel with pierced longitudi- BarrowHills, Radley (90), and SpringRoad.The nal lug on the shoulder.F2. Dark grey fabric with SpringRoad site has produced four groups of slightlybrowner, smoothed outersurface. Con- stamped sherds, displaying eight different motifs text 2673. (Figs 35 and 38). Within an approximately 15-mile

48 Chapter Three

Figure 35 Saxon pottery from SFB 2687: Nos 1–6.

49 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 36 Saxon pottery from SFB 2687: Nos 7–11.

50 Chapter Three

Figure 37 Saxon pottery from SFB 2687: No. 12; from SFB 2008: Nos 13–14.

radius of the site,there are another 15 sites which Frilford example, on aglobular bowl, is associated have produced stamps, yielding atotal of 292 stamps with C3ai and G2bi stamps. for comparison. The A3a group includes all circular grid stamps. Category A includes all circular stamps. A2ai A3aii and A3aiii describe negativegrids of 3 · 3 describes two negative rings of equal proportions. squaresand 3 · 4squares respectively. The A3aii This motif is extremely commonand widelydis- group is reasonably common, and widelydistribu- tributed.Comparable local examples come from ted. Locally,there is one muchlarger parallel from Frilford,Sutton Courtenay and Wallingford. The Cassington.

51 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 38 Other Saxon pottery: Nos 1–7, plus stamped sherd from Sutton Courtenay.

52 Chapter Three

Table 6Saxon pottery: Stamped designs by type. be notedthat there are also parallels, although less close, between SpringRoad and Eynsham Abbey. Briscoe Type Size (mm) Ref. No. Figure The identification of a‘like’stamp is veryexciting. A2ai 10 · 10 1994.29 Fig. 38, 3 The Archive holds only 10 or 12 examples of ‘like’ A3aii 6 · 61994.29 Fig. 38, 2 stampsfrom different sites,and they are fairly rare A3aiii 7 · 6.5 89.121/2703 Fig. 35, 2 even within asite.The very small number of ‘like’ A3aiii 14 · 13? U/S Fig. 38, 7 stampswould appear to indicate that pottery was A4ai 8 · 889.121/2672 Fig. 35, 1 generally produced locally using dies manufactured A4ai 4 · 4.5 1994.29 Fig. 38, 2 by individuals in each settlement. Iamalso quite A4aiv 13 · 12? 89.121/2672 Fig. 35, 1 certain that individual potters had anumber of dies A5aviii 8 · 8.5 89.121/2703 Fig. 35, 2 of the same stamp type,varying in size. However, a C3ai 4.5 · 41994.29 Fig. 38, 3 couple of the ‘like’ stampshave beenfound on sites G2bi 11 · 11 1994.29 Fig. 38, 3 many milesapart, which would indicate trade or travel between them. The presence of a‘like’ stamp on pots from these two sites certainly indicates alink The A3aiii motif is also reasonably common, and between them. widelydistributed. Locally, the smaller stamp has a parallel from Sutton Courtenay, and larger examples from RadleyRoad, Cassington, Long Wittenham FIRED CLAY and Sutton Courtenay. The second A3aiii is compar- Summaries of reports by Jane Timby and Alistair Barclay able to the Cassington stamp,but is not from the Neolithic fired clay same die. Its two closest local parallels are from Eynsham Abbey. In total 15 fragments (203 g) of fired clay came from The A4ai motif –the ‘hot-cross-bun’ –isextremely Grooved Ware pit 2622 (fills 2619–20). Thefired clay common and verywidelydistributed. The smaller was made generally from acoarsesandy clay, and stamp has parallels from Eynsham Abbey and Radley included anumber of small slab-like pieces with Road. The second is avery commonsize. Locally, either rough or smooth surfaces. One piece had two there are eight parallels from Barrow Hills (3), Eyns- finger-tip impressions on its oxidised outer surface ham Abbey(1), Kingsey (2) and Sutton Courtenay (3). (Pl. 7). These fragments aretoo well fired to be daub. The A4aiv motif is a‘hot-cross-bun’ stamp with a They couldderive from an oven or hearth structure small circle where the positive arms of the cross or have been usedaspropsfor the firing of pottery. meet. This is an uncommonmotif,and all parallels Similar fragmentswererecovered from aGrooved are from East Anglia,the Midlands or Yorkshire. It is Ware pit at Barrow Hills, Radley (Barclay and the largest recorded; the next largestcomes from Halpin1999, 82). West Keal, Lincolnshire. Motif A5aviii is acircular negative rosette with Iron Age fired clay eight petals–avery common motif with awide distribution. Locally, there are two parallels from The fired clay from Iron Age contexts comprised Sutton Courtenay, with different sizedexamples nine fragmentsofpoorly-fired, orange, sandytex- from Eynsham Abbey(2), and Barrow Hills(2). tured possible pit or hearth lining from adeposit Category C includes all square and rectangular (2309) which lay next to posthole 2307 (and seemed stamps. Motif C3ai describes an open-ended positive to have formed when it still containedapost), and upright cross on anegative rectangle. There are five half aspherical spindlewhorl with acentral perfora- muchlarger local examplesfrom Eynsham Abbey. tion (Fig. 13) that had beenburnt, from the upper fill Category G includes half-circle, crescent and horse- (2200) of Grave 2197. It has adiameter of 44 mm, and shoe stamps. G2bi describes asegmented negative is 34 mm high. The object is madefrom poorly- horseshoewith negativeinner horseshoe.Thisisan wedged, slightlysandy clay containing sparsefossil uncommon motif with awide distribution. Asherd shell and iron inclusions. from Sutton Courtenay in the Ashmolean Museum (published in Leeds 1947, Plate XXII b) has a‘like’ Roman fired clay stamp,that is it was made by the same die (see Fig. 38, Sutton Courtenay, 1933.528). This is avery rare Romancontexts produced 48 fragments of fired clay occurrence. Other parallels come from Spong Hill, mainly in adark red fabric with sparse limestone and Norfolk; Staines, Surrey; and Mucking, Essex, but organicmatter. None of the fragmentswas featured. were madebydifferent dies. Most of the stampsare common motifsfrom Saxonfired clay which little can be deduced. The motifs fromSpring Road overlap with only 11 of the 19 local sites, al- The 23 pieces of fired clay from Saxon contexts though some sites have produced fairly rare stamps. showednoindication of form or function, apart It seems fairly definite that Spring Road’sclosest from one wattle impression. The fired clay had afine, links are with Sutton Courtenay, lying downstream, powdery texture, buff in colour, with no visible in- not with any of the other Abingdon sites. It should clusions.Most came from sunken-featured buildings,

53 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Plate 7Fired clay with finger-nail impressions from Grooved Ware pit 2619.

suggesting astructural function. Apossible fragment 1999). The first group is characterisedbyavery of Romantile was foundinsunken-featured build- consistent pattern containing arsenic, antimony and ing 2008. silver. This group has an Irish origin and is typical of copper axes. The second group, to which the Spring Road awl belongs, is more heterogeneous, and often ANALYSIS OF ACOPPER AWL contains nickel as an impurity. Much of the metal in Summary of report by Peter Northover the second group probablyderives from the con- Acopper awl (Fig. 7) was found alongside the upper tinent. Objects in this group include two rings from legs of the burial in the Beakergrave (3037) which BarrowHillswhich have aradiocarbon date of 2700– was radiocarbon dated to 2460–2200 cal BC (see 2100 cal BC, and probablybelong to the same early Chap. 5). The awl has an asymmetrical lozenge pro- horizon as the Spring Road awl.Because copper is so file and is rectangularincross-section. It is 63.5 mm easily reworked it need not be the case that the metal long and 4.0 mm wide at its widest point. Both ends was imported in its finished form, and it is likely that are blunt points. The shorterend may have been the earliest metal-working in southern Englandcon- reworked. sistedofthe reprocessing of small items of imported Lozenge-shaped awls are generally foundin copper. Beakercontexts, usually with burials. Similar awls have recently been found with Step 6Beakers in south Wales (Ehrenberg 1982; Brassil unpublished ROMAN COINS data) where theyhave been radiocarbon dated to by Paul Booth c2200–1900 cal BC. They have also been found with ThreeRomancoins were recovered.All are typical burial A, Amesbury 51 and at Radley(Needham in issues of the second half of the 4th century AD but Barclayand Halpin 1999, 188–92 and table 7.8), both none can be precisely dated. of which have beendated to c2330–1950 cal BC. Electron probe microanalysis has shown that the 1 AE4. Imitation FEL TEMP REP falling horse- SpringRoad awl is made of slightlyimpure copper, man type. c AD 353–360. Ditch 1627, context 1098. with 0.46% total impurities.The principal impurities 2 AE3. Valens.SECURITAS REIPUBLICAEwith are silver (0.13%), nickel (0.15%)and antimony victory advancing left.Probably Trier but mint (0.08%). Few other awlshave been analysed, but mark illegible in detail. AD 364–378. Ditch 1626, comparisons are possible with two analysed copper context 1154. examples, both from burialsinHampshire (see 3 AE3. Gratian. Probably GLORIA NOVISAE- ‘Detailed report’). CULI with standing figure of emperor holding In general the impurity patterns of early copper labarum. Arles, but mintmark not clear. AD 367– objects in Britain fall intotwo groups(Northover 375. The coin has been pierced, presumably for

54 Chapter Three

reuse in the Anglo-Saxon period, as it was found WORKED BONE OBJECTS (Fig. 39) in apit containing only Saxon pottery. Unstrati- Summary of report by Leigh Allen and Tim Allen, with fied find from grave digging. bone identifications by Emma Jayne Evans Atotal of six workedorutilised boneobjects have been have been foundasaresult of excavation and OTHERMETAL OBJECTS recent grave digging. The most striking of these was Summary of report by Leigh Allen and Martin Henig agouge or hide scraper madefrom part of the mid Asmall assemblage of 10 copper alloy objects, 52 shaft of apig tibia foundinposthole 2373 in the iron objects and 1lead object have been recovered timber circle (Pl. 8). This bone has been radiocarbon from the excavation and recent grave digging. Most dated to 1520–1310cal BC. The ends of the bone are of these consistent of unidentifiable fragments or missingand it has been gnawed but several areas of undiagnostic items such as nails, many of which polish are still evident. The production of such an were foundincontexts such as the Victorian quarry, artefact from pig bone is rare, probably because pig tree-throw holes and the topsoil. bone is more porousand liable to split than the bone The more interesting objects include aRoman of otherspecies (Seager Smith in Lawson 2000, 222– copper alloydiscbrooch,foundinSaxon pit 245. The 40). Pig bone is, however, frequently associated with centre of the brooch risestoacupped stub and two late Neolithicmonuments and pits, and its use here incised grooves run around the inside of the raised mighthave been related to the timber circle. rim. Thereare also six plain lugs on the outside of Aplain,highly polished bonefinger ring(Fig. 10) the disc. The hinge and catch plate survive.The made from alarge mammal long bone was found in brooch had been perforated and may have been front of the head of the middle Iron Age burial of a suspended. Aperforated Romancoin was foundin 4–5 year old child (2125).The ring has acircular cross the samepit.Close parallels have been foundat sectionand measures 24 mm in diameter (16 mm Wakerley, Northamptonshire (Butcher 1978, 218– internal diameter). No exact parallels for this ring 220, fig. 57, no. 6) and at Kidlington (Hunterand have been found, although rings of copper alloy, iron Kirk 1952/3, 57, fig. 25, no. 2) where a2nd–3rd and shale have been found associated with Iron Age centurydatewas suggested. burialsinYorkshire (Stead 1991, 208–10 and 218–20), The remaining finds includethe circular spatulate and abonetoggle was found behind the headofa end of an unstratified copper alloy Roman unguent male burial at Gravelly Guy,Stanton Harcourt, spoonorear scoop, and alarge copper alloypin with Oxfordshire(Lambrick and Allen 2004, Fig. 6.1). aspherical wire-wound headwhich was found The remaining objects includeanunstratified during grave diggingnexttothe shoulder of an fragment from the central tooth segment of adouble extended burial. Such pins were used fromthe 13th sided comb(Fig. 39, 1),probably of antler,two centuryonwards but were most common in the 16th highly polishedbonepoints madefrom splinters and 17th centuries. of mammal longbones (Fig. 39, 2), oneunstratified,

Figure 39 Workedbone objects.

55 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Plate 8Bone implement from posthole 2375 in Middle Bronze Age posthole arc. the other from atree-throw hole (2347),and an original context is unknown. Globularmonochrome unstratified antler point (Fig. 39, 3). cobalt blue beads were commonfrom the Roman through to the early Medieval period and also occur in the Iron Age. Turquoise beads are less common, and GLASS are more likely to date from the Saxon period, making Summary of report by Rachel Tyson it likely that this example dates from the 5th–7th Two globular glass beads, one blue and one turquoise, centuries. were foundasaresult of recent grave digging.Their

56 Chapter 4: The Environmental Evidence

HUMAN SKELETAL ASSEMBLAGE the northern edge of the grave.Afragmentary Summary by Ceridwen Boston of reportbyPeter Hacking spindle whorl was retrievedfrom the backfill but and Angela Boyle this may not have been directlyassociated with the burial.Skeleton 2243 had been laid out crouched and The human bone assemblage comprised ayoung prone, on anorth-south alignment. Alater circular female skeleton (3036) datingtothe Beakerperiod, feature(2454) may have removed most of the skull and four middleIron Age skeletons (2125a, 2125b, and upper vertebrae (or, alternatively,have been 2199 and 2243) interred withinthreepurpose-cut cut to accommodate the headwhich was removed graves. Bone preservation was good to very good in some other way). Both adults were of average and all, bar infant skeleton 2125b,werenearly height for the period (1.70 mand 1.68 m). Skeleton complete. 2199 showed evidence of trauma: aunited fracture of the left fifth metacarpal,and apossible puncture Beakerburial wound to the left distal femur with secondary periostitis. He also displayed markeddental disease: Ashallow subrectangular grave in Area 5contained three caries and two abscesses. Skeleton 2243 had the intact remainsofayoung adult female, aged 20–24 osteochondritis dissecans of the left femoral con- years. Aradiocarbon date of 2460–2200 BC (95% dyle –anindicator of strenuous physical activityin confidence) was obtained from the skeleton. She was adolescence or youth (Aufderheide and Rodrı´ guez- crouched on her rightside on asouth-east –north- Martin 1998). west orientation. Acopper awl –the only artefact in Two other crouched inhumationswereexhumed the grave–was positioned alongside her upper legs. by modern grave diggers in the vicinity, and although She was 1.52 m(4’ 9’’) tall, and, during childhood, had undated, they may well have formed part of this sufferedfrom iron deficiencyanaemia–manifested burial group. Burial groups within purpose-cut as mild cribraorbitalia in the right eye orbit. This gravesare rare in the Iron Age, although agroup of condition was relatively common in the Neolithic 35 unaccompanied inhumations at Yarnton, Oxford- and Bronze Age,affecting approximately 13.8% and shire, have also been radiocarbon dated to the 3–4th 10% of the population respectively (Robertsand Cox centuries cal BC (Hey et al. 1999). 2003, 67 and 85). Of the 32 Neolithicand Bronze Age inhumationsfrom nearby Barrow Hills, Radley, three (9%) displayedthis deficiency(Boyle in Barclay and ANIMAL BONES Halpin1999, 172–3). The most commonprobable Summary of report by Bethan Charles causeswere an inadequate dietary intake of iron and chronicbloodloss through intestinal parasitism Atotal of 2123 hand-collected fragmentsofanimal (Stuart-Macadam 1991, 102–3). Dental enamel hypo- bone and1745 fragmentsfrom sievingwas recovered. plasia (a thinning of the dental enamel), an indicator of The majority of the bones were in good condition. episodes of poor nutrition (possibly seasonal food Many, particularly those from Anglo-Saxon contexts, shortages) and/or disease in early childhood,was had butcherymarks,and asmall number had been presentonanumber of tooth crowns. burnt. Theonly concentration of burnt bone, however, was in late Neolithicpit 2622. Many bone fragments had canine tooth marks (Plate 8). Middle Iron Age burials Most of the bonefrom Neolithic pit 2622 was pig, Acluster of three purpose-cutgraveswas found in with asmall amount from sheep and cattle(the latter Area 8within the confines of,but probably post- consisting mostly of teeth and rib fragments). Two dating, aroundhouse. These containedthe articu- of the pig mandibles indicate an age at death of lated skeletons of two young adultmales (2199 and between 7and 14 months. The scapula of avery 2243), aged 19–21 years and 20–24 yearsrespectively, young pig was also identified. The predominance of and a4–5 year old child (2125a).All were radio- pig bone in this pit fits the patternfrom other carbon dated to the 3–4th centuries cal BC. Some Grooved Ware pits in the Upper Thames and beyond bones of athreemonth old infant (2125b)were (Grigson 1982). Whether this reflects the importance discovered in the backfill of the child’s grave. of pig in the economy or their particular ceremonial Child 2125a was orientated south-east –north- significance is uncertain ( cf. Levitan and Serjeantson west, and was crouched on its right side with the in Barclayand Halpin 1999, 239). legs tightly flexed.Abonering was foundnear the Sheep and cattle bones, although in verysmall skull. Skeleton 2199 was positionedinahalf-sitting numbers, were the main species from late Bronze position, lying supine with the back raised against Age, Iron Age and Romanfeatures. Pig bones were

57 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery presentonly in the Romandeposits and from sieved intrusions and were probably notdeposited as a Iron Age deposits. Horse bones were recovered from result of human consumption. Despite an extensive both the Iron Age and Romandeposits including a sievingprogramcarried out on site, the near-complete metatarsal from aRomanpit (2299) with knifemarks lack of fish and other wild animals in the assem- aroundthe proximal articulation. Of the dog bones blage suggeststhat wild animal remains played an identified in the Roman deposits two were skull insignificant role in the diet of the Saxon inhabit- fragments (found within pit 2650 and ditch 1627). No ants of this site. This is in agreement with the results butchery marks were identified on the dog bones. of the analysis of the larger animal remains from The small number of bones identified from the late this site. BronzeAge, Iron Age and Romanfeatures do not pro- vide much information regarding the site’s economy. Sheepand cattleappear to have provided the majority CHARRED PLANT REMAINS of the meat,astheyseemtohave done at Ashville by Mark Robinson Trading Estate just across the Larkhill Stream Extensive sampling was undertaken forcharred plant (Wilson1978). remainsduring the excavation. The concentrations of The majority of the animal bonefrom the site came remainswere mostly low but the charred plant from Saxon deposits,mostly from sunken-featured remainsfrom six samples, and the charcoal from 17 buildings 2008 and 2687. The deposits consisted samples were analysed in full. Small quantities of largelyofbutchery refuse (skull, foot bones, verteb- rae and ribs) from cattle, sheep and pigs. Most Corylus avellana (hazel)nut shell fragments, acouple of cereal grasses and mixed charcoal of Quercus sp. (oak), Anglo-Saxon assemblages show cattle and sheep to hazel and Pomoideae (hawthorn,appleetc) were be the dominantspecies (Bourdillon and Coy 1980; Crabtree 1994), although it has been suggested by foundintwo samples from aGrooved Ware pit (2622). Amixed range of charcoal including Fagussylvatica Clutton-Brock (1979) that pigs were more common (beech) was found in the Romansamples. The con- on small-holdings. Tooth wear indicates that most of centration of charred remainsinsamples from the two the cattle were killed as young animals, suggesting sunken-featured buildings was, at around one item that only asmall number were kept until adulthood, per litre, relatively high for early Saxon contexts. The with the majority raised for meat and killed whilst majority were cereal grains, with two crops identified young. Some of the sheep were also killed at an early with certainty: ashort-grainedfree-threshing variety age, perhaps as partofacull to reduce the size of of Triticum sp. (rivet or breadwheat) and hulled the flock over the winter. However, some animals Hordeum vulgare (six-row hulled barley). Afew grains were kept until mucholder, as breeding stock and for their milk, wool and dung. All of the pig bones of Avena sp. were also present but it is uncertain whether they were fromwild or cultivated oats. Chaff came from young animals, usually less than one was absent apart from arachis of Hordeum sp. Other year old. food plants were represented by nut shell fragments Four fragmentsofRed deerantler were found in of Corylus avellana and seeds of alarge legume, pro- Saxon deposits,all of which had knife marks,and bably either Vicia faba (bean) or Pisum sativum (pea). were probablywaste from working. Acomb(Fig. 39, Weed seeds were abundant in the samples from the 1) and apin-beater (Fig. 39, 3) made from antler were Saxon sunken-featuredbuildings.They were mostly found. Asingle fragment of dog bone was also from specieswhich readily occur as arable weeds found. including Brassica rapa ssp. campestris (wild turnip), Vicia or Lathyrus sp. (vetch or tare) and Rumex sp. (dock) but some seeds of wet-ground plants including SMALLANIMAL REMAINS Eleocharis sp. (spike rush) were also present. The by Mark Nokkert samples from the Saxon building were very rich in During the excavations 114 small animal remains charcoal,mostly Pomoideae sp. but Quercus was also were collected, consisting of bones of pine marten, well represented. house mouse,water vole,domestic fowl,domestic goose,blackbird,frog,toadand eel. Remains of Discussion domestic fowl and goose dominatethe assemblage. The two pine martenbones camefrom the fill of alate The predominance of hazel nut shell fragments Neolithic pit. Except for asingledomestic fowl bone amongst the food plant remains in the late Neolithic from a13th-centurycontext, all the other remains pit falls into the usual pattern forGroovedWare pits belonged to the early to middle Saxon period. The although there is much debate about the importance majority of these came from the fill of two sunken- of nuts in the diet (Robinson2000). The crop species featured buildings dated to the 6th centuryAD. On a identified from the Saxon sunken-featuredbuildings few of the domestic geese remainsbutcherymarks were all importantinthe Upper Thames Valley were noticed. With the exception of the remainsof during the early Saxon period (Robinson and Wilson domestic fowl,domesticgeese, the singleeel bone 1987, 75). Hulled wheat was absent from the Saxon and possibly also the blackbird bone, the remains of deposits at SpringRoad eventhough spelt wheat all other species can be considered as accidental was noted in aRoman ditch. Thereisnoevidence as

58 Chapter Four

Plate 9Layer of soil with distinctive pinkish hue at the north baulk of Area 9; note also the infill of EvaluationTrench D. yet forthe continuation of Triticum spelta (spelt GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTONSOILS wheat) in the region beyond the end of the Roman Summary of report by MGCanti period. Indeed, the transition fromhulled to free- threshing wheat seems to have beenveryabrupt. Apinkish layer(1532)sealing aRoman pitnearthe However, recent discoveries point to aSaxon revival northern edge of Area 9(Pl.9)was examined sinceit in the cultivation of Triticum dicoccum (emmer wheat) wasthought possiblethatthe layerhad formed as the in the Thames Valley (Pelling and Robinson 2000). result of ploughing. However, thewell-drainedlime- The charcoal suggests the availability of bothwood- stonesoils whichoccur on thesiteare generallyfully land and scrub sources of fuel from the late Neolithic oxidisedand so areunlikelytobechemicallyaltered by to Saxon periods.The Romanrecord of beech is agricultural activities.The pinkishlayer is more likely interesting becausealthough the discovery of beech to derive from an episodeoflevelling whichexploited charcoal at the Abingdon Causewayed Camp showed apatch of thepinkish clay whichoccursnaturally that the tree was present in the region as early as the within thelimestone gravelsinthe area of thesite. As Neolithic (Dimbleby in Case 1956, 18), the only sub- aresultofearthworm burrowingthe layerhas grad- sequent finds have been medieval. uallybecomemixed with theoverlying darker topsoil.

59

Chapter 5: Scientific Evidence

RADIOCARBONDATES (Fig. 40) BronzeAge date (1690–1510 calBCand 1520–1310 Summary of report by Peter Marshall, Tim Allen, Tom cal BC). Higham, Jvan der Plicht and RSparks The measurements for allofthe Iron Age skeletons are statistically the same, indicating that they could Ten radiocarbon measurements were obtained on six all have been of the same age (400–230cal BC, 400– samples from Spring Road Cemetery (Table 7). The 205 cal BC and 410–260 cal BC). The 4th–3rd century samples were processed by the Oxford Radiocarbon cal BC date suggests that the early Iron Age pottery Accelerator Unit in 2003 (Bronk Ramsey et al.forth- foundinthe graves was residual. coming; Bronk Ramsey and Hedges 1997), the Centre for Isotope Research of the University of Groningenin 2003 (Aerts-Bijma et al. 1997 and 2001; van der Plicht MAGNETOMETER AND MAGNETIC et al. 2000), and the RafterRadiocarbon Laboratory in SUSCEPTIBILITY SURVEY 2002 (Bevan-Athfield and Sparks2001; Zondervan Summary of report by Alister Bartlett and Sparks 1997). All three laboratories maintain con- tinual programmesofqualityassurance procedures, The first stage of fieldwork consisted of magneto- in additiontoparticipation in international compar- meter and magnetic susceptibility surveys of Blocks isons (Rozanski et al. 1992; Scott et al. 1988). These tests 5, 8and 9ofthe cemetery and the adjacent playing indicate no significant offsets and demonstrate the fields of Larkmead School(Figs 41 and 42). The plots validityofthe precision quoted. The stable isotope of the magnetometer survey represent readings col- values(d 13Cand d 15N) are consistent with averylar- lected along linesspaced 1mapart, using Geoscan gely terrestrial diet, with only aminor component of fluxgatemagnetometers. The x-y graphical plot (not marine proteinalthough this is not likely to affect the illustrated) was correctedfor irregularities in line radiocarbon dating (Chisholm et al. 1982; Mays 2000). spacing causedbyvariations in the instrument zero The C:N ratios suggest that bone preservation was suf- setting, and additional 2D low pass filtering has been ficientlygood to have confidence in the radiocarbon applied to the grey scale plot (see Figure 41) to determinations (Masters 1987; Tuross et al.1988). reduce backgroundnoise levels and emphasise the The dates of Beakerskeleton 3036, which was broader features, which may be archaeologically sig- associated with apossibly early copper awl, of the nificant. In the magnetic susceptibility survey read- timber circle,and of three of the middle Iron Age ings were taken at 10 mintervals using aBartington skeletons (2199, 2125 and 2245) were established by MS2 meter and field sensorloop. radiocarbon determinations (Table 7; Fig. 40). The The survey sufferedinmanyareas fromdistur- dates for the timber circle were obtained from apig bance by modern features, such as fences, benches, maxillafrom aposthole (2328) in the inner arc and recent graves and buriediron, which obscured or from apig tibiainaposthole(2373) in the outer arc. were indistinguishable from archaeologicalfeatures. The other dates were obtained on femurs from the In afew areas, however, more interesting results skeletons involved. were achieved.InAreas 8and 9the north-south The three measurements on the Beakerskeleton Romanditches (A),pits (B), the Victorian quarry (E) are statistically consistent and suggest that the burial and perhaps also the sunken-featured buildings (C dates from 2460–2200 cal BC (weighted mean). and D) canbemade out. In the southern playing The two measurements forthe timber circle are field (Area B) oneortwo ditched enclosures and not statistically consistent, but do suggest amiddle several pits were revealed.

61 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery 8 d -16 ver ge ar this ented ran ;W BC BC BC on -12102; hate BC BC BC -2037-1 =3 pres X-2037 cal cal cal ew n fidence) cal cal cal date (OxA ment del .8, con OxA-X OxA- mo –2200 –1510 –1310 =7 remov rated and and 410–260 400–205 400–230 (95% rements measure 2460 1690 1520 (5%) 0 Calib T letely logical 2101 .2, -22754 measu rA comp =2 original er 0 chrono ;G range (OxA-1 ,T BC BC BC oth not the BC BC BC he ence) te al al al he nt 2103 cal cal cal did da 0c 0c 0c 31BP) ht from di sistent + confid ted 380 255 260 wit –221 –152 –140 con (OxA-1 excess (3901 400– 390– 400– (68% nt include 2400 1620 1500 stent collagen the Calibra -15 ically of been consiste inconsi excess ion statist not X-2037 .0 .8 .8 the as are =6 =3 =3 afiltrat OxA- eh stically stically 002, (5%) (5%) (5%) 0 0 0 and ments stati stati r2 mean re-ultr re-dat ;T ;T ;T is are lt =2 =1 =1 the the n n n ghted Octobe 21 25 24 so measure ents resu A-15866 .3; .0; .2; in + + + that Wei of tal NZ =0 =1 =0 and 0 0 0 rs 3850 T 2306 T 2266 T surem Unit gests tal, pai ug erimen tor 15865; mea ss exp Age the Both ZA- erimen Thi 40 45 60 29 26 27 30 50 40 27 ;N All The ed. exp Accelera arbon (BP) ed. 2100 on 1978). still 3841 + 3834 + 2330 + 3861 + 2286 + 2301 + 3294 + 2310 + 3156 + 2253 + re-dat -dated. Radioc re-dat re was and (OxA-1 diocarb Wilson and gen and ed Ra ent and ed rd fied colla 2373 -purifi ard consist Oxfo ole re fied -purifi ;W ). re-puri re ally the was =2 posth at case n was was re-puri 036 036 243 036 125 243 199 199 les .0, le rom statistic the n3 n3 n2 n3 n2 n2 n2 n2 2328 =6 sf sample icular amp of 1978). 1978). are text sample samp es part on this (5%) thole mark 0 skeleto skeleto skeleto skeleto skeleto skeleto skeleto skeleto ents on this lson lson T this ment &c on pos this Wi Wi .7, on hb on naw al from from from from from from from from ent (in asure =7 surem nd nd wit 0 ent hg from me ment ent ,T da da la mea wit Materi surem ar ar femur femur femur femur femur femur femur femur the the asurem ;W ;W g, 26BP) maxil tibia surem problem mea me measure + All =1 =2 cal human human human pig human human human human pig human n n mea nal nal ed. writin iginal .8, .0, (2357 nal of or echni =3 =6 origi Bone, Bone, Bone, Bone, Bone, Bone, Bone, Bone, Bone, Bone, origi re-dat at origi the time the the of (5%) (5%) 0 0 dates. and e the T T the X-2037-17 from ed from from .0, .7, mber At 3036 3036 2243 2329 3036 2125 2243 2199 2375 2199 covery =0 =0 ected ). Sampl gen OxA- Nu 0 0 gen gen dis T T aff -purifi nd 1978 re colla colla colla the adiocarbon 2a nants was ess ess 28BP), 38BP), ing 00 01 03 76 77 02 + + 7R excess Wilson exc exc 2754 2752 15866 15865 atory 1) 2) 4) 3) he he he ollow (2279 contami and GrA-2275 here. (2281 sample NZA- 4T NZA- GrA-2 Labor Number Table 3T OxA-121 (note 2T OxA-121 (note OxA-121 (note OxA-123 GrA-2 OxA-123 OxA-121 (note Notes: 1F

62 Chapter Five

Figure 40 Radiocarbon dates:Probability distributions of dates from Abingdon Spring Road (a) before taking a weightedmean, and (b) after taking aweighted mean.

63 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 41 Magnetometer and magnetic susceptibility surveysofcemetery and area to the north west.

64 Chapter Five

Figure 42 Magnetometer survey in relation to excavated features.

65

Chapter 6: Discussion

by Tim Allen and Zena Kamash

INTRODUCTION MESOLITHIC PERIOD by Tim Allen Artefacts recovered from the Spring Road Cemetery demonstrate human activity from the Mesolithic In the local area Mesolithic sites are commonalong onwards. Most periods and phases of prehistory are the banks of the Thames, presumably reflecting the represented by evidence of some sort, as is Roman presence of openings in the tree cover at the riverside and early Saxon occupation. This was evidently a and the greater ease of movement by water in this favoured location for avarietyofactivities over a landscape. These sites includeThrupp (Wallis 1981), long period of time. Abingdon Vineyard (P Bradley in prep.), Andersey In the following discussion the nature of the Island (Ainslie 1991) and Corporation Farm, Drayton archaeological investigations, and their scale, has to (Shand et al. 2003). Major tributaries such as the Ock be borne in mind. The excavated areas were small, are also likely to have been used in thisway. Even and covered only aquarter of the areaofknown if not navigable, lesser watercourses such as the finds. In addition, the findspots suggest that the site Larkhill Stream may also have provided easier path- continued to the west towards the Larkhill Stream, ways to travelonfoot, and will certainly have been an impression supported by local reports that reference points in the landscape.Small collections of archaeological material was seen whenthe playing Mesolithic flint have been foundonthe west bank of fields were levelled, although no formal record of the Larkhill streamatAshville (Skellington in this was made. Although the geophysical survey Parrington 1978, 90) and Wyndyke Furlong (Bradley confirms that any traces of archaeology were in Muir and Roberts 1999, 40–42), as well as at Spring destroyed immediately west of the site during this Road on the east side. Ethnographicstudies of levelling, tracesoffurther ditches are indicated modern hunter-gatherers shows that asinglecom- furthernorth, perhaps indicating that the site munitymay have ranged over aterritory as muchas continued in that direction. No investigation took 20 miles across, and will have included hilltop sites place whenthe housestothe north and east were like thoseonBoarsHill overlooking the Thames at constructed,but anatural limit to the site to the Oxford some 4miles to the north (Allen 1993b; north is provided by abranch of the Larkhill Stream, Holgate1986). which flows down from the north-east some 250 m The nature of the archaeologicalinvestigations, from the site. Southofthe site only asinglesmall and the small numbers of struck flints recovered trench has been excavated(Ainslie 1999), and (Chapter 3), makeitimpossible to be sure whatsort although this was sterileitisinsufficient to rule of activitieswerebeing carried out during the out further archaeologyinthis direction. Overall, Mesolithic. The small numbers of struck flints may therefore, the excavations are not necessarily repre- indicate that this was merely astop-off point during sentative of all aspects of the past history of the site, ahunting trip, though it is also possiblethat activity and while indicative of the periods of activity was on alargerscale, but was focussed outside the represented, may not adequately characterise these areas investigated. Access to water will have been activities. importantboth forpeople andthe animals they Within the excavatedpartofthe cemetery site hunted, and locations such as this closetostreams levels taken on the surface of the natural gravel will therefore have been suitable for occupation. show that the gravel terrace was highest justeast of the mid-line of the site at the north end of Area 8. NEOLITHIC ACTIVITY Therewas afall of over 1mtothe west and north- by Zena Kamash and Tim Allen west between Areas 8and 5, adistance of only 50 m, and the levels also show that the terrace was Neolithic activity at Spring Road includes material rising more gradually northwards, with adiffer- of every major pottery tradition. Thereisalimited ence of 0.5 mover the 80 mfrom the south end of number of sherds of early Neolithic Plain Bowl Area 9tothe north end of Area 8. On the east side pottery, much of aPeterborough Ware dish and apit of the site there appearedtobeacorresponding containing GroovedWare (see Chapter 3). The drop in the level of gravel, but this may not have BronzeAge timber circle contained residual sherds been natural, as this was the area riddled with of all these traditions. Another possible Neolithic medieval gravel pits, which may have resulted in a featuremay have beendisturbed during modern lowering of the overalllevel of the gravel. Never- grave-digging (3506, 4D26). Finds from thisgrave thelessthe northern end of the excavation area included 31 flints (probably mid to late Neolithicin appears to have represented ahigh point in the date) and 9animal bones in very good condition. local topography. Spatial analysis of the finds distribution shows that

67 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Neolithic activity was confined to the northern part cornerofArea 8. As is typical with such pits, it was a of the site (Areas 4and 8), corresponding to the relatively shallow bowl-shaped pit that containeda highest ground. varietyoffinds in amatrixofburntmaterial (Thomas 1999, 74). Pits of thisshape are considered to be unsuitable forthe storage of foodstuffs, in contrast to Early Neolithic the deeper, straight-sided and flat-bottomed pits of For the early Neolithicthe evidence is limited to a the Iron Age period (Reynolds 1974, 126–7; Thomas few sherds of Plain Bowlpottery, all residual in later 1999, 64). The construction of the deposits in the contexts. None of the struckflint is diagnostically SpringRoad pit point to different interpretations for early Neolithic. The surrounding area was clearlya the function of these pits. significant focus for early Neolithic people, as it con- The distribution of finds retrieved from pit fills tained acausewayed enclosureatRadley(Barclay 2620 and 2619 also displays some very interesting and Halpin 1999), acursus and mortuary enclosure patterns (summarized in Table 8) with the range at Drayton (Barclay et al. 2003) and possibly an of material in 2620 being seemingly more selective earthenlong mound by the Ock just 1.5 km south- than that in 2619. As noted by Lamdin-Whymark west of the site at Tesco (OAU 1997; see Fig. 43). (‘Detailed report’, Chapter 3), the struck flint shows Away from the monuments domesticsitesare signs of structured deposition, the lower fill (2620) mostly known from lithic finds or scatters (Holgate containing asingle core and sevenretouched tools 1986; Holgate1988), though Plain Bowl pottery was while2619 contained two cores, atested nodule and foundatCorporation Farm south of the Ock (Shand only one retouched artefact. In addition, ahigher et al. 2003). Thediscovery of Plain Bowlpottery at proportion of the flint was burntinthe lower than in SpringRoad is therefore significant. The relatively the higher deposit: 15% in 2620 and4.5% in 2619. small-scale nature of most sitesinthe Upper Thames The distribution of animal bone, which was well- Valley, and the limited evidence forarableagricul- preserved, also shows significant variation.Ofthe 24 ture, suggeststhat these early farming communities identified bones in 2620 (including sieved material), were still fairly mobile, movingfrequentlywithin 20 were pig of which 18 were headelements and 2 local territories. This may therefore have beenashort- were foot elements. Three cattle ribs and one sheep lived occupationsite. phalanxwere also retrieved. In deposit 2619, however, out of the 27 identified bones (includingsieved material), 11 were pig, 8were sheep,5were cattle Middle Neolithic and 3were pine marten. In addition, there was no clear Asemi-complete Peterborough Ware dish was dis- preference for head over other elements: 32% head, covered during modern grave-digging, and its good 36% ribs and 32% other. Furthermore, whilenone of condition would suggest that it came from acut fea- the bones from 2620 had beenbutchered, 3ofthe ture (Chapter 3). Asherd from asecond vessel was identified bones from 2619 showedsigns of butchery, also found in the Bronze Age posthole arc. Apossibly although the condition of the bones was slightly worse middleNeolithic pit may have been disturbed during in 2619. Table8also indicates that the condition of the modern grave-digging (3506, 4D26). pottery and fired clay was slightly better in 2620 than The middleNeolithicactivityassociated with in 2619, as in bothcases the average weightwas Peterborough Ware at Spring Road takes place higher.Inaddition, 2619 contained two small residual within the same monumental context as in the early sherds of Plain Bowl pottery. Neolithic. These ceramic finds belong to the same The flint assemblage provides some clues for the period as those recoveredfrom the later use of the interpretation of these deposits. Althoughahigh causewayed enclosureatRadley, adjacent to which proportion of the flint was used and in some cases earthenlong mounds were constructedinthis period broken during use, the cores found in the pit, (Avery 1982; Cleal 1999). Peterborough Ware is also including thosein2619, were all large with no obvious associated with the cursus at Drayton and the ditches faults or knapping errorsand had notbeenexhausted of the probable long barrow at Tesco (OAU 1997), (Chapter 3). In contrast, 2620 contained an end and showing that all of these monument complexes side scraper (SF 44) that had been snapped rendering it remained active. The only othernon-monumental useless. The pit therefore included specially-selected site of the period on the west side of Abingdon is items, including both items that were still useful and at Corporation Farm south of the Ock, where (as at those that had been deliberatelyrendered uselessor SpringRoad) the site has produced bothearly Neo- ‘killed’. Furthermore, no refits were foundinthe lithic Plain Bowlpottery and Peterborough Ware assemblage, despite there being groups of flakes (Shand et al. 2003). whose raw material strongly suggested that they had comefrom the samecores (Chapter 3). This shows that some of the flakes fromthese cores had not been Late Neolithic deposited in the pit, although manufactured during the sameknapping process. Grooved Ware pit 2622 The exclusion of some flake material from the pit This pit had escaped destruction by the later raises the possibility that all of the material in the pit medieval gravel-extraction pits in the south-eastern had beenspecifically selected for deposition. One

68 Chapter Six

Figure 43 Spring Roadinrelation to Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments aroundAbingdon. possibility is that the selectedmaterial was intended and even the digging of the pit becameanevent in to be representativeofthe activities carried out on and for itself (Thomas 1999, 70 and 73). this visit to the site, ratherthan all of the refuse The pit fills add support to the ideathat this pit may generated from them. In this case the cores could have been filled as one event. The pit contained only a represent tool production, the domestic animal small deposit of primary gravelslumping before bones feasting, the martenand hazel nuts hunting being largely filled with two dark, charcoal-rich and and gathering, and so on. Thus, this pit and its homogeneousdeposits, whose homogeneousnature contents were made into a‘durable trace’ of an event suggests that the pit was filled quickly ( cf. Thomas such as afeast, gathering or period of occupation 1999, 64). Thelast fill was athin layerinthe very top,

69 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery probablyplough-disturbed. In addition, the sides of There are some finds common to most of these the pit were steep with no evidenceofweathering at pits: almost all contain charred hazelnuts, and as at the top. Furthermore, the fresh condition of the finds SpringRoad pig bones predominate at Barton Court (with the possible exception of the pottery) indicate and at Radley, BarrowHills (Robinson in Barclay that the activities or events from which they derived and Halpin1999, 271). The occurrence of other occurred only shortly before the digging and filling of materials such as cereals, wild animal bones, worked the pit. The flint was in remarkably good condition bones or axe fragmentsis, however, muchmore and veryfresh (Chapter 3). Theanimal bonewas also variable, and may indicate the process of deliberate in very good condition, 98.5% of the assemblage selectionatwork; acorrelation has recently been (excluding sieved material) being classedasGrade 1 suggested between the range of finds presentand the or 2(Lyman 1996, where Grade 1isthe best- fineness and decoration of the pottery (Barclay 1999, preserved and Grade 5the worst-preserved bone). 14–15). Taken at face value the finds from Spring Furthermore,none of the animal boneshowedsigns Road would suggest alargely pastoraleconomy of gnawing, indicating that it had not been left supplemented by hunting and gathering, but since exposed to scavenging by dogs. This indicates, the finds were probably selected for deposition, they therefore, that the material in the pit was notsubject may reflect only materials deemed appropriate for to provisional discard nor depositedfirst in another deposition in pits (that is aritual assemblage), and locationsuch as amidden. may not be representative of the full range of farm- Pit-digging reachedazenith at the end of the ing practices of the users of Grooved Ware. Neolithic with pits associated with Grooved Ware An open clearedlandscape would fit with the (Thomas 1999, 69 and fig. 4.4) and such pits are environmental evidence from Radley, Barrow Hills also known from the Abingdon area (Fig. 43). The east of Abingdon (Robinson1999,271–2). Never- Grooved Ware from Spring Road included not only theless, the contents of the pit at Spring Road suggest the Woodlands style vessels from the pit but also a that there was woodland in the vicinity,with haze- sherd of DurringtonWalls style. Among the other lnuts in the pit and coniferouswoodland indicated pits in the Abingdon Area those containing Wood- by the pine martenbones. Some arable is also indica- lands style pottery include one from Corporation ted by charred wheat grains, and domesticlivestock Farm only 2kmtothe south (Shand et al. 2003), two included pig,sheepand cattle. from SuttonCourtenay some 5kmtothe south The evidence of the pit below the A34 and those at (Leeds1934) and several from the areaaround the BarrowHills suggests that the monuments of the early Abingdon causewayed enclosureatDaisy Banks and middle Neolithiccontinued to be visited in the c 4kmtothe east. (Barclay and Halpin 1999). In late Neolithic. Within this period new monuments addition, Durrington Walls style GroovedWare were also added.Nomajor henge monuments like vessels have been found in apit beneath the A34 those at Dorchester-on-Thames(Whittle et al. 1992, 2kmsouth-west of SpringRoad (Balkwill in 184–93) or Stanton Harcourt (Barclay et al. 1995) are Parrington 1978, figs 28–9) and in pits at Barton known at Abingdon, but asmall Class2henge Court Farm (Miles 1986, fig. 4) some 3kmtothe east monument was constructedatCorporation Farm (see also Barclay1999, figs 2.1–3). Further Grooved (Abingdon and DistrictArch.Soc.1973; Shand et al. Ware pits have beenfoundatCassington (Case 1982) 2003; see also Fig. 43). Balkwill argued that acrop- and aNeolithic pit (no further details) was also mark ringditch with an apparent gap on the north just foundacross the Larkhill Stream south of Ashville south of Tesco (and only 1.5 km from SpringRoad) during redevelopment(Chambers 1986). was aClass1henge. Atrench has since been dug

Table 8Summary of contents of Grooved Ware pit 2622.

Material 2621 2620 2619 2623 Total Comments

Grooved Ware 3(16 g) 2(2g)5(18 g) 2vessels represented in 2620 Plain Bowl 2(4g)2(4 g) Residual sherds Fired Clay 12 (168 g) 3(35 g) 15 (203 g) Probably structural clay Flint 95 124 2221 Some deliberately snapped pieces, including ascraper High proportion of retouch and burning Animal bone 162132 1196 75.8% (2620) and 81% (2619) were unidentifiable (bulk) Animal bone 216 47 264 Almost 96% unidentifiable material (sieved) Hazelnut(s) 55 10 Cereal 11 2 Triticum sp. plausibly Neolithic, but possibly later contamination? Charcoal Some oak, hazel, pomoideae indet

70 Chapter Six acrossthe south side (OAU 1997), and aBeaker sherd burialsand awls.The orientation of the burial, lying and struckflint were found in the topmost fill, so this on its right side and with the headtothe SSE, is a remainsapossibility (Balkwill in Parrington1978, 29). common onefor female burials of this dateinthe region; there are three comparable examples of adult female Beaker burials in the StantonHarcourt com- BEAKERPERIOD plex (Barclay et al. 1995, 80–81, 99–100 and 105), and a by Tim Allen fourth unsexedadultinthe same position as well Beakerperiod activity is evident at Spring Road both (ibid., 88). Thereare only four adultfemales of the late from the grave accompanied by acopper awl in Neolithic and early Bronze Age in the group from Area 5, from asherd withinasmall pit or postholein Radley, but of these, two early Bronze Age examples Area 8and from othersherds of pottery and struck are laid on the right side with their heads to the south flints found by earlier grave-digging further south. (Barclay and Halpin 1999,120–126). The grave is of considerable interest, as it is radio- The Beakerburial at Spring Road appears to be a carbon-dated between 2460 and 2200 cal BC,making ‘flat’ grave without any associated monument. There the burial veryearly in the Beaker period, and the is atradition of Beaker‘flat’ graves in the Upper copper awl accompanying the body one of the earliest ThamesValley, with more ‘flat’ burials than burials copper objects from Britain. The pottery sherds from within ditched barrowsboth at Radleyand at elsewhere on the site are also decorated with styles StantonHarcourt (Barclay and Halpin 1999, 324). that place them early in the Beakerperiod, before Thereare otherexampleslocally from Yarnton (Hey 2000 BC (Chapter 3). in prep.). Those at Radleycan perhaps be seen as Locallyearly radiocarbon dates have also been looselyassociated with the burial monuments, all obtained fromtwo burialswith copper objects at comprising acemetery area, but some of those at Radley, BarrowHills(dating to 2700–2100and 2650– Yarnton do not have any clear links to monuments. 2000 respectively), and together with the burial from Barclayargued that the close spacing of two at Yarnton that was accompanied by acopper bar neck Radley, and their lack of secondary deposits, ring (Clarke et al. 1985, 270–2), this points to an early suggested that theyhad never beencovered by large focus of metal-using activity in this partofthe Upper mounds, perhaps only by mounds large enough to ThamesValley.The burial at SpringRoad, which is cover the areaofthe grave cut. These burials more closelydated than those from Barrow Hills, sometimes occur in groups or ‘cemeteries’; there adds afourth to this group, and considerably were at least four at Radley, and it is therefore strengthens the case for an early Beakerfocus in possible that some of the other crouched burials this area. Another relatively early date (2330–1950 foundatthe SpringRoad cemetery may have beenof cal BC) was obtained for the Radleyburial with a this date. Theother fragmentsofBeaker recovered double-tanged awl, though this was of tin-bronze from the site may have derived eitherfrom funerary (Northover in Barclayand Halpin 1999, 192–5). or domestic contexts. It has been suggested (Garwood1999) that Beaker sherds, some fingernail-impressed, one Woodlands-style pottery indicates alater 3rd mil- cord-impressed, were also recovered fromWyndyke lenniumdate. This makes the relationship between Furlong just across the Larkhill Stream. Barclay the GroovedWare pit at Spring Road and the early argued for aseparation of burial and pit deposits, Beakerburial of particular interest. Given the close citing WyndykeFurlong as an example of domestic physical proximity of the pit and grave at Spring activityonthe low terraces or floodplain (Barclay Road, the locationofthe burial may not have been et al. 1999, 324), but thisburial at SpringRoad is less coincidental, but at the leastmay have made use of a than 300 mdistant. If the activityatthese two sites site with ancestral links,and it is evenpossiblethat was contemporary, then it would indicate that pits the events were contemporary. and burialsdooccur in relatively closeproximity. There is growing evidence in the area of late The Beaker activityatWyndyke Furlong has not Grooved Ware activityaswell as of the early use of however been radiocarbon-dated, and may be later copper.Woodlandspottery with later 3rd millennium than that at Spring Road. dates comes from two GroovedWare features at Beaker activity is also known 1.5 km to the south- Radley(Barclay and Halpin 1999). Grooved Ware west, where agroup of ring ditches is clustered with comb-decoration has been foundlocally at aroundthe long barrow at the Tesco site just north of Yarnton, the latter astyle of decoration normally the river Ock. Evaluationatthis site recovered a associated with Beakerpottery (Barclay and Edwards Beakersherd from one of the ring ditches, and parts of in prep.). In this context it is unfortunate that radio- two domestic Beakervessels from asmall pit south of carbon-dating of the Grooved Ware pit at Spring Road the ring-ditches (OAU 1997). The pottery appears to was not carried out as part of the English Heritage be later than that at Spring Road, the decorative styles programme. usuallydated after 2000 BC. Sherds of a‘southern The burial at Spring Road is female, and is Beaker’ were found in East St Helen’s Streetincen- accompanied solely by the copper awl. This awl is tral Abingdon, and residual sherds in the Vineyard of the double-tanged type usually associated with (Wilsonand Wallis 1991, 4; Barclaypers. comm.). Beakerburials. Clarke (1970) and Gibbs (1989) The number of locations around Abingdon that demonstrated astrong association between female have produced Beakerpottery is greater than that

71 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery producing Grooved Ware, perhaps indicating the of the late Neolithic, but clues are provided by the spread of clearance and an increase in population. barley and wheat grains,and the acorns, found in a pit south of Tesco (OA 1997). The general picture in this period is provided by apollen sequence at Daisy BRONZE AGE Banks Fen neartothe barrow cemetery at Radley by Tim Allen and Zena Kamash (Parker 1999), which shows an openlandscape Early BronzeAge continuing from the late Neolithic to the end of the early Bronze Age (see also Robinson 1999, 272–3). Early Bronze Age activity at Spring Road is attested by asmall group of decorated sherds recovered from Middle Bronze Age modern graves, and by asinglesherd possibly also of thisdate recoveredfrom ashallow postholein The timber circle Area 9. No crematedremainswere apparently asso- ciated with these finds, although the early Bronze In Area 8inthe 2000 excavations adouble arc of Age pottery is interpretedasbelonging to aritual or postholes was revealed. Only partofthismonument funerary vessel (Chapter 3). At this period burialsare lay withinthe excavation, and this limits the confi- normally associated with monuments, of which(as dence with which questionsabout its form, function in the Beakerperiod) there is no evidence on this site. and associations can be addressed. However, if it was aritual or funerary vessel, it lay The Spring Road structure is assumed to have less than 300 mfrom two ring-ditches of this period been circular in shape and perhaps 18–20 mindia- at Ashville to the south-west across the Larkhill meter.The arc that lay within the excavation appears Stream (Balkwill in Parrington1978, 25–30). An to represent slightly less than quarter of acircle, alternative possibility is that the vessel was in fact though given the slightly irregularline of the post- domestic; evidence for the occurrence of Collared holes it is notpossibletobecertain. If the monument Urn pottery in aprobabledomesticcontext has was circular, alimit of less than 32 mindiameter is recently beenfound in apit group at Taplow Court, provided by the excavationinArea 5, where no trace Buckinghamshire (Allen and Lambdin-Whymark of the monument was found. It is possible that the 2004). arc was part of amuch larger structure of different The pattern of ring-ditches west of Abingdon at shape, but since no trace of it was foundeither in the this period partly demonstrates the continued use of NW cornerofArea8orinevaluation trench F, this the sites of ancient monuments; there are ringditches seems less likely. grouped around the long barrows at Tesco, adjacent The double arc of postholes is interpreted as to the Drayton cursus, and aroundthe henge monu- belonging to atimber circle rather than around- ment at Corporation Farm (Fig. 43). However, there house becausethe diameter of the structure is very are other burial sitesthat appear to be new, such as large for aroundhouse,and the outerarc of posts three barrowsknown from cropmarks in Barrow contains the larger posts,unlike the double-ring Field 400 meast of SpringRoad, the two at Ashville large roundhousesofthe 1st millennium BC. The and those at Saxton Road south of the Ock, part of postholes of the outer arc are also very close to- alarge cemetery group spreading south and east to gether,unlike those of most houses, and must have Corporation Farm (Fig. 43). Unlike Radley, Barrow formedalmost acontinuous palisade. Timbercircles Hills, where burial was concentrated in one large are normally Neolithic in date, but the radiocar- linear cemetery, the patternonthe west side of bon dates of 3294+ 30 BP for apig bone from Abingdon appears to have beenmore dispersed; posthole2328 in the inner arc, and 3156+ 40 BP for whether Radley, Barrow Hills, was restricted to apar- bone from posthole 2373 in the outer arc, indicate a ticularwealthy social group, to which the barrows middleBronze Age date, making thisaverylate west of Abingdonwere complementary, or whether example of such monuments. Similar reliable radio- these were different social groups using distinct carbondates have been retrieved from timber circles burial sites, is unclear. If the latter is true, it would at Navan B, Co.Armagh (3140+ 90 BP) and Poole, perhaps suggest that the social organisation west of Dorset(3210+ 50 BP); later radiocarbon dates have Abingdon was more fragmented,withmoreinde- also been retrievedfrom Haughey’s Fort, Ireland and pendent social groups each creating its own local OgdenDown, Wiltshire (Gibson 1998, 48 fig. 39). It is burial site. noteworthy that both of these later examples were Snails from the ring-ditches at Ashville showed double circles (Gibson 1998, 59), which shows that that the barrowswere situated in an opengrassland there are later prehistoricparallels for the postulated environment(Robinsonand Wilson1987, 38). The inner ring of posts at SpringRoad, even though at number of barrow sites of the Beaker/early Bronze OgdenDown it was the inner ring of posts that was Age, even if not all contemporary,indicate numerous more substantial (Green2000, 115–6). pockets of openorcleared ground around Abingdon, The lack of any encircling ditch at Spring Road is close enough to one another to suggest extensive paralleled at anumber of other timber circles.Within areas of open grassland by the end of the period. the Upper ThamesValley other excavated examples Details of the diversityofthe local Beaker/early withoutditches include the late NeolithicSites III–- BronzeAge environmentare little clearerthan those VI at Dorchester-on-Thames (Gibson 1998, 126–7),

72 Chapter Six the penannular post circle at Gravelly Guy, Oxon. this was aploughsoilthat truncated the structure. (Barclay et al. 1995, 88) and (possibly) the post circle at This layermust have been deposited between the Langford Downs, Oxon.(Williams 1946–7; see also middleBronze Age,during which the postholes were below). Of the Dorchester group only Site 3at20mby infilled,and the middleIron Age, when aposthole 17 mwas of similar size to that at Spring Road (Whittle was cut through this layer. It is likely to have formed et al. 1992, 169–175).The post-circleatGravelly Guy, some time after the timber circle went out of use, which predated the Iron Age settlement there but is as the majority of the postholes have athin deposit otherwise undated, had asimilar diameter of 18.75 m of friable darkgreyish-brown clayey silt in their (Fig. 44); that at Langford Downs,which is also tops, also sealed by 2648, that appears to have been undated, was slightlysmaller at 16 mindiameter. deposited in the hollows left after the postholes, Although the excavator interpreted the latter site as including those with post pipes,nolonger held late Iron Age on general spatial grounds, it has since posts. been suggested that it mighthave been earlier (Healy Layer 2648 was confined to the north-eastern 2004). If so, the presence of late Bronze Age/early Iron sector of Area 8, and did not spread muchfurther Age residual pottery on the site might indicate alater south than the southernmost postholes of the outer prehistoric date. There is also acropmark circle of pits arc. It is possiblethat this layer was derived from a or postholes recently identified at Eynsham (Gibson moundwithin, and possibly even revetted by, the 1998, 29 fig. 20), and another at Radleyonly 3kmfrom timber circle. In this case, the topsoil would have to Spring Road (Gibson pers.comm.), thoughboth of have been stripped before the monument was con- these may be late Neolithic rather than Bronze Age. structed. In Britain timber circlesofstakes are some- The timber circle at SpringRoad standsout from times found under barrows, for instance at Buckskin these other examples becausethe distancebetween Barrow, Basingstoke (Allen, M, et al.1995), but are the posts is very small, indicating an almostconti- only rarely contemporary parts of the barrow struct- nuous palisade.There was along tradition of later ure. Onesuch example was at Barnack, Cambridge- Neolithic palisadesatsites such as MountPleasant, shire (Donaldson 1977), where there was adouble Dorset, and West Kennet, Wilts (Whittle 1997). circle. Thecircles at thissite howeverconsistedof Some of the circles at Dorchester-on-Thames also stakeholes, not postholes, and such structures are had closely-spaced posts. For the Bronze Age, the generally much slighterthan the structure implied spacing of the posts is most comparable to Seahenge, by the posts of the Spring Road circle. Furthermore, Holme, Norfolk, where the ringofposts has been there was no surrounding ditch such as is usual with described as a‘wall of wood’ (Pryor 2001, 246). The barrows. size of the Seahenge circle is howevermuch smaller, Palisadedbarrows withoutsurrounding ditches and the posts were apparently set within acontin- are however arecognised type in the Netherlands,as uous trench (see Fig. 44). at Wessinghuizen, where adouble palisadeencircled Another UpperThameslate Bronze Age post- aturf mound (Gibson 1998, 72). The fact that layer circle at Standlake, Oxon,surrounded aring-ditch 2648 did notslump intothe tops of the postholes (Gibson 1998, 59;Catling 1982, 97; see also Fig. 44). however inclinestowards interpretation as aplough- This is also the case at Ogden Down, and Green’s soil ratherthan slip from amound. reconstructionsofthisarrangement include one Reconstruction of this structureisuncertain. roofingthe barrow (Green 2000, fig. 84). Fromthe Mercer (1981) suggested that the height of the posts proportion of the Spring Road circle excavateditis aboveground couldbecalculated using aratio of 3:1 unlikely that thissurrounded aring-ditch, though a or 3.5: 1inrelation to the original depth of the central featuresuch as aburial,oratreelikethat at posthole. More recently Gibsonhas revisited these Seahenge is still possible. figures, and suggested that aratio of 4:1 is com- Only one or two of the postholes in the arc showed monly used in practice today (Gibson 1998, 106–7). any sign of replacement, and it is therefore possible Using the 3.5: 1ratio as acompromise, the posts that the structurewas only in use for arelatively short would have beenaminimum of 1.57–2.31 mhigh.If time. Bru¨ ck (1999, 146–149) has argued that many the sealing layer was aploughsoil, then the postholes middleBronze Age structures had only asingle- are likely to have been at least 0.1 mdeeper, andthe generation life-span.While the lifespan of timbers posts at least 0.3 mlonger(ie 1.87–2.61 mhigh), such as these in the local soils is hard to judge, the preventing aview of the interior. If not, the posts timber circle may have lasted for only 30–100 years. would have stood c1.12–1.68 mabovethe ground, The timber circle at Spring Road was not seen significantly lower than the 3mcalculated for by the excavators until alayervery similar to the Seahenge (Pryor 2001, 270), but adequate for a Holocene subsoil (layer 2648) was removed, reveal- revetment (see reconstructionspage 8and 66). ing an arc of posts cut into the natural gravel. This On balance, the structure is more likely to have layer (2648) was so similar to the subsoil that it was been afreestanding timber circle than abarrow.Its not recorded consistently, but appears to have sealed locationcorresponds to the highest partofthe site, the majority of the postholes in the post arc(s). The presumably to increase both the visual impressive- fact that this layer directlyoverlay the gravelindi- ness of the monument as it was approached, and to cates either that the original Holocene topsoil had make it more visible in the surroundinglandscape.It been stripped before the structurewas built, or that is also possible that the siting of the monument was

73 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 44 Comparative plans of timber circles. influenced by the previous historyofburial and The function of the timber circle is hard to define, deposition in thislocation, though direct evidence particularly as only aquarter of the structureitself, for continuity over the 600–700 years between the and less than halfofits immediate surroundings, Beakerburial and this structure is slight. have been excavated. It is generallyconsidered that

74 Chapter Six whilesuch structures did play an important part in especial significance. As thissite is howeversmall rituals and ceremonies, these did not involve feasting and archaeologically inconspicuous, the possibility (Gibson 1998, 82), and the lack of associatedarte- must be borne in mindthat many more such sites factual evidence at SpringRoad perhaps supports remain to be discovered. this. After 2000 BC timber circles tend to become Other features containing only Bronze Age pot- increasingly focussed on burials(Gibson 1998, 58). tery, whichcomprise two short lengths of gully and No certain middleBronzeAge burialswere found in six postholes, may all contain residual material and association with the part of the Spring Road circle be later in date; similar gullies were howeverfound that was excavated. Apit containing the base of a at Wyndyke Furlong predating the main Iron Age large middle Bronze Age pot was foundinArea 9 occupation, and were tentatively dated to the Bronze some 40 msouth of the timber arc. This shallowpit Age (Muir and Roberts 1999,13fig. 2.8). It is there- appeared to have been severely truncated, but also fore possiblethat there was aspread of later Bronze contained sherds from asecond Bucket Urn.The Age activity along both sides of the Larkhill Stream. absence of any crematedmaterial at all, when alittle The Spring Road site, like the waterhole at Tesco and of the side of the vessel was present, may well Eight-Acre Field, shows evidence of both middleand indicate that this was not acremationurn. Agroup late Bronze Age activity, implying some continuity of pits containing large middle Bronze Age vessels, of use in the later Bronze Age. some set into pits in the ground, have however recently beenfound in the MiddleThames Valley at The context of the middle Bronze Age activity Cippenham (Ford et al. 2003, 39–40 and 71–77), and of these pits some contained very small quantities of Twenty yearsago there was little settlementevi- cremated bone. These pits andpots were therefore dence of the middleorlate Bronze Age in this area interpreted as deliberate deposits associated with (Bradley1986). Since then the number and variety funerary rites, even if not cremation containers them- of sites of these periods has increased enormously selves. Middle Bronze Age cremationburials were (Fig. 45). Around Abingdon itself there were settle- foundinabarrow only 300 mtothe south-west of ment enclosures at Corporation Farm, burialsaround the SpringRoad site, acrossthe Larkhill Stream at one of the ring-ditches at Ashville,awaterhole and Ashville (Parrington 1978), so even if the vessel at otherfeatures adjacent to the ring-ditches at Tesco Spring Road was not funerary, aloose association and linear ditches and settlementtracesatWyndyke with burial is possible. Furlong (OAU 1997, 5; Muir and Roberts 1999). East More practical functions should not howeverbe of Abingdon there is afurther settlement at Eight excluded. Fenced rings this sort of size are still used Acre Field, Radley (Mudd 1995), and middle Bronze todayfor breaking and training horses, and evidence Age burialsare found aroundthe earlier barrowsat for horse-riding in Britain starts in the middleBronze Radley, Barrow Hills(Barclay et al. 1999). Age. There is however no direct evidence to support Excavations at Yarnton have demonstrated that this suggestion. Such ause would not exclude a the floodplainofthe Thames was afavoured location ritual function, as religiousand secular activitiesare for settlement in the early and middle Bronze Age, unlikely to have been divorcedfrom one another in with anumber of roundhousesbeing found. The en- British prehistory. closures at Corporation Farm lie close to the gravel Whateverthe precise function of thistimber terrace edge, and it is also possible that the main structure, its very existence is significant. Only a focus of settlement along the river Ock lay close to handfulofmiddle or late Bronze Age examples have the river on the floodplain at sitessuch as that next to yet been discovered in Britain, and these exhibit Tesco,some way south of the Spring Road site. considerable variety in form and associations, as Beyond the immediate neighbourhood of the site, discussed above. While stoneand timber circles are enclosure and field systems have been investigated an importantand common element of the late at Fullamoor Farm, Clifton Hampden (Booth et al. Neolithic and Beakerperiods, their role in the belief 1993), Appleford Sidings (Booth and Simmonds in system of the middle and late Bronze Age is rarely prep.), Mount Farm and Berinsfield (Lambrick 1992, mentioned. Thereisofcourse no reason why stone 89, fig. 29), and have been identified fromcropmarks circles shouldnot have continued as ritual foci at Northfield Farm, Long Wittenham (Miles 1977; throughout the Bronze Age and beyond, but in areas Baker 2002). They have also been foundfurtherwest where stone was uncommon, such as the Upper between Steventon and East Hannay (Hearne 2000). ThamesValley, few such monumentswere appar- ADeverel-Rimbury cemetery has been foundat ently constructed (only the Devil’s QuoitsatStanton Long Wittenham (Leeds 1929; Case et al. 1964, Harcourt), and wooden structures would have figs 28 and 29; Bradley 1986, 42). Large ditched neededrepeated repair, or rebuilding. On current enclosures of defensive proportions have recently evidence the UpperThamesValley, compared to the been investigated at Castle Hill, Little Wittenham rest of the country, appears to contain aconcentra- (Allen and Lamdin-Whymark 2005)and at Eynsham tion of these, perhaps indicating ashared regional (Barclay et al. 2001), whilemetalwork has been belief system or cultural identity. At present the dredgedfrom the ThamesatDays’ Lock, Dorchester, rarity of timber circles of thisdatemakes this site, Culham Reach and Sandford-on-Thames(York and its location, likely to have been amatterof 2002). Not all of these sitesare contemporary, but

75 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Figure 45 Spring Roadinrelation to Bronze Age sites in the area. they clearly indicate settlement of considerable scale late Bronze Age would also seem more likely than the and complexity in this part of the Upper Thames early Iron Age, when there was atimber building Valley in the middletolate Bronze Age (Fig. 45), to immediately adjacent,and possibly apenannular which the timber circle at Spring Road adds afurther enclosure as well. Pollen evidence from the wider dimension. catchment for this period is lacking, as there is an Environmental evidence from the site for the hiatus in accumulation at Daisy Bank Fen after the middleand late Bronze Age is limited. Thelayer that early Bronze Age (Parker 1999). overlay the postholes of the timber circle has been interpreted as accumulating either in the late Bronze IRON AGE Age or early Iron Age, and as either aploughsoil or a by Tim Allen newlyformedtopsoil. If it was the latter, it would presumably have formed in the centuries following At Spring Road Iron Age activity is of several kinds, the abandonment of the timber circle, most likely in including acircular roundhouse of several possible the late Bronze Age. If aploughsoil, acontext in the phases,other postholes, several crouched burialsin

76 Chapter Six purpose-duggraves and afew pits. Before consider- spacedsubstantial posts, so if genuine it is more ing the associations between these types of evidence, likely that thisouter ring was part of an aisled the chronology of the Iron Age activity needstobe building rather than forming the only roof supports. clarified. Almost all of the pottery belongs to the If contemporary with the main ring of posts in any early Iron Age, yet only one or two pits are securely phase, however, the aisle between thisand the main dated to this phase. ring(s)ofposts would have been little more than 1m on the west,though perhaps as much as 2mon the north and east sides. Since the main weight of an The roundhouse aisled structure is taken by the inner ring-beam,this Few of the postholes contain any quantity of pottery, is not structurally impossible, but means that the and the sherds are often small and thus potentially wall height would have varied aroundthe building, residual. Therewerehowever enough early Iron Age and would imply that the outer wallwas constructed sizeable sherds from the porch, inner and outer ring after the inner ring. postholes of the roundhouse to be fairly confident Astructure of thissize would have requireda that this structure shouldbedated to the early Iron substantial inner ring of posts to support the roof, Age. Onepostholefrom the alternativering, pre- and the postholes of the main ring are not uniformly sumablyadifferent phase of the building, contained large. It is possiblethat additional support for the early-middle Iron Age pottery. roof was provided by some or all of the groups of The main post-ring of the roundhouse (Grp 2719) postholes at the centre of the house,aswas sugges- is approximately 11 mindiameter, as is the possible ted for the house at Little Woodbury (Musson 1970). alternative ring(Grp 2722). On the east side the On that site, however, there was asquare of large structure was cutthroughbytwo Romanditches, postholes, whereas the post-lines withinthe house at makingitimpossible to determine the total number this site are mostly small, and better interpreted as and spacing of posts, but on the west, north and internal partitions or furnishings. It is therefore alter- south the evidence is clearer. Most of the postholes of natively possible that this outer ring was either for the main ring are roughly 2.5mapart (centre to posts for afence around the house, or for posts for centre), thoughthere also appear to be clusters only partitions around the exterior, possibly for storage 1mapartand gaps of up to 3minother places. It is under the eaves. however possible that one of the close-spaced groups on the east and west belong to the alternative ring, The Iron Age burials though this would still mean gaps of only 2min these areas. The alternative ring is more evenly Threelargely complete burials, one also including spaced, the posts being mostly around3mapart, bones from an infant, were found withinthe area with one or two slightly wider gaps. The entrance enclosed by the house,although the headofburial posts are2.7 mand 3.0 mapart, so that the entrance 2241 was missing,and in the relevant place was itself must have been between 2.2 mand 2.7 mwide. apostholeattributedtothe latest phase of the There is an inner ring within the roundhouse structure, which might suggest that the burials were approximately 8mindiameter, most of the posts earlier.Infact, the burialsall date to the 4th or 3rd spacedat1.5–2 mintervals, but with a3mgap on centuryBC, and although different authorities have the north-west. This is slightly oval, being 1.5 mor proposed different end dates forearly Iron Age less from the main post-ring at the north and south, ceramics (Harding 1972; Lambrick 1984), only the but 2mon the west. very end of the early Iron Age overlaps with the date The entrancetothe roundhouse is on the south. range of these burials, most of the range belonging This is arelatively uncommon orientation, the vast with middle Iron Age ceramic forms and fabrics. majority of roundhouses in the Upper ThamesValley These burials are therefore unlikely to have been having entrances that face either east or south-east foundation burials, and it is doubtful whether they (Hingley and Miles 1984, 63; Oswald 1997, fig. 10.2). were madewhile the structure was still in use. If the Recentlyboth Fitzpatrick (1997) and Oswald (1997) burialsweredirectlyconnected with the building, as have suggested that thispreference has symbolic their position suggests, theymay eitherhave been significance, although Oswald has pointed out that on made when the structurewentout of use, possibly as some sites interrelationships between buildings ap- propitiatory rituals, or have madeuse of the still- pear to be more importantthan other considerations. standing walls to help mark out whatwas anew This appears to be the case with another local south- type of burialinthispart of Britain in the Iron Age, facing house at Hardwick, Oxon. (Allen and Robinson perhaps requiring its own particular rituals of sep- 1993), but no such factors are evident from the arationand containment. excavated areaatSpring Road. Apossible parallel for this situationexists less than The postholes forming an outerring may indicate 5kmtothe west at Noah’sArk, Frilford, where the an approximate diameter of 14 m. The spacing of the crouched burial of ayoung adolescent and fragments outer ringposts varies widely, as does the diameter of anew-born child were buried closetothe north and of the postholes. It is difficult to construct around- south sides respectively of astake-circle 9.5 min house of this diameterwithoutaninner ring of posts, diameter with an entrance 2mwide on the south-east and more so if the outer ring doesnot have evenly side (Harding 1987, fig. 3and pages7–8). Both early

77 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery and middleIron Age pottery was recovered from this narrower slot had been excavatedupon which to site, but the predominance of middle Iron Age forms rest the head before it was cut through by alater and fabrics led Harding to date the stake-circle and posthole. burialstothe 2nd-1stcenturies BC (ibid., 12–13). In his The infant bones included with the child burial are earlier thesis,Harding had interpreted the burialsas very unlikely to have been incorporated accidentally. being associated with the circle, and having aritual No stray human bones were recovered from other purpose (Harding 1972, 64), but in his later report he features within the excavationarea, so it is likely that revisedthis view, and due to its large size and the use the infant bones were purposelygatheredand of stakes generallyless than 150mmindiameter, included in the grave. The presence of only partof interpreted the stake-circle not as ahouse but as apen the skeleton couldpartly be the result of later or enclosureofsome sort (Harding 1987, 7–9). The truncation, but this infant was not recognisedasa significance of the associated burials is notfurther group of articulated bones within the grave fill, commented upon. suggesting that bones were gathered for incorpora- Another possibleassociation of apostholebuilding tion afterthe body had become disarticulated.Both and aburial occurred at Barton CourtFarm on the east immediate burial of complete bodies and exposure side of Abingdon. Here acrouched inhumation was followed later by partialburial therefore appear to foundwithin an area of postholes possibly defining a have beencontemporary rites in local Iron Age circular building, though due to truncation by Roman society. features the shape was not entirely clear (Miles 1986, Groups of skeletons in purpose-dug graves(in Microfiche C: 3–4 and fig. 76). The structure was dated otherwordscemeteries) were until recently unknown to the late Iron Age,but the burial was undated, and in the Upper Thames Valley. Agroup of 35 inhuma- though believedtobecontemporary, maypossibly tions in purpose-dug graves at Yarnton, Oxfordshire, have beenearlier. has howeverrecently beenshown throughradio- Although only three have been excavated, this carbondating to be 4th or 3rd century BC (Hey et al. group of purpose-dug graves can be described as 1999). Almost all of the graveswere crouched or asmall cemetery of 3rd or 4th century BC date. In flexed,orientednorth-south, and all were without addition to the dated skeletons, there were at least grave-goods. The gravesrepresent amixture of adult two more crouched burials found, one some 60 mto men, women, adolescentsand children, and are the west accompanied by sherds of early Iron Age interpreted as arepresentative cross-section of the pottery, another asimilar distancetothe north-west local population (see also ‘Detailed report’, Table 17). in 1999. Given the presence of aBeaker crouched Only neonates were not included; these were buried burial accompanied only by an awl, it is clearly im- separately within the adjacent settlement. Amongst possible to be certain that the latter grave was not the Yarntonburialsthere were two distinct concen- BronzeAge or evenNeolithic, but further Iron Age trations 20 mapart, one of 15 graves in an area14m burialsonthe site seemprobable. by 25 m, the otherof10gravesinanarea 25 mby25m, The three largely complete skeletons include two with the remaining 10 inhumations scattered over a individuals crouched on their sides, and one laid on wider area. The concentrations were not in neat rows, his back with the knees drawn up and the head bent though some immediately adjacent graveswere forward, resting on the end of the grave.This could alignedwithone another. be viewed simply as acrouched burial in the vertical The character of the Yarnton cemetery mayprovide plane,but arange of skeletons in seated, bent over amodel for the type of cemetery found at this site, and other positions have been foundrecently in with small groups of clustered burials just outside the France,mirroring imagesonpotin coins and statuet- contemporary settlement focus and awider scatter of tes, suggesting that such variations in the position of others aroundthe periphery of the settlement itself. the dead are more significant (Lambot 2000). One At SpringRoad the dateofthe burialsmay reflectthe of Lambot’s interpretations for agroup of sitting end of Iron Age occupationatthe site, but thisisnot burialswas that these were buried facing the rising the caseatYarnton, where the settlement continued sun. At Spring Road the individual buried on his until the end of the Iron Age. The similar date range back was facing due south, not towards the rising of the two cemeteries may instead represent the sun, but on the same orientation as the roundhouse common adoption of anew burial rite in thispart of within whoseareathe burials were found. The the Upper ThamesValley during the middle Iron orientations of the bodies at SpringRoad varied, the Age, thoughonthe limited evidence availableitdoes otheryoung adult male having his headtothe west- not appear to have lastedfor long. north-west, the child with its head to the south-east. Early Iron Age settlements are now known to be The child and the adultonhis back were both numerous in and around Abingdon, indeed apattern moderately crouched, the knees of the otheradult of sites no more than 2kmapartisnow evident (skeleton 2243) were more tightly drawn up, pro- on the gravel terraces, situatedalongside the north- bably to fit intothe relatively narrow grave.None of south tributaries draining intothe rivers Ock and the skeletons howevershowed signs of having been Thames(Fig. 46). The settlementatSpring Road is bound. It is unclear whether the head of skeleton imperfectly known, but on present evidence is differ- 2243 was removed before burial,asthe grave profile ent from neighbouring settlements such as Ashville/ itself might suggest, or whether ashallowerand Wyndyke Furlong, where there were substantial

78 Chapter Six numbers of enclosures surroundedbygullies and visible within the cemetery site to throw light on the numerous deepcircular pits. Only asingle such pit wider form of the settlement, and to the south the was found within the Spring Road excavated area, groundwas taken over by burials, but geophysical although ascatter of others were reported by the survey did reveal linear anomalies on the same cemetery gravediggers, and have produced pottery alignment within the allotments to the west that to support this dating(seefor instance Fig. 31, 13). could well representfurther enclosures (Fig. 42). The fragmentary curving gully at the north end of Beyond the cemetery site north of this there is a Area 8may indicate another roundhouseenclosure, significant drop in ground level, apparently created but the absence of any Iron Age activityinArea 5 when the adjacent school was built,which may have makes it unlikely that the excavatedsite lay at the truncated any archaeological features, as there were edge of adense cluster of pits and roundhouse no geophysical anomalies in this area. The absence of gullies like those at Ashville or Wyndyke Furlong similar gullies or any Roman activityinthe north- acrossthe Larkhill Stream, or at Gravelly Guy,Stan- ernmost excavation area (Area 5) may however ton Harcourt (Parrington1978; Muir and Roberts indicate that this was close to the northern limit of 1999; Lambrick and Allen 2005). the settlement; there was also adearth of archae- Very little evidence of the environmentand ologicalactivity in the evaluation trench dug in 1990 economy of the Iron Age settlement was recovered. west of Area 5. The animal bones indicated the presence of the main domesticates, with sheep predominating, as Date and status of the Roman activity occurred at Ashville and WyndykeFurlong nearby (WilsoninParrington 1978, 136). Onetree-throw The phasing is complicated by the presence of two hole contained alarge sherd of late Bronze Age/ later-4th-century coins found in the ditches. The AE3 early Iron Age pottery, and if not residual, this may Valens coin from context 1154 (intervention1153) indicate that some trees had established themselves came from the secondary fill of the ditch,which on the site, possibly following aphase of ploughing mighthave beenopen for aconsiderable length of in the late Bronze Age,and were thencleared to time, or mighthave incorporated later material make way for the settlement. Charcoal indicatesthe falling down cracks or carried down by root action. presence of oak woodland, together with hawthorn, The coin from 1098 (intervention 1099) is more in the vicinity (Chapter 4). problematic as it came from low downwithin the Other than the burials, there is one pit tentatively ditch,and from afill otherwise containing alarge dated to the middle Iron Age on the basis of the depositofunabraded 2nd-and 3rd-century pottery. pottery fabrics (605). This sparse evidence possibly The surface condition of the coin (a brassy finish, and indicatesthat settlement was becoming nucleatedat cleanedsurface with no corrosion), seems extra- the extensive Ashville/Wyndyke Furlong site. A ordinaryconsidering the soil from which it was similar processofnucleation has been suggested apparently recovered,and suggests that it was under Abingdon town centre with the apparent planted in the ditch and actually has an unknown abandonment of the early Iron Age site at Audlett provenance. Drive (Keevill 1992), and the expansionofthe The Romanpottery is typical of low-statussites; Vineyard settlementadjacent (Allen 2000, 11). there are few fineand specialist wares, items like the Followingthe discovery of alate Iron Age/early mortaria being foundonalmostevery low-status site Romandefendedoppidum under the town centre, in the region(Henigand Booth 2000, 153). The lack the pottery from Ashville (De Roche 1978) has been of more prestigious waresand otherluxury metal reassessed, and it is now clear that occupation items suggests that the site was rural and low-status continued on that site through the late Iron Age in character. and into the early Romanperiod (Timby 1999, 38). It would therefore appear that settlementcontinued to Layout and orientation of the enclosures be concentrated west of the Larkhill Stream until the late 1st/early 2nd century AD, when occupation The ditches and gullies are oriented predominantly again becomesevidentatSpring Road. on aNNW –SSE and ENE–WSW alignment, the system datingtothe 2nd century AD. In the western half of the excavated areathis alignment was super- THE ROMAN ENCLOSURESYSTEM IN AREAS seded by two ditches forming anew boundaryona 8AND 9 NNE –SSW and ESE –WNW alignment in the late- by Zena Kamash and Tim Allen 2nd century/early-3rdcentury.Itisclear that the later system was tacked onto the earlier,asthe Extentofthe Roman occupation ditches of the later alignment join thoseofthe earlier Aseries of coaxial/rectilinear ditches, gullies and at the north end of the excavation, and aditch at fence-lines define the 2nd- and 3rd-century occupa- right angles to this later boundary stops shortofthe tion at SpringRoad. Theditches of this system earlier boundary, creating atriangular enclosure bet- continued northwards,southwards and westwards ween them. Aparallel forthis oddly-shaped en- beyond the limitsofexcavation, and were truncated closuremay have existedlocally at Appleford Field on the east by medieval pits.There are no cropmarks (Hinchcliffe and Thomas 1980, figs 3and 13), where

79 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery area. the in sites Age Iron to relation in Road Spring 46 Figure

80 Chapter Six the trackway and enclosure boundaries converged late-2nd-/early-3rd-century enclosures were revealed north of the excavatedarea. Although at Spring in their entirety, but theyalso seemtohave been Road the later boundaries do not physically cut rectangular or square. Fromthe elements of these ditches of the earlier system, theycut diagonally later enclosures that are visible, it seems likely that acrossenclosures of the earlier system, and had the they were of similar dimensions to the earlier enclo- earlier enclosure boundaries still been extant, would sures.Agroup of threepossible rectangularenclo- have createdsmall and irregular-shaped areas bet- sures were indicated by the geophysical survey to ween them.Itistherefore likely that the earlier enclo- the west, all approximately 36 meast-west by 19 or sures west of the main NNW-SSEboundarywent 20 mnorth-south. out of use at this time. Asmall group of subrectangular enclosures were The alignment of the enclosures may have been foundinthe late Iron Age and Romanphases based upon the course of the Larkhill Stream,which at Ashville over the Larkhill Stream to the west runs southwards towards the river Ock only 200 m (Parrington 1978, figs 2and 3). These were slightly or so to the west (see Fig. 47). Nowadays this stream larger, from 32 by 27 mupto c 37 by 40 m(minimum), runs SSE from the A34 north of the site, veering to and were defined by much more substantial ditches. the SSW as it passes the site,and thenkinking SSE At the Vineyard in central Abingdonthe settlement again south of Spring Road down to the Ock. If the within the late Iron Age and early Romandefensive streamhas not changed its course, it is possible that ditches was laidout as aseries of rectangular or the earlier alignment of Romanditches was related subrectangular enclosures. The layoutwas modified to the line of the Larkhill Stream as it approached the frequently, and few complete enclosures survived site from the north; localsreport much Roman the later diggingofamedieval moat, but several material observedwhen the playing field was con- enclosures were 11–12 mwide and 23–25 mlong structed, andthe settlement may have continued, (Allen 1990, fig. 3). TheSpringRoad enclosures are and the boundaries have been laid out, from afocus also comparable to the small later 2nd-century enclo- furthertothe north-west. The later shift in alignment sures excavated at Roughground Farm, Lechlade, may have been to realign the settlementwith the line Gloucestershire, which measured 17 mby27m of the Larkhill Stream immediately west of the site, (Allen et al. 1993, 187). as the stream changescourse below the junction of The fence-lines are generallyeitherparallel to or at its two arms,which lay approximately opposite the right angles to the ditches and gullies, and some- junction of the two boundaryditches at Spring Road. times continue their lines, acting as extensions.Des- West of the Larkhill Stream the Romanbound- pite the shortage of Romanfinds from the postholes, aries revealedbyexcavations at Ashville (Parrington one of these alignments (631) is stratigraphically 1978) and Wyndyke Furlong (Muir and Roberts earlier than aRomanditch, and it is therefore likely 1999) are rather fragmentary, but appear to follow that many of the others are also Roman. Theuse of apredominantly north-south alignment (Fig. 47). fences as extensions for ditched enclosures has also Those closest to the line of the streamdonot respect been notedlocally at Gravelly Guy,Stanton Har- its line,but are alignedeither sideofatrackway, court in association with 1st-century AD enclosures which if projected would suggest acrossing point to (Lambrick and Allen 2005). the north beneath the modern A34. This alignment began with asmall middle Iron Age enclosure (Muir Nature and function of the site and Roberts 1999, Figure 2.4), and was reinforced by the appearance of trackway ditches and adjacent The enclosures at Ashville were interpreted by the enclosures or fields in the 1st century AD,sothe excavator as aseries of fields (Parrington 1978, 36), crossing andalignment was in existence before the although he recognised that some of themwere Romansettlement on the Spring Road side began. associated with pits, and alarge assemblage of Furthersouth at WyndykeFurlong an early Roman pottery was recovered in fresh condition from both boundaryditch ran east-west approximately in line ditches and pits.This last association suggests that with the junction of the two arms of the Larkhill asettlement focus lay veryclose by, and these Stream. The early Roman ditches at Ashville ran enclosures mayhave been part of the settlement slightlysouth of east, again at rightangles to the complex itself. Ditches at the north end of Wyndyke adjacent stream, but the 2nd centuryRomanditches Furlong and at Lambourn Court, however, which run more NNW,parallel to those at SpringRoad had few associated features and contained few acrossthe river. Alimited watching brief upon finds, are more likely to be field boundaries. Clear construction at Lambourn Court also revealedditches examples of Roman fields with preserved plough- on an approximately N-S alignment, which although soils or ard marks have been identified at Drayton undated were probably also parts of this system. Cursus and at Yarnton (Barclay et al. 2003; Hey 1993, At Spring Road this network of ditches, gullies 84). In neither casewere there associated features, and fence-lines createdatleast five 2nd-century and finds from the ditches were few. The Roman enclosures and threelate-2nd/early-3rd-century en- fields at Drayton,which were used first for arable closures (Figs 15–16). The 2nd-century enclosures and later forpasture,were 90 mwideand at least as were rectangularoralmost square and varied in size long; those at Yarnton generally more than 100 min from 20.2 mby11.2 mto23.2 mby25.2 m. No whole either direction (Hey pers. comm.). Although ‘Celtic’

81 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery sites. adjacent and Road Spring at enclosures Roman 47 Figure

82 Chapter Six

fields are small, the Spring Road enclosures are notedatthe Vicarage Field, Stanton Harcourt, clearly too small to have functioned effectively as Oxfordshire(Thomas 1955, 9–11). fields. At Yarnton aline of small rectangularenclo- The otherditches and gullies on the site,however, sures around25mby 40 mwere found, but these lay contained littleornopottery. This is unlikely to be adjacent to the main domestic enclosures, and were the result of later recutting,ofwhich there is little clearly partofthe settlement. evidence on the site, and since the large assemblages With the exception of the fence-lines, no coherent of finds from ditches came from throughout their fills, structures couldbediscernedfromthe palimpsest only the shallowest gullies may possibly have had the of postholes at Spring Road. One reason for the lack character of their fills significantlyaffected by later of identifiable structures, which are also lacking in truncation. For the 2nd centuryphase it is therefore many other1st and 2nd century rural low-status possible eitherthat the focus of the 2nd-century settlements in Oxfordshire, may be the techniques domestic activity lay outside the excavationarea, used in the construction of buildings of this period. perhaps destroyed by the medieval gravel-extraction At the Vineyard in central Abingdon, where huge pits to the east, or that the enclosures were fields and quantities of domestic debris were recoveredfrom the there was no domestic activityonthe site at thistime. ditches, no post-built buildings were identified, The gravel-pits do not, however, seem to account although painted walldaub with wattle impressions satisfactorily for the low density of postholes in the indicatesthat buildings were present. Asubrectan- eastern sector of the site because north of the pits in gular platform of cobbles of Iron Age origin, remade Area 8there is also alack of postholes. It would seem twice intothe early Roman period, may however then that the postholes are restricted by the central indicate timber-sill construction.Buildings constru- Romanditches to the western sector of the site. cted upon horizontal timber sills, whose shallow Market garden plots, storage areas or paddocks timber slots survived, were foundatDorchester-on- for containing animals with young are possible other Thamesnearby (Frere 1984), but evidence of this type uses given the small size of these enclosures. Al- is unlikely to have survived the ploughing at Spring though some of the ditches seemtoo shallowtohave Road. acted as barriers foranimals, particularly those in At Gravelly Guy,Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire, the north-east of Area 8(groups 2583,2584, 2585 four 1st-century AD enclosures were excavated, none and 2586), parallel fence-linesmay in some cases of which contained structural evidence (Lambrick have provided further barriers, and others may have and Allen 2005). It was howeversuggested that these been accompanied by hedges.Evidence for hedges enclosures did containstructures that may have been usuallytakes the form of shallowirregular linear mass-walled, as at Hod Hill in Dorset(Richmond disturbances,which may not have survivedlater 1968). Mass-wall construction techniques, such as truncation. Charcoal fromthe site did howeverindi- cob construction,build from ground-levelorrequire cate threespecies of thorny shrubthat could have only shallowly-based posts, and therefore leave come from hedges(Chapter 4). little or no trace below ground (Henig and Booth Environmental evidence forthe settlement overall 2000, 82). is limited. Charcoal indicates that both oak and Despite the lack of structural evidence it is likely beech were presentinthe vicinity –the latter the first that the small enclosures at Spring Road related to positive identification in the Upper ThamesValley domestic activity, due to the concentrations of pottery, during this period –and several species of thorny including partly reconstructible vessels, at the term- shrub(Chapter 4). Animal bones show the presence inals of two ditches at rightangles, ditch group 1627 of the main domesticates, with sheep continuing to (cut 1077) and group 1629 (intervention1101). The two predominate (Chapter 4). This is apattern also shared almost certainly form partofone enclosure. The only by the Roman settlement at Abingdon Vineyard othersizeable pottery assemblage came fromasecon- below the town centre, but notbyBartonCourt Farm dary fill withinditch group 1626 (cut1153), and may to the east of the town, where cattle become more also have beencontemporarydebris.Thisiscorrobo- importantinthe Roman period (Wilson in Miles rated by the animal bone evidence, which suggests 1986). Charred plant remainswerefew, but include that human activity was concentrated around these spelt wheat in one of the ditches; this is the preferred main ditches and aroundposthole groups 2715 and varietyinthe Iron Age,but was increasinglysup- 2716 (Chapter 4). planted by bread wheat during the Romanperiod, Concentrations of domestic finds at the terminals for instance at Barton Court Farm. Overall the im- of penannular gullies of the Iron Age have long been pression is of atraditional pattern of farming conti- argued to indicate house sites(eg at Roughground nuing late prehistoric practices. Farm, Lechlade,Gloucestershire, Allen et al. 1993, 51 and 179; see also Allen et al. 1984, fig. 6.3). This pat- The Roman enclosure system in its wider context tern also appears to continueinto the early Roman (Fig. 48) period: at Old Shifford Farm, for instance,domestic debris was concentrated at the terminals of asucces- The SpringRoad site has avery different Roman sion of D-shaped enclosures containing postholes, historycompared to most othersites in the Abing- argued to represent ahouse-site (Hey 1995, 102–12 don area. Abingdon, like Dorchester-on-Thames, was and 168–9). Similar patterns of deposition were also very important at the end of the Iron Age and saw

83 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery Abingdon. around sites Roman 48 Figure

84 Chapter Six continued occupation into the early Romanperiod described as ‘a further stage in aprocessofbreak (Henigand Booth 2000, 75). Many of the early Roman up of earlier, Iron Age structures, in the context of a sites previously excavated in the Abingdon area more capital intensive systeminvolving amuch however show evidence of an hiatus or at least asig- more complexsocial, economicand political infra- nificantdecreaseinactivity in the mid-2nd century structure’ (Lambrick 1992, 105; Henig and Booth AD: Ashville Trading Estate/Wyndyke Furlong 2000, 109–110). Other rural settlements around (Parrington 1978, 36; reinterpretation of the ceramic Abingdon that on present evidence may appear in evidence: Henig and Booth 2000, 107; Muir and the 2ndcenturyinclude one at Radley(Benson and Roberts 1999, 37), Barton CourtFarm (Miles 1986, 49; Miles1974, map 31), an enclosureonAndersey Henig and Booth 2000,84), Eight Acre Field, Radley Island (Ainslie 1991), and possibly the line of enclo- (Mudd et al. 1995, 38), Drayton North Cursus sures or ‘ladder-settlement’ east of Gooseacre Farm, (Barclay et al. 2003) and even Abingdon town centre Radley(Benson and Miles1974, map 31). (Henigand Booth 2000, 71 discussing Abingdon Vineyard). It has beensuggested that this may have SAXON PERIOD been due to Frilford/Marcham supplanting Abing- by Zena Kamash and Tim Allen don as alocal centre because Frilford/Marcham was muchcloser to amajor Romanroad (Henigand The Saxon period at SpringRoad was represented by Booth 2000, 75). two sunken-featured buildings in Area 8and other At Spring Road,however, the ceramic evidence concentrations of Saxon pottery in Areas 3and 4. In points to aclear hiatus in settlement from the end of addition, one pit of Saxon datewas identified in the middleIron Age until the 2nd century AD, and Area 9during the 1994 AAAHS excavations. All of occupation limited to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. these features and their associated finds appear to be Abreakinoccupationonlong-established sites at of 6th-centurydate. Fifth-century domesticactivity aroundAD130 is also evident acrossmuchofthe is known from the centre of town at the Vineyard, Upper ThamesValley (Henig and Booth 2000, 106), and early 5th-century burials were found at the and as acorollary asubstantial number of rural Saxton Road cemetery only some 600 mfrom the settlement sites were established in the 2nd century site south of the river Ock (Leeds and Harden 1936, AD and remained stable into the later Romanperiod 5; Chadwick Hawkes 1986, 73–4), but on present ( ibid.). It would seem, therefore, that SpringRoad evidence the Saxon activityatSpringRoad appears falls into thislatter group of sites, possibly acting as a to representa6th century re-occupation of asite not new focus for the group formerly settledatAshville. inhabited since Roman times, unlike the suggested The reason for thismid-2nd-century dislocation continuity at Barton Court Farm east of Abingdon in Abingdon is not entirely clear. Although it is (Miles 1986, 51). still possible that Abingdon saw adecrease in im- portance in the mid-2nd century with the rise of The sunken-featured buildings (SFBs) Frilford/Marchamasanew local centre, why should activitydiminish on established sites and new acti- Both SFBs(2008 in the north and 2687 in the south) vity occur on alternative sites?AsHenig and Booth were rectangular with rounded corners andhad point out, none of the listed early Roman settle- dimensions of 3.05 mby2.26 mby0.28 m(2008) and ments that apparently show ahiatus has been 3.12 mby2.90 mby0.26 m. These dimensions are completely excavated, and the dating of the apparent approximately average for SFBs and are comparable re-planning is not precise. It is alternatively possible to two out of three SFBs foundbeyond St Helen’s that these settlements shifted focus individually over Church to the south in Abingdon (Rahtz 1976, 75 afew decades. Locallyitmay be more of achange in and app. 1, 408). Threeslightly smaller and square character of existing settlements, or at leastonly very SFBs have beenexcavatedatAudlett Drive, Abing- local movement within farming units, than complete don (Keevill1992,62). In addition, sevenlarger SFBs abandonment and relocation. ( c 3mby 4m)were excavated at BartonCourt Farm, Within Abingdon town new masonry Romanised Abingdon (Miles 1986, 16). Other SFBsidentified in buildings were being erected at Abingdon Vineyard the surroundingarea include 2from the Abingdon and East St. Helen’s Street early in the second cen- Vineyard excavations,60from Barrow Hills, Radley tury (Allen 1990, 74; Wilson and Wallis 1991), and at and 33 from Sutton Courtenay (Allen 1990, 74; the peripheryofthe town there was clearlyanexpan- Chambers and Halpin 1986, 111; Leeds 1947, 79) (see sion in the area of Roman settlement in the second Fig. 49). The southern SFB (2687) at Spring Road century, concomitant with the apparent declinein typically had the postholes in its short sides on the intensity of activity in areas occupied in the 1st east-west axis. This is the commonest type of SFB centuryAD. It maybethat the appearanceofthese (Rahtz 1976, 75); at Mucking and West Stow,for Romanised buildings marks the movement of the example, the highest proportion of SFBswere of this local aristocracy into the town, and areorganisation type (Hamerow 1993, 10; West 1985, 113). Thetwo of rural estates including the creation of separate, postholes have been interpreted as ridge-pole sup- new settlements for the farm workers. The Spring ports (Rahtz 1976, 75). Road settlement may therefore be an expression of The northern SFB (2008) was slightly atypical since this new social order, part of what Lambrick there were two postholes in the western end. This is

85 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery arare phenomenon, but can be paralleledatMucking, modern grave 3511 (4 M7)indicateseither that a Essexwhere sevenSFBsout of atotal of 203 had Saxon feature contemporary with the backfilling of double gable posts (Hamerow 1993, 10f). Both of the the SFB was disturbed by the modern grave,orthat SpringRoad SFBs appeared to containadditional some rubbish was dug out and redeposited on posts, and in 2687 there were also possible postpads. occasions. Given the relatively well-preserved sherds Only eight SFBs at Mucking had additional support- from these upper fills, the formerseems more likely ing posts set within the floor area (Hamerow 1993, 11), in this case. but thisfeature was also presentatlocally at Barton The animal bone and pottery assemblages from Court Farm and at Audlett Drive (Miles 1986, 35; the primaryfill (2686) of 2687 were muchsmaller, Keevill 1992, 62). As Keevill notes, if these posts are and the average sherd size was also smaller. The additional supports for the ridge pole, thenthey primaryfill of 2687 was 0.3 mthick, thicker than the preclude the provision of asuspended floor above the two upper fills, and thisemphasises the low density pit (1992, 77). Thereare howevernoclues at Spring of material within this deposit. This fill was also Road as to whatfunction these additional posts may more compacted than the layers above, perhaps have served, nor is it certain that they were con- indicating abuild up of soil over aconsiderable temporarywith the use of the structures. length of time. The character of thisdepositsuggests The function of the SFBs at SpringRoad is also that the SFB was left open forsome time before being uncertain. Weaving equipment is often associated back-filled with rubbish, and so might have been in with SFBs (Rahtz 1976, 76); local examplesoccur at use somewhat earlier than the material dumped in both the AbingdonVineyard and at Barton Court its upper fills. Farm (Allen 1990, 74; Miles1986, 35). At Spring The greater compaction of this deposit, and the Road, however, neither SFB produced artefacts asso- smaller size of the finds withinit, couldalternatively ciated with weaving. The animal bone assemblages be interpreted as indicating an in situ accumulation from the SFBs do show more evidence of butchery of occupationdebris on or below the floor. The lack than otherboneassemblages on the site (Chapter 4: of surfaces within the deposit, however, or of clear Charles). Theassemblages are still mixed, however, horizons of occupationmaterial, argues against the and are more likely to represent mixed domestic former. At Barton Court Farm there was no trace of debris than solely butchery debris ( ibid.). Overall, build-upofoccupation debris and the excavatorfelt both the small and large animal bone assemblages that this was due to the fact that the ‘huts’ must have probablyderived from general domestic activity, been cleanedregularly (Miles 1986, 35). At Mucking, rather than special or specific activities. Furthermore, the majority of finds and workshop debris came as noted at BartonCourt Farm, ‘it is dangerous to from upper fills, and it was thought that only very draw conclusions about the function of buildings few SFBscontained an occupation layer(Hamerow on the basis of re-deposited rubbish within them’ 1993, 14). At West Stow, however, more finds were (Miles 1986, 35). recorded from the primaryfills, which were fine- There is amarkeddifference between the deposition grained and homogeneous, leadingthe excavatorto patterns of the SFBs.Although very similar in depth to believe that the primaryfill did notrepresent the use 2687, and unlikely to have beentruncated to agreater of the pit as arefuse dump afterithad gone out of degree, SFB 2008 contained only one fill, whereas 2687 use, but consisted of material that had accumulated contained three fills. In addition, SFB 2687 produced below the suspendedplank floor of the building more than 4.5 times the amount of pottery than 2008 during use (West 1985, 119). This patternofinfill (Table 9). Asimilar discrepancy is visible in the large could however indicate that SFBs were reused for animalbone assemblage, three times as many animal rubbish-disposal immediately, rather than that the bones coming from 2687 than from 2008. finds necessarily derivefrom in situ activity. With The upper fills of SFB 2687 contained the majority only two SFBs at Spring Road it is impossible to of the ecofactualand artefactual material. Across- deduceapattern to the use of these structures at fitting sherd between layer2672 within 2687 and this site.

Table 9Comparison of finds from Sunken-Featured Buildings 2687 and2008.

Material SFB 2687 SFB 2008

2686 2673 2703 2672 SFB 2687 2009=2010=2479=2480 SFB 2008 primary secondaryfinds ref. tertiary Total Total

Pottery 15 81 50 147 293 55 55 (185 g) (1503 g) (798 g) (2287 g) (4727 g) (1025 g) (1025 g) Animal bone 23 158 177 604 357 114 114 (bulk) Animal bone 125 522 –201 848 394 394 (sieved)

86 Chapter Six

The features potentially associated with the SFBs Saxon buildings (Miles 1986, 16–18 and fig. 13; at Spring Road are also of interest. Both SFBs have Chambers and McAdam 2007, 68–9and fig. 3.8). At postholes aroundthe outside of the pit (see Fig. 14), both of these sites the sunken-featuredbuildings although as these are not clearly dated they may not were accompanied by avariety of postholerectan- be contemporary. Despite lookingfor evidence for gular buildings, although at Barton Court Farm even external walls, none was foundatBarrowHills, the best-preserved buildings were incomplete, and Radleynor at Barton CourtFarm (Chambers and cornerposts were frequentlylacking. Similar struc- Halpin1986, 111; Miles1986, 35). If genuinely tures might be expectedatSpring Road, and it associated, these mightlend support to West’s inter- is possible to suggest tentative building outlines pretation of SFBs as largertimber buildings with amongst the many postholes (Figs 14 and 15–16), partly-cellared interiors,although West himself although none is entirely convincing. Due to the argues that postholes forearth-fast posts are mainly uncertainty, however, further discussion is unwar- of value during construction,and are not really ranted. necessary once the building is up (West 2001, 72). Asmall quantity of fired clay, onefragment These postholes could howeversimply represent bearing awattle impression, was found within one fenced areas surrounding the structures. of the SFBs, but this need nothave derivedfrom the Several of the tentative linesofpostholes within superstructureofthe building. Generally fired clay the site contained small Saxon sherds, and it is and daub is only found at afew early to middle possible that these were Saxon fence lines. Thefact Anglo-Saxon sites (Hamerow 1993, 13), perhaps indi- that these fence linesshare the same alignment as cating that this was not the predominant material Romanditches may be due to the persistence of used for the walls of these structures. West did how- these boundaries into the Late Romanand early ever find evidence of clay walling adjacent to hearths Saxon period as hedges. At Barton Court Farm, at West Stow (West 2001, 17, 22 and 72), and one Abingdon and BarrowHills, Radley, fences rather internal oven, from which such fired clay could have than ditches formedenclosures aroundsome of the derived.

Figure 49 Spring Roadinrelation to Saxon sites around Abingdon.

87 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

The position of SFB 2687 astride the double Roman MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL PERIODS boundaryditches strongly suggests that this bound- by Tim Allen ary had disappeared long before. The location of SFB 2008 within the middleBronze Age timber circle is Groups of pits, some open at the sametime, others likely to be fortuitous.Ithas often beenobservedthat intercutting,covered aconsiderable areadownthe older monuments were important to the Anglo- east side of the site. Despite this, the excavated Saxonsand it has been said that ‘the correlation sampleofthese pits produced relatively few finds. between important prehistoric sites of the [Upper The finds were very mixed and included pottery Thames] region and the importantAnglo-Saxon ones ranging in date from the Bronze Age to the 13th is uncanny.’ (Blair1994, xxiv, xxv). This can be seen centuryAD, as well as animal bone and flint. The for example at Barrow Hills, Radley, Sutton Courte- fills of the pits were either friable or loose sandy silt nay and Saxton Road (Blair1994, 20; Leeds 1947; deposits or redeposited lenses of natural gravel, and Leeds and Harden 1936, 9). In this case, however, the fills often spread between two or more intercutt- there is no evidence that the circle,orindeed a ing pits.The low density of finds in the pits makes it moundsurrounded by it, would still have been in highly unlikely that these pits were usedfor the existence in the Anglo-Saxon period, and since there deposition of rubbish. The irregular shapes and sizes is no indication that SFB 2687 was dug into amound, of the pits also contrasts with the regular shape of the similar depth of bothSFBsatthissite strongly cesspits and rubbishpits foundassociatedwith suggests that there was none below 2008 either. tenements in Abingdon. Of particular note, is astamped unstratified sherd One plausible interpretation was that these pits collected during modern grave-digging on the site. were dug in repeated visits to extract gravel on a This sherd has been identified as having a‘like small scale, possiblybyindividual householders. stamp’withanother small sherd foundatSutton The lenses of redeposited natural gravel may seem Courtenay some 9kmtothe south (see Chapter 3, rather anomalous, but several explanations present Fig. 38, and Fig. 49). Afind of this kind is excep- themselves: erosion of the sides of the pits over time, tionally rare. The sherd from Sutton Courtenay was shovelling of gravel being extracted intoadjacent retrievedduring the latter phases of Leeds’ excava- partially-filled pits before carting it away or dump- tions, but sadly no stratified location is given in the ing of unwanted gravel back into openpits. Similarly report (Leeds 1947, pl. XXII(b)). There is, however, a irregular groups of pits have been observed during description of House XXI, which was muchlarger redevelopmentofthe MG works west of the Larkhill than the other SFBs excavated and which contained a Stream, where theywere dated to the late Roman ‘basket-like pen with alarge massofclay’ (Leeds period (Halpin pers. comm.), and on the east side of 1947, 83). The presence of this installation led Leeds Abingdon Abbeyprecinct south of the Vineyard (OA to interpret the ‘house’ as apotter’sworkshop on 2005), where they also date to the 13th century. analogy with similar installations foundatDorches- The extent of these intercuttingpits,and the wide ter ( ibid.). It is tempting, but highly speculative,to date range of the pottery found within them, supposethat the stamp was made in that workshop. strongly suggests that they truncated or obliterated What we can say with confidence is that some form earlier features in this areaofthe site. This partly of tradelink existed between Sutton Courtenay explains the low numbersofearlier prehistoric and Spring Road,Abingdon, whether involving the features on the site and the lack of Romanenclosure pots themselves or the contents of the pots. The ditches in the south-eastern areaofthe site. While, limited evidence from Spring Road,however, makes however, the pits certainly containresidual material, it very difficult to define further links between the this does not appear to occur in any obvious con- two sites. centrations of one period or another. Furthermore, Considerable environmental evidence has been the pits do not seem to account satisfactorily for the retrievedfor the economy and environmentofthe low density of postholes in the eastern sector of the Saxon settlement, even though it has come from only site, as the areanorth of the pits in Area 8also con- two buildings withinthe settlement. This indicates a tains few postholes. It would seemthen that the post- mixed farming economy, with sheepand pigs pre- holes were restricted by the central Romanditches to dominantamongst the livestock, which may indicate the western sideofthe site, perhaps indicating that more woodland locally than in previous periods. the domestic activity was also concentrated west of Sloe and hawthorn were amongstthe charcoal,and the boundary. were probably collected locally as fuel, as well as oak The site lay outside the known limits of the town and hazel; bothfruits and nutsmay also have been during the medieval period. In Munby’s recons- harvested. The weeds of wet ground need only truction of the medieval fieldsystem of Abingdon indicate the use of the lower-lying ground alongside (Lambrick and Slade 1991, fig. 4) he does notname the Larkhill Stream for fodder, though bread wheat, this particular land parcel,and it lies outside the barley and either beansorpeas were grown, and main West or North fields of the town, though it lies cultivated plots may have included these low-lying adjacent to Hitching Field (Fig. 50). It is possible that areas immediately adjacent to the site. Asingle this patch of groundwas peripheraltothe main eel bone suggests that the inhabitants also fished three fieldsystem, either one of thosefields reserved seasonally on the river Ock (Chapter 4). for additional cultivation depending upon local

88 Chapter Six Fields). and Town Abingdon: Medieval fig.4 1991, Slade and Lambrick in Munby, on (based Abingdon medieval and Road Spring 50 Figure

89 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery need, or reserved for grazing. Such an area might consistent with arelatively short-lived but quite well be regarded as open to exploitation for other large-scalerequirement for gravel, such as would needs,such as gravelfor local building projects. On have been neededfor the construction of achapel presentevidence, this exploitation did not last for and burial ground at the road junction nearby (see long, as almostall of the medieval pottery dates to Chapter1). the 13th century. Wilson (Harman and Wilson 1981, The use of the site in the late medieval and early 60–61) argued that deep pits found at the junction post-medieval period is unclear. The singleextended of Spring Road and Faringdon Road were gravel burial foundonthe west edge of the site accom- pits periodically used to repair borough roads, paniedbyawound-wire headed pin most likely but the evidence from the Spring Road cemetery is dates to the 16th or 17th centuries, thoughsuch pins

Plate 10 Extract from Rocque’s map of 1761 showing the site under cultivation.

90 Chapter Six continued to be used for fastening as an alternative was not undercultivation at the time, although for a to buttons into the 18th or even the early 19th hurried burial thismay nothave mattered. century. Wilson ( ibid,61) suggested that the burial The origins of the ‘headland’ that was believed groundatthe road junction to the east went out of from the evaluation to run north-south downthe site use towards the end of the 13th century, following need furtherconsideration. Adepth of nearly 1mof the establishmentofthe Abbot of Abingdon’s right soil was founddownthe centre of the site, whileless to all mortuaries in the parish in 1284, but even if it than half that depth of soil was foundinevaluation continued in use into the post-medieval period, this Trench F, and indeed in excavation Area 5. From the burial lies over 200 mfrom the other known burials. excavations it is now clear that thissoil overlies the It is possiblethat thiswas someone who could notbe 13th centurygravelpits,and is cut by the late buriedinconsecrated ground, such as asuicide or Victorian quarry. The quarry was not shown on the criminal hanged on the gallows, or the victim of an 1st edition Ordnance Surveymap of 1873, nor on the unlawful killing, but amoreplausible explanation, 3rd edition of 1914, but does appear on the 2nd given the likely date, is that this was acasualty of the edition maps of 1900 and 1904 (Plate 11). It was Civil War, buried afterone of the many skirmishes clearly short lived, and probably opened purely to aroundAbingdon, or avictim of the plague. Another meet the short-term needs of local development, lone burial probably of post-medieval datewas possibly at St. Helen’s School, built between 1900 foundonthe north side of Ock Streetjust east of Ock and 1914 just to the north. Bridge during redevelopment (SMR).The fact that a Although it seemed plausible that the depth of soil burial was madeatSpring Road at atimewhenno had resulted from the creation of amedieval head- field boundaries along this line existed (or at least land, no trace of medieval furrows was found in were not indicated either by Rocque’s map of 1761 or either the excavations or evaluations. Moreover, the the early O.S. maps) perhaps indicatesthat this land finds fromall of the soils making up the 1m

Plate 11 Extract from 2nd Edition OS map of 1904 showing gravel pit on the east edge of the current site.

91 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery accumulationcontained post-medieval items,show- which timethe present outlineofthe cemetery had ing that the accumulationdid notbegin in earnest been established. until at leastthe 17th century. Rocque’s map of 1761 shows the site under cultivation (Plate 10), but there CONCLUDING REMARKS is no indication of aheadland or other boundary, by Tim Allen suggesting that the accumulation may have occurred later still. No boundaryisshown on the Christ’s The original research aims were modified as the work Hospital map of 1835, though as thismap does not progressed. Although the build-up of soildown show detail in this area this maynot be relevant. the middle of the site proved to derive not from a Thereissimilarly no boundaryindicated on the 1st medieval headland but from post-medieval quarry- edition Ordnance Survey may of 1873. It remains ing, and thus the hoped-for preservation of aSaxon possible that aboundarywas established in the late groundsurface was not forthcoming, avarietyof 18th or early 19th century, allowing the gradual significant new discoveries was made, leadingtofur- build-upofaheadland along this line, but had gone ther research objectives, particularly as regards the out of use by the time the 1st edition Ordnance Neolithic andBronze Ages. The site has clearlyhad a Surveymap was drawn up in 1873. very long historyofinhabitation, and was asignifi- Alternatively, the build-up of soil could have cant focus within the areafor more than 4000 years. resulted from quarrying after that date. The linear The abilityofthe investigations to answer the north-south alignment of the gravel quarry shown research questions was hampered most by the on the 2nd edition O.S. map of 1900 (Plate 11) limited area remaining for excavation by 2000; had suggests that atemporaryboundary on this align- the opportunity beentaken to investigate the site ment was put up when gravelextraction began,and sooner, significantly more of the cemetery areacould the topsoil and subsoil from the area of the quarry have been recorded priortodestruction.For the may have been stripped and dumped along the west future, small areas will remain untouched withinthe side. This would explain why the soils all containa cemetery itself below the central walkways, provid- mixture of finds, presumably derived from earlier ing apotential opportunity to examine more of occupation on the site. Against thisinterpretation, the timber circle. The historic maps indicate that the western edge of the quarry appearedtocut quarrying has removed any archaeological deposits through all of the layers in the soilaccumulation. It is over muchofthe area immediately east and north of however possible eitherthat the quarry was ex- the cemetery, but beyond this, privategardens on tended westwards during its lifetime, or that the the east, south and south-east may well contain edge eroded or collapsed, so cutting into the edgeof furthertracesofpast activity. Geophysical survey the dumpedsoils. The 3rd edition 6 00 O.S.map of has shown that an areaofundisturbed archaeology 1914 does show anorth-south boundaryalong the still survives south-west of the cemetery, and this line of the putativeheadland, which had disap- could add significantlytoour understanding of the pearedbythe 4th edition 6 00 O.S. map of 1938, by past historyofthis long-lived site.

92 Bibliography

Abercromby, J, 1912 Astudy of the Bronze Age pottery Allen, TG,1997 Abingdon: West CentralRedevelop- of Great Britain and Irelandand its associated grave ment Area, South Midlands Archaeol 27,47–54 goods,Oxford Allen, T, 2000 The Iron Age background, in Roman Abingdon and District Archaeological Society, 1973 Oxfordshire (M Henig and PBooth), Stroud, 1–33 Abingdon: Corporation Farm, CBA Group 9News- Allen, T, Miles, D, and Palmer, S, 1984 Iron letter 3 ,40–41 Age buildings in the Upper ThamesRegion, Aerts-Bijma, AT,Meijer, HAJ,and van der Plicht, J, in Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern 1997 AMS sample handling in Groningen, Nuclear Britain,(BCunliffe and DMiles eds), Oxford Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123, University Committee for Archaeology Mono- 221–5 graph 2 ,89–101 Aerts-Bijma, AT,van der Plicht, J, and Meijer, HAJ, Allen, TG,Darvill TC,Green, LSand Jones, MU, 2001 Automatic AMS sample combustionand 1993 Excavations at Roughground Farm, Lechlade, CO2 collection, Radiocarbon 43,293–8 Gloucestershire: aprehistoric and Roman landscape, Ainslie, R, 1991 Andersey Island, Abingdon, South ThamesValley Landscapes: the CotswoldWater Midlands Archaeol 21,111–114 Park 1 ,Oxford Ainslie, R, 1992a Excavations at Thrupp near Radley, Allen, TG,and Robinson, MA,1993 The prehistoric Oxon, South Midlands Archaeol 22,63–5 landscape andIron Age enclosed settlementatMingies Ainslie, R, 1992b Abingdon:Tithe Farm, South Mid- Ditch, Hardwick-with-Yelford, Oxon,ThamesValley lands Archaeol 22,65–8 Landscapes:the Windrush Valley 2 ,Oxford Ainslie, R, 1995 Abingdon:64Bath Street, South Mid- Allen, T, and Lamdin-Whymark, H, 2004 Taplow lands Archaeol 25,72–4 Court, Taplow, Buckinghamshire: post-excavation Ainslie, R, 1999a Abingdon: SpringRoad Cemetery, assessment and updated project design, Unpub- South Midlands Archaeol 29,29–30 lished client report, prepared for English Heritage Ainslie, R, 1999b Thrupp near Radley, South Mid- on behalf of SGI-UK, Oxford Archaeology,Oxford lands Archaeol 29,30–31 Allen, T, and Lamdin-Whymark, H, 2005 Little Wit- Ainslie, R, 2002 Abingdon, Barton lane, South Mid- tenham: excavations at and around Castle Hill, lands Archaeol 32,36–8 South Midlands Archaeology 35,69–82 Ainslie, R, and Wallis, J, 1987 Excavations on the Anderson, T, 1995 Thehuman skeletons, in Iron Age Cursus at Drayton, Oxon, Oxoniensia 52,1–10 burials from MillHill, Deal,(KParfitt), London, Akoshima, K, 1987 Microflaking quantification, in 114–144 The human uses of flint andchert (eds GdeG Atkinson, RJC, 1947 Notesand news, Oxoniensia 12, Sieveking and MNewcomer), Cambridge, 71–79 163 Allen, M, Morris, M, and Clark, RH,1995 Food for Atkinson, RJCand McKenzie,A,1946Notes and the living: areassessment of aBronze Age barrow news, Oxoniensia 11,162 at Buckskin, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Proc Prehist Aufderheide, AC,and Rodrı´ guez-Martin, C, 1998, Soc 61,157–189 Cambridge encyclopaedia of palaeopathology,Cam- Allen, TG,1981 Hardwick with Yelford: Smith’s bridge Field, CBA Group 9Newsletter 11,124–127 Avery, M, 1982 TheNeolithiccausewayed enclosure, Allen, TG,1990a Abingdon Vineyard redevelop- Abingdon, in Case and Whittle 1982, 10–50 ment, South Midlands Archaeol 20,73–8 Avery, M, and Brown, D, 1972 Saxon features at Allen, TG,1990b An Iron Age and Romano-British Abingdon, Oxoniensia 37,66–81 enclosed settlement at Watkins Farm, Northmoor, Baker, S, 2002Prehistoricand Romano-British land- Oxon, ThamesValley Landscapes: the Windrush scapesatLittle Wittenham and Long Wittenham, Valley 1 ,Oxford Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia 68,1–28 Allen, TG,1991 An oppidum at Abingdon, Oxford- Balkwill, C, 1978 Appendix 1: apit with Grooved shire, South Midlands Archaeol 21,97–9 Ware from Abingdon, in Parrington1978, 31–3 Allen, TG,1993a Abingdon,Abingdon Vineyard Barber,M,Field, Dand Topping, P, 1999 The 1992: Areas 2and 3, the early defences, South Neolithic flint minesofEngland,Swindon Midlands Archaeol 23,64–6 Barclay, A, 1999 GroovedWare from the Upper Allen, TG,1993b South Hinksey: Hinksey Hill Farm, Thames, in Cleal and MacSween 1999, 9–24 South Midlands Archaeol 23,77–9. Barclay, A, 2006 Late Bronze Age pottery, in The Allen, TG,1994 Abingdon: The Vineyard, Area 3, archaeology of the Wallingford Bypass, 1986–92 (A South Midlands Archaeol 24,33–5 Cromarty, AJBarclay and GLambrick) Thames Allen, TG,1995 Abingdon: The Vineyard, Area 2 Valley Landscapes watching brief, South Midlands Archaeol 25,49 Barclay, A, Boyle, A, and Keevill, G, D, 2001 A Allen, TG,1996 Abingdon Vineyard Area6, South prehistoric enclosureatEynsham Abbey, Oxford- Midlands Archaeol 26,51–5 shire, Oxoniensia 66,105–162

93 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Barclay, Aand Edwards, Einprep. The prehistoric Blinkhorn, PW,2003 The pottery, in Hardy et al., pottery, in Hey in prep. 159–206, 229–47 Barclay, A, Gray, M, and Lambrick, G, 1995 Blinkhorn, PW,2007 Anglo-Saxon pottery, in Cham- Excavations at the Devil’s Quoits, Stanton Harcourt, bers and McAdam 2007 Oxfordshire 1972–3 and1988, Thames Valley Land- Boessneck, J, 1969 OsteologicalDifferences in Sheep scapes: the Windrush Valley 3 ,Oxford ( Ovis aries Linne´ )and Goat ( Capra hircus Linne´ ), Barclay, Aand Halpin, C, 1999 Excavations at Barrow in Science in Archaeology (eds DBrothwell and Hills,Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume 1: the Neolithic EHiggs), London, 331–358 and Bronze Age monuments,ThamesValley Land- Booth,P1991 Intersite comparisons between pottery scapes 11,Oxford assemblages in RomanWarwickshire: ceramic Barclay, A, Lambrick, G, Moore, Jand Robinson, M, indicators of site status,JRoman Pottery Studies 2003 Lines in the Landscape. Cursus monuments in 4 ,1–10 the UpperThames Valley:excavations at the Drayton Booth,P,Boyle, Aand Keevill, G, 1993 ARomano- and Lechlade cursuses, Thames Valley Landscapes British kilnsite at Lower Farm, Nuneham 15,Oxford Courtenay, and other sites on the Didcot to Barclay, A, and Lupton, A, 1999 Discussion: the early Oxford and Wootton to Abingdon WaterMains, prehistoric period, in Excavations alongside Roman Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia 58,87–217 ErminStreet, Gloucestershireand Wiltshire. The arch- Booth,P,and Simmonds, A, in prep. Appleford’s aeology of the A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester Road earliestfarmers: archaeological workatAppleford Scheme,(AMudd,RJWilliams Aand Lupton), Sidings, Oxfordshire, 1993–2000 ,Oxford Archae- Eynsham, vol. 2 ,513–517 ology Occasional Papers, Oxford Barrett, J, 1975 The later pottery: types,affinities, Bourdillon, J, 1994 The animal provisioning of Saxon chronology and significance,in Rams Hill: aBronze Southampton, in Environment and economy in Age Defended Enclosure and its landscape (R Bradley Anglo-Saxon England: areview of recent work on and AEllison), BAR Brit Ser 19,Oxford the environmental archaeology of rural and urban Barrett, J, 1980 Thepottery of the later Bronze Age in Anglo-Saxon settlements in England (ed. JRack- lowland England ,Proc PrehistSoc, 46,297–319 ham), CBARes Rep 89,London, 120–125 Barrett, J, 1986, ThePottery, in ALateBronze Age Bourdillon, Jand Coy,J,1980The animal bones, in riverside settlementatWallingford, Oxfordshire Excavations at Melbourne Street, Southampton 1971– (R Thomas,MRobinson, JBarrett and BWilson), 76, (ed. PHoldsworth) CBA Res Rep 33,79–120 Archaeol J 143,174–200 Boyle, Aforthcoming The Iron Age human skeletal Bass, WM,1987 Human osteology: Alaboratory and assemblage fromYarnton, in Yarnton:Iron Age and field manual,3rd edn, Columbia Romano-British settlement andlandscape,(GHey Bayley, J, 1999 Appendix: notes on the composition and JTimby), ThamesValley Landscapes Mono- of coloured glasses, in Guido 1999, 89–93 graph, Oxford Beavan-Athfield, N, and Sparks, RJ,2001 Bomb Bradley, P, 1999 Worked flint, in Barclay and Halpin carbonasatracerofdietary carbon sources in 1999, 211–277 omnivorous mammals, Radiocarbon, 43,711–21 Bradley, P, forthcoming Thestruckflint from Abing- Bell, M, 1990 Brean Down excavations, 1983–1987 , don Vineyard, ThamesValley Landscapesmono- EnglishHeritage Archaeol Rep 15,London graph, Oxford Benson, Dand Miles, D, 1974 The Upper Thames Bradley, R, 1984 Radley: Barrow Hills, the Neolithic Valley:anarchaeological survey of the river gravels, features, South Midlands Archaeol 14,111–120 Oxford Bradley, R, 1986 The Bronze Age in the Oxford Berisford, F, 1973 The early Anglo-Saxon settlement Area –its local and regional significance,inBriggs sites in the Upper Thamesbasin, with special ref- et al.,1986, 38–48 erence to the area aroundCassington and Eynsham, Brickley, Mand McKinley,J,2004 Guidelinesto Unpublished B. Litt. thesis, University of Oxford, the standards for recording human remains, IFA Oxford Technical Paper 7 ,Reading Berisford, F, 1981 The Anglo-Saxon pottery, in Exca- Briggs,G,Cook, Jand TRowley, 1986 The Archae- vationsatBeech House Hotel, Dorchester-on- ology of the Oxford Region (eds) Oxford University Thames, 1972 (T Rowley and LBrown), Oxoniensia Department forExternal Studies, Oxford 46,39–43 Bronk Ramsey,C,1995 Radiocarbon calibration and BGS, 1971 Geological survey of Great Britain ,Sheet 253 analysis of stratigraphy, Radiocarbon 36,425–30 ( Drift), London Bronk Ramsey,C,1998 Probability and dating, Radio- Blair, J, 1994 Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire,Stroud carbon 40,461–74 Blinkhorn, PW,1997 Habitus, social identity and Bronk Ramsey, C, and Hedges,REM,1997 Agas Anglo-Saxon pottery, in Cumberpatch, and Blink- ion source forradiocarbon dating, Nuclear Instru- horn (eds) 1997, 113–24 mentsand Methods in Physics Research B 29,45–9 Blinkhorn, PW,2001 The post-Roman pottery, in Bronk Ramsey, C, Higham, TFG,Hedges,REM, Excavations at the Oxford Science Park, Little- forthcoming Improvements to the pretreatment of more, Oxford (J Moore), Oxoniensia 66, 163–219 bone at Oxford, Radiocarbon

94 Bibliography

Brothwell, D,1981 Digging up bones,3rd edn, London Cleal, RMJ, 1999 Prehistoric Pottery, in Barclay and Brown, PDC,1968 Notes and news, Oxoniensia 33, Halpineds 1999, 195–210 137–8 Cleal, R, with Case,Hand Barclay, A, 2003 Neolithic Bru¨ ck, J, 1999 Houses, lifestyles and deposition and BronzeAge pottery, in Barclay et al. 2003, on middleBronze Age settlements in southern 135–148 England, Proc PrehistSoc 65,145–167 Cleal, Rand MacSween, A, 1999 Grooved Ware in Bull, Gand Payne, S, 1982 Tooth eruption and Great Britain and Ireland ,Neolithic Studies Group epiphyseal fusioninpigs and wild boar, in Ageing Seminar Papers 3 ,Oxford and sexinganimal bones from archaeologicalsites (eds Clutton-Brock, J, 1979 The AnimalResources, in BWilson, CGrigson and SPayne), BAR Brit Ser The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England (ed. DM 109,55–71, Oxford Wilson), London, 373 –392 Butcher, SA,1978 The Brooches, in, Excavations at Cohen, A, and Serjeantson, D, 1996 Amanual for the Wakerley, Northants, 1972–75 (D AJackson and identification of bird bones from archaeological sites, TMAmbrose) Britannia 9 ,216–220 2nd edn, London Canti, M, 2001 Geoarchaeology, in OAU2001, 45–6 Cotterell, B, and Kamminga, J, 1979 The mechanics Case,H,1956a The Neolithic causewayed camp at of flint flaking, in Lithic use-wear analysis (ed. Abingdon, Berks, Antiquaries Journal 36,16–18 BHayden), London Case,H,1956b Beakerpottery from the Oxford Cox, M, 1989 The story of Abingdon, part II: medieval region, Oxoniensia 21,1–21 Abingdon, 1186–1556 ,Abingdon Case,H,1957 Notesand news, Oxoniensia 22,104–6 Coy, J, 1982 Therole of wild vertebrate fauna in Case,HJ, 1982 Cassington, 1950–2: late Neolithic urbaneconomies in Wessex, in Environmental pits and the big enclosure, in Case and Whittle archaeology in the urban context (eds ARHall (eds) 1982, 118–151 and HKEdward), CBARes Rep 43,London, Case,HJ, 1993 Beakers:deconstruction and after, 107–116 Proc Prehist Soc 59,241–68 Coy, J, 1989, The provision of fowls andfish for Case,HJ, Bayne, N, Steele, S, Avery, Mand town, in Diet and crafts in towns: the evidence of Sutermeister, H, 1964–5 Excavations at City Farm, animal remains from the Roman to the post-medieval Hanborough, Oxon, Oxoniensia 29–30,1–98 periods (eds DSerjeantson and TWaldron), BAR Case,HJand Whittle, AWR, (eds) 1982 Settlement Brit Ser 199, London, 25–40 patterns in the Oxford region: excavations at the Crabtree, PJ,1994 Animal exploitation in East- Abingdon causewayed enclosure and other sites,CBA Anglianvillages, in Environment and economy in Res Rep 44,London Anglo-Saxon England (ed. JRackham), CBA Res Catling, HW,1982 Six ringditches at Standlake, in Rep 89,London, 40–54 Case and Whittle 1982, 88–102 Cumberpatch, CG,and Blinkhorn, PW,(eds) 1997 Chadwick Hawkes, S, 1986 The early Saxon period, Not so much apot, more away of life Oxbow in, Briggs et al. 1982, 64–113 Monograph 83,Oxford Chambers, R, 1986 Abingdon:Ashville Trading Cunliffe, B, 1984 Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Estate, South Midlands Archaeology 16,93 Hampshire, vol 2. The Excavations 1969–1978: the Chambers, RAand Fuller, B, 1986Abingdon: finds,CBA Res Rep 52,London Faringdon Road, South Midlands Archaeology 16, Cunliffe, B, 2000 The Danebury environs programme: 93 the prehistoryofaWessex Landscape, vol. 1: intro- Chambers, RAand Halpin, C, 1986 Radley: Barrow duction, English Heritage and OUCA Monograph Hills, South Midlands Archaeol 16,106–111 48,Oxford Chambers, RAand McAdam,E,2007, Excavations Cunliffe, Band Poole, C, 2000 Suddern Farm, Middle at Radly Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. 2 , the Wallop,Hants,1991 and 1996. The Danebury Romano-British cemetery and early Anglo-Saxon environs programme: the prehistory of aWessex land- settlement,ThamesValleyLandscapes, 25,Oxford scape,EnglishHeritage and OUCA Monograph Chaplin, RE,1971 The study of animal bones from 49,Oxford archaeological sites,London Dawes, J, nd Wetwang Slack human bonereport, Chisholm, BS,Nelson, DE,and Schwarcz,HP, 1982 Unpublished MS Stable carbonisotope ratios as ameasure of De Roche, C, 1978, The Iron Age pottery, in marine versus terrestrial protein in ancient diets, Parrington 1978, 40–74 Science 216 ,1131–32 De Roche, C, and Lambrick G, 1980, TheIron Clapham, AR,Tutin, TGand Moore, DM,1987 Age pottery, in Hinchcliffe andThomas 1980, Flora of the British Isles,3rd edn, Cambridge 45–59 Clarke,DL, 1970 Beaker pottery of Great Britain and Dehling, Hand van der Plicht, J1993 Statistical Ireland,Cambridge problemsincalibrating radiocarbon dates, Radio- Clarke,DV, Cowie, TG,and Foxon, A, 1985 Symbols carbon 35,239 of power ,Edinburgh Dewey, H, and Bromehead, CEN, 1915 The geology Cleal, RMJ, 1990 The prehistoric pottery, in of the countryaround Windsor and Chertsey,Mem Richards 1990, 45–57 Geol Survey, London

95 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Donaldson, P, 1977 The excavationofamultiple Grant, A, 1982 The use of tooth wear as aguide to roundbarrow at Barnack, Cambridgeshire, the age of domestic ungulates, in Wilson et al. 1974–76, Proc Soc Antiq Lond 57,197–231 1982, 91–108 Driesch, Avon den, 1976 Aguide to the measure- Gray, M, 1972 Notes and news, Oxoniensia 37, mentsofanimal bones from archaeological sites, Pea- 238–241 body Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Green,M,2000 Alandscape revealed: 10,000 years on a Bulletin 1 ,Harvard chalkland farm,Stroud Dunham,KC, 1971 Geological survey of Great Britain, Grigson,C,1982 Sex and agedeterminationofsome sheet 253, (Drift),London bones and teeth of domesticcattle: areview of the Ehrenberg, M, Price, J, and Vale,V,1982 The literature, in Wilson et al. 1982, 155–206 excavation of two Bronze Age round barrowsat Grimes, WF,1960 Excavations on defence sites, 1939– Welsh St. Donats, South Glamorgan, Bulletin of the 1945,1:mainly Neolithic-Bronze Age,Ministryof Board of CelticStudies, 29(4),831 WorksArchaeol Rep 3 ,London Evans,J,2001 Material approaches to the identifi- Guido,M,1978 The glass beads of the prehistoric and cation of different Romano-British site types, in Roman periods in Britain and Ireland ,Rep Res Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological Comm Soc Antiq Lond 35,London agenda (eds SJames and MMillett), CBA Res Rep Guido,M,(ed. M. Welch) 1999 The glass beads of 125,London, 26–35 Anglo-Saxon England c AD 400–700: apreliminary Everett,RNand Eeles, BMG, 1999 Investigations visual classificationofthe more definite and diagnostic at Thrupp House Farm, Radley, nearAbingdon, types, Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq Lond 58,London Oxoniensia 64,117–152 Hall, M, 1992, Theprehistoric pottery, in Mooreand Fell, C, 1936, The Hunsbury Hillfort, Northants, Jennings 1992, 63–82 Archaeol J 93,57–100 Halpin, C, 1983 Abingdon: Ex-MG car factory site, Fitzpatrick, AP,1997 Everyday life in Iron Age South Midlands Archaeol 13,113–114 Wessex, in Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: new Halstead, P, 1985 Astudy of mandibular teeth from approaches to the British Iron Age, (eds AGwilt and Romano-British contexts at Maxey, in Archaeology CHaselgrove), Oxbow Monograph 71,Oxford, and environment in the Lower Welland Valley 1(F 73–86 Pryor and CFrench), East Anglian Archaeology Ford, S, 1987 Chronological and functional aspects of Report 27,Norwich, 219–224 flint assemblages, in Lithic analysis and laterBritish Hambleton, E, 1999 Animal husbandry regimes in Iron prehistory (eds AGBrown and MREdmonds), Age Britain: acomparative study of faunal assemblages BAR Brit Ser 162,Oxford, 67–81 from British Iron Age sites,BAR British Series 282, Ford, S, with Entwistle, R, and Taylor, K2003 Ex- Oxford cavations at Cippenham, Slough, Berkshire, 1995–7, Hamerow, HF,1993 Excavations at Muckingvolume 2 , ThamesValley Archaeological Services Mono- the Anglo-Saxon settlement, English Heritage Arch- graph 3 ,Reading aeol Rep 21,London Foster, J, 1990 Other Bronze Age artefacts, in Bell, Hamerow, HF,Hayden,Cand Hey, G, in prep. 1990, 158–175 Anglo-Saxon and earlier settlement at Drayton Frere, SS,1984Excavations at Dorchester-on- Road, Sutton Courtenay Thames, 1963, Archaeol J 141,91–174 Hammond, PW,1993, Food and feastinmedieval Garwood, P, 1999GroovedWare chronology, in England ,Stroud Cleal and MacSween 1999, 145–176 Harding, DW,1972 The Iron Age in the UpperThames Gibbs, AV,1989 Sex, gender and material culture basin,Oxford patterning in later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Harding, DW,1987 Excavations in Oxfordshire 1964– England, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of 66,University of Edinburgh Occasional Paper 15, Cambridge,Cambridge Edinburgh Gibson, A, 1998 Stonehenge and timber circles,Stroud Harding, P, 1990 Theworked flint, in Richards1990, GingellCJ,and Morris E, 2000, Pottery: form series, passim in Lawson2000, 149–77 Hardy, A, Dodd, Aand Keevill, GD,2003 Aelfric’s Gledhill, Aand Wallis, J, 1989 Sutton Courtenay:a Abbey:excavations at Eynsham Abbey,Oxfordshire, Neolithic long enclosure, South Midlands Archaeol 1989–92,ThamesValley Landscapes 16,Oxford 19,58–9 Harman, M2004 Human and animal bone, in Goodman, AH,Armelagos, GJ,and Rose,JC, 1980 Lambrick and Allen 2004 457–463 Enamelhypoplasias as indicators of stress in three Harman, Mand Wilson, B, 1981 AMedieval grave- prehistoric populations from Illinois, Human yard beside Faringdon Road, Abingdon, Oxonien- Biology 52,515–528 sia 46,56–61 Goodman, AH,and Rose, JC,1990 Assessment of Healy, F, 2005 Discussion of the penannular post- systemicphysiologicalperturbations from dental ring, in Lambrick and Allen 2004, 62–63 enamel hypoplasias andassociatedhistological Healy, F, Heaton, Mand Lobb, SJ,1992 Excavations structures, Yearbook of PhysicalAnthropology 33, of aMesolithic site at Thatcham, Berkshire, Proc 59–110 PrehistSoc 58,41–76

96 Bibliography

Hearne,CM, 2000Archaeologicalevaluation in the and ENichols), Soc Antiq Lond Occasional Paper Vale of White Horse, nearAbingdon, Oxoniensia 14,78–105 65,7–12 Lambrick, G, and Allen, TG,2004 GravellyGuy, Henig, Mand Booth,P,2000 Roman Oxfordshire, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire: the development of a Stroud prehistoric and Romano-British landscape,Thames Hey, G, 1993 Yarnton floodplain, South Midlands Valley Landscapes 21,Oxford Archaeol 9 ,82–85 Lambrick, G, and Robinson, M, 1979, Iron Age and Hey, G, 1995 Iron Age and Romansettlements at Old Roman riverside settlements at Farmoor, Oxfordshire, Shifford Farm, Standlake, Oxoniensia 60,93–175 Oxford Archaeol UnitRep 2/CBA Res Rep 32, Hey, G, in prep. Yarnton: Neolithic andBronze Age Oxford and London settlement and landscape,Thames Valley Land- Lambrick, G, and Slade, CF,1991 Two cartularies of scapes, Oxford Abingdon Abbey II,Chatsworth Cartulary ,Oxford Hey, G, Bayliss, A, and Boyle, A, 1999 AMiddleIron Historical Society NewSeries 33,London Age inhumation cemetery at Yarnton, Oxford- Lamdin-Whymark, H, forthcoming The struckflint, shire, Antiquity 73,551–62 in The archaeology of aMiddle Thames landscape:The Higham, CFW, 1967 Stock rearing as acultural Eton rowing courseatDorneylake and the Maiden- factor in Prehistoric Europe, Proceedings of the head, Eton and Windsor flood alleviation channel, 1 , Prehistoric Society 33,84–106 the earlyprehistoric landscape (T GAllen, and AJ Hiller,J,and Allen, T, 2001 Abingdon Spring Road Barclay), Thames Valley Landscapes, Oxford Cemetery, South MidlandsArchaeology 31,55–58 Lawson, AJ,2000 Potterne 1982–5: animal husbandry Hillson,S,1996 Dental anthropology,Cambridge in later prehistoric Wiltshire,WessexArchaeology Hinchcliffe, J, and Thomas R, 1980, Archaeological Report 17,Salisbury investigationsatAppleford, Oxoniensia 45,18–73 Leeds, ET,1929 Bronze Age urns from Long Hingley, R, 1980, Excavations by RARutland on an Wittenham, Antiq. J 9 ,153–4 Iron Age site at Wittenham Clumps, Berkshire Leeds, ET,1934 Recent Bronze Age discoveries in Archaeol J 70 (1979–80), 21–55 Berkshire and Oxon, Antiq J 14,264–76 Hingley, R, and Miles, D, 1984 Aspects of the Iron Leeds, ET,1947 ASaxon village at SuttonCourtney, Age in the Upper Thames Valley, in Aspectsofthe Berkshire, third report, Archaeologia 92,79–95 Iron Age in Central Southern Britain (eds BCunliffe Leeds, ETand Harden, DB,1936 The Anglo-Saxon and DMiles),University of Oxford Committee for cemetery at Abingdon, Berkshire,Oxford Archaeology Monograph 2 ,52–71 Longley, D, with Needham,S,1980 Runnymede Holgate, R, 1986 Mesolithic, Neolithicand earlier Bridge 1976: excavations on the site of aLate Bronze BronzeAge settlement patterns south-west of Age settlement, Surrey ArchaeologicalSociety Re- Oxford, Oxoniensia 51,1–14 search 6 ,Guildford Holgate, R, 1988 Neolithicsettlement of the Thames Longworth, IH,1983 The Whinny Liggate perfo- Basin, BAR Brit Ser 194,Oxford rated wallcup and its affinities, in From the stone Hooper, B, 1984 Anatomical considerations, in age to the ‘forty five .(eds AO’Connor and DV Cunliffe 1984, 463–74 Clarke), Edinburgh, 65–86 Hooper, B, 2000 The cemetery population, in Lovejoy, CO,Meindl, RS,Pryzbeck, TR,and Cunliffe and Poole 2000, 168–170 Mensforth, RP,1985 Chronological metamorpho- Hunter, AG,and Kirk, JR,1952/53 Excavations at sis of the auricularsurface of the illium: anew Campsfield, Kidlington, Oxon,1949, Oxoniensia methodfor determinationofadult skeletal age-at- 17/18,36–62 death, American JournalofPhysical Anthropology 68, Inizan, M-L, Roche, Hand Tixier, J, 1992 Technology 15–28 of knapped stone,Meudon Lyman, RL,1996 Vertebrate taphonomy ,Cambridge Jones, G1983 Abingdon: 6LombardStreet, South Mallouf, RJ,1982 An analysis of plow-damaged Midlands Archaeol 13,113 chert artefacts: the Brookeen Creek cache, Hill Juel Jensen, H, 1994 Flint tools and plant working: County,Texas, JFieldArchaeology 9 ,79–98 hiddentraces of StoneAge technology,Aarhus Manby, T, 1995Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery, in Keevill, GD,1992 An Anglo-Saxon site at Audlett The excavation of seven Bronze Age barrows on the Drive,Abingdon, Oxon., Oxoniensia 57,55–79 moorlands of north-east Yorkshire.(TCMBrewster Lacaille, AD,1937 Prehistoric pottery found at Iver, and AEFinney),Yorkshire Archaeological Report 1 Bucks, Rec Buckinghamshire 13,287–99 Masters, PM,1987 Preferential preservation of non- Lambot, B, 2000 Victimes, sacrificateurs et dieux, collagenous proteinduring bone diagenesis: im- L’Archaeologue Hors Serie 2 ,30–36 plications for chronometric and stable isotope Lambrick, G, 1979, The Iron Age pottery, in Lam- measurements,Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, brick and Robinson 1979, 35–46 51,3209–14 Lambrick, G, 1992 Thedevelopment of late Prehis- Mays,S,2000Stable isotope analysis in ancient toric and Romanfarming on the Thamesgravels, humanskeletal remainsin Human osteology in in Developing landscapesofLowland Britain. The arch- archaeology and forensic science (eds MCox and S aeology of the British gravels: areview (eds MFulford Mays), London, 425–438

97 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

McCarthy, MR,and Brooks, CM,1988 Medieval U ¨ Yalc¸in), Deutsches Bergbau-MuseumBeiheft 9 , pottery in Britain AD 900–1600,Leicester Bochum, 211–226 Meadows, KI,1997 Muchado about nothing: the Northover, JP,1999b Analysis of early Bronze Age social context of eating and drinking in early metalwork fromBarrow Hills, in Barclay and RomanBritain, in Cumberpatch andBlinkhorn Halpin1999, 192–5 1997, 21–36 OA 2005British Gas Site, the Vineyard and Penlon Mellor, M, 1980 The Pottery, in ABeakerburial and Site, Radley Road, Abingdon, Oxon:post-excava- medieval tenements in The Hamel, Oxford (N tion assessment and updated project design,Un- Palmer), Oxoniensia 45,124–255 published clientreport prepared on behalf of Mellor, M, 1994 Oxford Pottery: asynthesis of Kings Oak, Oxford Archaeology,Oxford middleand late Saxon,medieval and early post- OAU, 1990 Abingdon Spring Road Cemetery, 1990: medieval pottery in the Oxford Region, Oxoniensia archaeological evaluation, Unpublished report for 59,17–217 EnglishHeritage, Oxford Archaeology,Oxford Mercer,RJ, 1981 The excavation of alate Neolithic OAU, 1992 Oxford ArchaeologicalUnit fieldman- henge-type enclosure at Balfarg, Markinch, Fife, ual, Unpublished MSS, Oxford Archaeology, Scotland, 1977–8 Proc Soc Antiq Scot 111,63–171 Oxford Miles, D, 1975 Excavations at West St HelenStreet, OAU, 1997 Abingdon Multiplex, Abingdon, Oxon: Abingdon, Oxoniensia 40,79–101 archaeological evaluation report, Unpublished Miles, D, 1977 Appendix 2. Cropmarks around report for Discovery Properties Ltdand Valeof Northfield Farm, in Northfield Farm, Long Wit- White Horse DistrictCouncil, Oxford Archaeol- tenham (M Gray), Oxoniensia 42,24–9 ogy, Oxford Miles, D, 1984 Archaeology at Barton Court Farm, OAU, 1998 Abingdon Abbey Gardens and Abbey Abingdon, Oxon, Oxford Archaeological Unit Rep Meadows: historical restoration management plan, 3 ,CBA Res Rep 50,London appendices 1–4, Unpublished report for Vale of Mook, WG,1986 Business meeting: recommenda- White Horse District Counciland Heritage Lot- tions/resolutions adopted by the Twelfth Inter- tery, Oxford Archaeology, Oxford national Radiocarbon Conference, Radiocarbon 28, OAU, 2000 Abingdon, SpringRoad Cemetery, field- 799 work research design,Unpublished report for Moore, HL1982 The interpretation of spatial EnglishHeritage, Oxford Archaeology,Oxford patterning in settlement residues, in Symbolic and OAU, 2001 Abingdon, Spring Road Cemetery: post- structuralarchaeology (ed. IHodder), Cambridge, excavation assessment and research design, Un- 74–9 published report for English Heritage, Oxford Moore, J, and Jennings, D, 1992, Reading Business Archaeology, Oxford Park: aBronze Age landscape, ThamesValley Land- Onhuma, Kand Bergman, C, 1982 Experimental scapes: the KennetValley 1 ,Oxford studies in the determination of flake mode, Moss, EH,1983 Some comments on edge damage Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, London 19, as afactor in functional analysis of stoneartefacts, 161–171 JArchaeol Sci 10,231–242 Oswald, A, 1997 Adoorway on the past: practical Mudd, A, 1995 The excavation of alate Bronze Age/ and mystic concerns in the orientation of round- early Iron Age site at Eight Acre Field, Radley, house doorways, Reconstructing Iron Age societies: Oxoniensia 60,21–65 new approaches to the British Iron Age (eds AGwilt Muir, Jand Roberts, M, 1999 Excavations at Wyndyke and CHaselgrove), Oxbow Monograph 71, Furlong, Abingdon,Oxfordshire, 1994, Thames Valley Oxford, 87–95 Landscapes 12,Oxford Parfitt, K1995 Iron Age burials from MillHill, Deal, Musson, C, 1970 House plans and prehistory, London Current Archaeology 21,367–77 Parker, A, 1999 Thepollen and sedimentsofDaisy Myres, JNL, 1968The Anglo-Saxon cemetery, in Bank Fen, in Barclay and Halpin, 254–267 The early history of Abingdon, Berkshire, and its Parrington, M, 1978 The excavationofanIron Age abbey (M Biddle, HTLambrick and JNLMyres), settlement, Bronze Age ring-ditches and Romanfea- Medieval Archaeol 12,35–41 tures at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon (Oxford- Myres, JNL, 1977 Acorpus of Anglo-Saxon pottery of shire) 1974–76, CBA Res Rep 28,London the pagan period,Cambridge Payne, S, 1973 Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: Needham,S,1996 Chronology and periodisation in the mandibles from Asvan Kale, Anatolian Studies the British Bronze Age, Acta Archaeologia 67,121–40 23,281–303 Needham,S,and Ambers, J, 1994 Redating Rams PCRG1997, The study of later prehistoric pottery: Hill and reconsidering Bronze Age enclosure, Proc generalpolicies and guidelines for analysis and PrehistSoc 60,225– 243 publication, Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Northover, JP,1999a The earliest metalworking in Occaspap 1–2 (rev. edn), Oxford southern Britain, in The beginnings of metallurgy Pearce,J,and Vince, A, 1988 Adated type-series of (eds AHauptmann, EPernicka, TRehren and Londonmedieval pottery. Part 4: Surrey Whitewares,

98 Bibliography

London and Middlesex Archaeol Soc Special Paper limb bone length by linear and logarithmic 10,London regression, AnnalsofHuman Biology 7/3,257–265 Pelling, Rand Robinson, MA,2000 Saxon emmer Schultz, PDand McHenry, HM,1975 Age distri- wheat fromthe Upper and MiddleThamesValley, butions of enamel hypoplasia in prehistoric Cali- England, Environmental Archaeology 5 ,117–19 fornia Indians, JofDental Research 54,913 Piggott, S, 1962 The West Kennet long barrow, excava- Scott, EM,Harkness, DD,and Cook, GT,1998 tions 1955–56, MinistryofWorks Archaeol Rep 4 , Inter-laboratory comparisons: lessons learned, London Radiocarbon, 40,331–40 Poole, C, 1984, Objects of baked clay, in Cunliffe Seager Smith, R, 2000 Worked bone and antler, in 1984, 398–406 Lawson2000, 222–240 Prummel, Wand Frisch,H-J, 1986 Aguidefor the Serjeantson, D, 1996 The animal bones, in Runny- distinction of species, sex and body size in bones mede Bridge research excavations, vol 2 :refuse and of sheep and goat, Journal of Archaeological Science disposal behaviour at Area 16, East Runnymede (eds 13, 567–77 SNeedham and TSpence), London, 194–233 Pryor, F, 2001 Seahenge:new discoveries in prehistoric Shand,P,Henderson, E, Henderson, Rand Barclay, Britain,London A, 2003 Corporation Farm, Wilsham Road, Abing- Rahtz, P, 1976 Buildingsand rural settlement, in don: asummary of the Neolithicand Bronze The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England (ed. DM Age excavations, 1971–4, in Barclay et al. 2003, Wilson), Cambridge,49–98 31–40 Rawes, B, 1981 The Romano-British site at Brock- Silver, IA,1969 The Ageing of domestic animals, worth,Glos, Britannia 2 ,45–77 in Science in Archaeology (eds DBrothwell and Reynolds, P, 1974 Experimental Iron Age pits:an EHiggs), London, 283–302 interim report, Proc Prehist Soc 40,118–131 Skellington, WA,1978 The workedflints, in Rice, PM,1987 Pottery analysis: asourcebook, Chicago Parrington 1978, 90–91 Richards, J, 1990, The Stonehenge environs project, Skellington, W, 1972 Abingdon Cemetery, CBA EnglishHeritage Archaeol Rep 16,London Group9Newsletter 2 ,22–3 Richardson, KM,1951, An Iron Age site on the Stead,IM, 1991 Iron Age cemeteriesinEast Yorkshire, Chilterns, Antiq J 31,132–48 EnglishHeritage Archaeol Rep 22,London Richmond, I1968 Hod Hill: excavationscarried out Stuart-Macadam,P1991 Anaemia in RomanBritain, between1951and 1955 for the Trusteesofthe British in Health in past societies (eds HBush and M Museum 2 ,London Zvelebil), BAR Int Ser 567,Oxford, 101–113 Roberts,Cand Cox, M2003 Health and disease in Stuiver, M, and Kra, RS,1986Editorial comment, Britain from prehistory to the present day Stroud Radiocarbon 28,ii Roberts,Cand Manchester, K1995 The archaeology of Stuiver, M, and Polach, HA,1977 Reporting of 14C disease,2nd edn, New York data, Radiocarbon 19,355–63 Robinson, M, 1999 The prehistoric environmental Stuiver, M, and Reimer, PJ,1986 Acomputer sequence of the BarrowHills area, in Barclay and programfor radiocarbon age calculation, Radio- Halpin1999, 269–274 carbon 28,1022–30 Robinson, MA,2000 Further considerations of Stuiver, M, and Reimer, PJ,1993 Extended 14Cdata Neolithic charred cereals,fruit and nuts, in Plants base and revised CALIB 3.0 14Cage calibration in Neolithic Britain and beyond (ed. AFairbairn), program, Radiocarbon 35,215–30 Oxford, 85–90 Stuiver, M, Reimer, PJ,Bard, E, Beck, JW,Burr, GS, Robinson, MAand Wilson, R, 1987 Asurveyof Hughen KA,Kromer, B, McCormac, G, van der environmental archaeology in the South Mid- Plicht, J, and Spurk,M,1998 INTCAL98 Radio- lands, in Environmental archaeology: aregional carbon age calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP, Radio- review 2 (ed. HCMKeeley), Historic Buildings carbon 40,1041–83 and Monuments Commission Occasional Paper 1 , Suchey, JMand Brooks, S1990 Skeletal age deter- London, 16–100 mination based on the os pubis:acomparisonofthe Rodwell, KA(ed.),1975 HistorictownsinOxfordshire: Acsa´ di-Nemeske´ ri and Suchey-Brooks method, asurvey of the new county,Oxfordshire Archae- Human Evolution 5 ,227–238 ologicalUnit Survey 3 ,Oxford Thomas, J, 1999 Understanding the Neolithic,London Rozanski, K, Stichler,W,Gonfiantini, R, Scott, EM, Thomas, N, 1955 Excavations at Vicarage Field, Beukens, RP,Kromer, B, and van der Plicht, J, StantonHarcourt, 1951, Oxoniensia 20,1–28 1992 TheIAEA 14Cintercomparison exercise 1990, Thomas, R, 1979 RomanAbingdon:anassessment of Radiocarbon 34,506–19 the evidence, Unpublished BA dissertation,Univ. Russell, 1973, Soil conditions and plant growth,London of Southampton, Southampton Saville,A,1980 On the measurementofstruck flakes Timby, J, 1999 The Pottery, in Muir and Roberts and flake tools, Lithics 1 ,16–20 1999, 30–40 Scheuer, L, Musgrave, JHand Evans, SP,1980 The Tomber, R, and Dore J, 1998, The national Roman estimation of late foetal and perinatal age from fabric referencecollection: ahandbook,London

99 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Tringham, R, Cooper, G, Odell, G, Voytek, B, and Whimster, R, 1981 Burial practices in Iron Age Britain: Whitman,A,1974 Experimentationinthe forma- adiscussion and gazetteer of the evidence c700 BC– tion of edge damage: anew approach to lithic AD 43,BAR Brit. Ser. 90,Oxford analysis,JField Archaeology 1 ,171–196 Whittle, A, 1997 Sacred mound, holy rings.Silbury Hill Trotter, M, and Gleser, GC,1952 Estimation and the West Kennet palisade enclosures: alater of stature from long bones of American Whites Neolithic complexinnorth Wiltshire,Oxbow Mono- and Negroes, Amer JofPhysical Anthrop 10, graph 74,Oxford 463–514 Whittle, A, Atkinson, RJC, Chambers, R, and Trotter, M, and Gleser,GC, 1958 Are-evaluation of Thomas, N, 1992 Excavations in the Neolithic and estimation of stature based on measurements of BronzeAge complex at Dorchester-on-Thames, stature taken during life and long bones after Oxfordshire, 1947–1952 and 1981, Proc Prehist Soc death, Amer JofPhysical Anthrop 16,79–123 58,143–201 Tuross, N, Fogel, ML,and Hare, PE,1988 Williams,A,1946–7 Excavations at Langford Downs, Variability in the preservation of the isotopic Oxon (near Lechlade), Oxoniensia 11–12,44–64 composition of collagen from fossil bone, Geo- Williams,A,1951, Excavations at Beard Mill, Stanton chimica Cosmochimica Acta 52,929–35 Harcourt, 1944, Oxoniensia 16,5–22 Underwood-Keevill, C, 1992 The pottery, in An Wilson, R, 1978 TheAnimal bones, in Parrington Anglo-Saxon site at Audlett Drive, Abingdon, 1978,110 –139 Oxon.(GDKeevill), Oxoniensia 57,67–73 Wilson, D, 1979 Inhumations and Romansettlement Unger-Hamilton, R, 1988 Methodinmicrowearanaly- features at Box Hill,Abingdon, Oxon, Oxoniensia sis: prehistoric sicklesand other stone tools from 44,97–9 Arjoune, Syria,BAR Int Ser 435,Oxford Wilson, R, 1984 Faunal remains: animal bones and Van Beek, G1983 Dental morphology:anillustrated marine shells, in Miles(ed.) 1984, 8:A1–8:O9 guide,2nd edn, Bristol Wilson, B, Grigson, Cand Payne, S(eds), 1982 van der Plicht, J, Wijma, S, Aerts, AT,Pertuisot, Ageing andSexing Animal Bones from Archaeo- MH,and Meijer, HAJ, 2000 Status report: the logical Sites,BAR Brit Ser 109,Oxford Groningen AMS facility, Nuclear Instruments and Wilson, Rand Wallis, J, 1991 Prehistoric activity, Methods in Physics Research B 172,58–65 early Romanbuilding, tenementyards and Von den Driesch, A, 1976 Aguide to the measurement gardensbehind Twickenham House,Abingdon, of animal bones from archaeological sites,Peabody Oxoniensia 56,1–15 Museum Bulletin 1 , Harvard Workshop of European Anthropologists,1980 Re- Wainwright GJ,1979, Gussage AllSaints:anIron commendations for age and sex diagnoses of infant Age settlement in Dorset,DoE Archaeol Rep 10, skeletons, Journal of Human Evolution 9 ,517–4 London Yalden, D, 1999 The history of British mammals ,London Wainwright, GJand Longworth, IH,1971 Durring- Yates, DT,1999 Bronze Age fieldsystems in the ton Walls: excavations 1966–1968 ,Rep Res Comm ThamesValley, Oxford JArchaeol 18/2 ,157–170 Soc Antiq London 29,London York, J, 2002 The life cycle of Bronze Age metalwork Wallis, J, 1981 Radley: Thrupp Farm, South Midlands from the Thames, Oxford JArchaeol 21/1,77–92. Archaeol 11,134–7 Young, CJ,1977, Oxfordshire Roman pottery,BAR Brit Ward, GK,and Wilson, SR,1978Procedures for Ser 43,Oxford comparing and combining radiocarbon agedeter- Zondervan, A, and Sparks,RJ, 1997Development minations: acritique, Archaeometry 20,19–31 plans for the AMS facility at the Institute of West, S, 1985 West Stow: the Anglo-Saxon village 1 , Geological and Nuclear Sciences, New Zealand, East Anglian Archaeol 24,Norwich Nuclear Instrumentsand Methods in Physics Research West, S, 2001 West Stow revisited,West Stow B 123,79–83

100 Index

A Abingdon Area Archaeological and Historical Society (AAAHS) ...... 1, 6 Abingdon Town Council...... 1 Abingdon Vineyard ...... 4, 48, 67, 71, 81, 83, 85–6, 88 Andersey Island...... 67 Anglo-Saxon ...... 4,24, 55,57–8, 87–8 early ...... 47, 87 pottery see Pottery, Anglo-Saxon sites...... 48, 87 Ashmolean Museum,Oxfordshire ...... 6,7,39, 45, 53 Ashville Trading Estate...... 2,4,67, 72, 75, 78–9, 81, 85 Audlett Drive,Abingdon, Oxfordshire ...... 4,48, 79, 85–6 Awl ...... 54, 61, 78 copper ...... 9,12, 57, 71

B Barley ...... 58, 72, 88 Barrow Hills ...... 1, 2, 4, 34, 48, 53,57, 70–2, 75, 85, 87–8 Barrows ...... 1, 72–3, 75 ditched ...... 71 long ...... 1, 68, 71–2 Barton Court Farm, Oxfordshire ...... 4, 48, 70, 78, 83, 85–7 BeakerPeriod ...... 1,6,9,37, 39, 40, 54, 57, 61, 71–2, 75 burial ...... 9, 12, 57, 71, 74, 78 pottery see Pottery, Beaker Beech ...... 58–9, 83 Bone human ...... 16, 57–8, 62, 67, 78 objects ...... 55 ring...... 17, 57 toggle ...... 55 Bones animal ...... 12–3, 16,19, 26, 57–8, 67–70, 79, 83, 86, 88 cattle ...... 57–8, 68, 70, 83 dog ...... 58 fowl, domestic...... 58 horse ...... 58 human ...... 16, 78 mammal ...... 55 pig...... 55, 57–8, 61–2, 68, 70, 72, 88 pine marten ...... 58, 68, 70 sheep ...... 16, 57–8, 68, 70, 79, 83, 88 BronzeAge ...... 1, 2, 6, 9, 13–4, 16, 24–5, 28, 37, 39–44, 56–7, 67–9, 71–3, 75–6, 78–9, 88 early ...... 37, 39, 42, 71–2, 76 inhumations ...... 2 late ...... 2, 6, 13,16, 24, 28,39–44, 57, 73, 75–6, 79 middle ...... 2, 13, 16, 28,39–41, 56, 72–3, 75, 88 pottery see Pottery, Bronze Age sites...... 76 timber circle ...... 14, 25, 67, 88 Brooch,copper alloy disc ...... 55 Burial monuments...... 2,71 mounds ...... 68, 71, 73, 88 sites...... 72

101 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Burials...... 1, 4, 6, 16–8,28, 31, 54–5, 61, 71–5, 77–9, 85, 91 adult ...... 28, 57–8, 71, 78 Bronze age ...... 75 child ...... 17, 55, 57, 77–8 crouched ...... 71, 76–8 extended ...... 90 female ...... 9, 57, 71 human skull ...... 17–8, 28, 31, 57–8 infant ...... 17, 57, 77–8 inhumations ...... 2, 4, 6, 57, 78 crouched ...... 6,18, 57, 78 Iron Age ...... 55, 57, 77–8 male ...... 18, 55, 57, 78 modern ...... 6, 9, 13, 18–9, 24, 27–8, 31, 43, 45, 48, 72, 86 prone ...... 17 supine ...... 17, 57 Butchery marks ...... 57–8

C Cassington, Oxfordshire ...... 34, 51, 53, 70 Cereal/s ...... 58, 70 Cesspits ...... 88 Chaff ...... 47, 58 Clay, fired ...... 19, 53–4, 68, 70, 87 Coins ...... 4,24, 54, 78–9 Comb, double sided ...... 55 Corporation Farm, Abingdon, Oxfordshire ...... 1,2,4,67–8, 70, 72, 75 Cursus ...... 1,68 Drayton, Oxfordshire...... 81

D DaisyBanks, Radley, Oxfordshire ...... 1, 69, 70, 72, 76 Daub ...... 26, 53, 87 Ditches aligned ...... 19 coaxial/rectilinear ...... 79 defensive ...... 81 groups ...... 13, 83 linear ...... 75 trackway ...... 81 Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire ...... 4, 39, 70, 72–3, 83, 88 Dorney,Berkshire ...... 34 Drayton Cursus, Oxfordshire ...... 81 Drayton, Oxfordshire ...... 4,39, 67–8, 81 Durrington Walls,Wiltshire ...... 38–9, 70

E Enclosures ...... 19, 61,75, 78–9, 81–3, 85, 87 causewayed ...... 1, 68, 70 ditched ...... 61, 75, 81 rectangular...... 19, 81, 83 settlement...... 75 subrectangular ...... 81 EnglishHeritage ...... 1,71 Eynsham Abbey, Oxfordshire ...... 53 Eynsham, Oxfordshire ...... 40, 73, 75

F Faringdon Road, Abingdon, Oxfordshire ...... 4,90 Fence/Fence lines...... 16, 19, 22, 24, 26, 77, 79, 81, 83, 87

102 Index

Fengate ...... 37, 39 Flint ...... 6, 9, 27, 33–7, 39–41, 67–8, 70–1, 88 blades ...... 33 bladelet core ...... 33 burin...... 13, 33–4 chisel arrowhead ...... 35 core ...... 33, 39,41–2, 68–9 flakes...... 13, 33–4, 68 serrated ...... 33–4 scraper ...... 33–4, 68, 70 truncated blade ...... 33 Frilford ...... 51, 77, 85

G Glass ...... 27–8 beads...... 56 Grave diggers, modern ...... 6,18, 28, 57 goods...... 17, 78 subrectangular ...... 9,57 Gravel extraction ...... 28, 68, 92 pits ...... 4, 83, 90–1 terraces ...... 1,67, 75, 78 Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire ...... 55, 73, 79, 81, 83 Grubenhau¨ ser, see Sunken-featuredBuilding

H Hazel ...... 58, 70, 88 Hazelnut ...... 70 Headland...... 91–2 Horse ...... 75 Houses...... 1, 16, 67, 72, 77, 88 Huts,sunken see Sunken-featured Building

I Iron ...... 11, 43, 55, 57, 80 Iron Age ...... 4,6,13, 16,18–9, 24, 42–3, 45, 53, 55–7, 68, 73, 75–9, 83 early ...... 4, 6, 16–9, 26,28, 42–3, 61, 73, 76–9 enclosure...... 81 late ...... 4,73, 78–9, 81 middle ...... 4, 9, 16, 19, 24, 26, 28, 42, 55, 57, 61, 73, 77–9, 81 pottery see Pottery, Iron Age skeletons ...... 57, 61 structures ...... 85

L Larkhill Stream,Abingdon, Oxfordshire ...... 1, 4, 58, 67, 71–2, 75, 79, 81, 88 Levallois ...... 16, 33, 35 Long Wittenham, Oxfordshire ...... 75

M Medieval ...... 4, 21, 24,27–9, 31, 47–8, 56, 59, 67–8, 79, 81, 83, 88–92 gravel pits ...... 67 pottery see Pottery, Medieval Mesolithic ...... 34, 67 Metal ...... 54

103 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Monuments ...... 1, 13, 68, 70–3, 75, 88 henge ...... 1, 70, 72 Mucking, Essex...... 53, 86

N Neolithic ...... 1,2,4,6,9–14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 33–40, 52–9, 67–76, 78, 92 and Bronze Age ...... 57, 69, 92 chisel arrowheads ...... 33 early ...... 37, 68 flint ...... 9, 16, 35 late ...... 34, 37, 39, 57–9, 67–8, 70–3, 75 levalloiscore ...... 16, 33 middle ...... 33, 37–9, 68, 70 monuments ...... 1,55 palisades ...... 73 pit ...... 57, 70 pottery see Pottery, Neolithic

O Ock, Bridge ...... 4,91 Ock, River...... 1,4,67–8, 71–2, 75, 78, 81, 85, 88 Oppidum ...... 4,79 Ordnance Survey ...... 4,92

P Palisade,continuous ...... 72–3 Peterborough Ware see pottery Pits early Iron Age ...... 18 medieval ...... 28 gravel extraction ...... 68, 83 middle Neolithic...... 68 Plant, charred ...... 58, 83 Porch ...... 13, 16, 77 Post pipes ...... 9, 12–3, 73 ring ...... 13, 16 Post circle, penannular ...... 73 Post-medieval ...... 4, 21, 28, 88, 91 Posthole arc ...... 9, 12, 56, 68, 72–3 inner ...... 12, 61, 72 circular ...... 9 buildings ...... 4 double arc of ...... 9,72 outer arc ...... 9,12–3, 61, 72–3 ring ...... 77 Pottery Anglo-Saxon ...... 6, 24,26–7, 47–53, 55, 85, 87 grass-tempered...... 27 Stamped sherds ...... 48–53, 88 Beaker period ...... 71 ( see also Neolithic and Early Bronze Age) Bronze Age ...... 13, 16, 37, 24, 39–42, 72, 75 BucketUrns...... 13, 75 fine-ware bowl...... 6 funerary ...... 72 Iron Age ...... 6, 9, 16–9, 24, 26, 61, 77–9 Later Bronze Age ...... 39–42 Later Prehistoric ...... 42–45 Medieval pottery ...... 24, 48, 90

104 Index

Neolithicand Early Bronze Age ...... 12–3, 37–39 decorated ...... 70–2 Deverel-Rimbury ...... 24, 39, 40, 75 Grooved ware ...... 1, 9, 33–4, 53–4, 57,67–8, 70–2 Plain Bowl...... 67–8, 70 Mortlake ...... 37, 39 Peterborough Ware ...... 9,12, 34, 68 Woodlands style ...... 38–9, 70 Romanpottery ...... 19, 24, 28, 45–6 Gaulishsamian, Central...... 45 Mortaria...... 79

Q Quarry...... 26–8, 55, 61, 91–2 Victorian ...... 28, 55, 61, 91

R Radley, Oxfordshire ...... 1, 2, 4, 34,38–9, 48, 53–4, 57, 68, 70–2, 75, 85, 87–8 Ring-ditches ...... 1, 71–3, 75 Ring, finger ...... 55 River Ock, see Ock, River River Thames, see Thames, River Rocque’s map, Berkshire ...... 4,90–2 Roman...... 19, 21–4, 26, 28, 45, 53, 56, 59, 67, 79, 81–5 brooch ...... 27 cemetery ...... 4 coin ...... 27, 54–5 ditches ...... 6, 13, 16, 25, 28, 58, 61, 77, 81, 83, 87–8 boundary...... 81, 88 enclosure ...... 19, 79, 83, 88 Sections ...... 25 early ...... 79, 81, 83, 85 late ...... 4, 45, 88 pottery see Pottery, Roman settlement ...... 81, 83, 85 unguent spoon ...... 55 Roughground Farm, Lechlade...... 81, 83 Round barrows...... 1 Roundhouse ...... 13, 16, 18, 57, 72, 75–9 Rubbish pits ...... 88

S Saxon ...... 4,6,9,12, 19, 21, 26–8, 45, 53, 56, 58–9, 85 burials ...... 28 cemetery ...... 4 early-middle ...... 28 loomweights ...... 4 middle ...... 48 pottery see Pottery, Anglo-Saxon sites...... 87 Seahenge ...... 73 SFBs see Sunken-featured Building Skeletons ...... 6,9,17, 28, 57, 61–2, 78 Skellington, Bill ...... 6 Spindle whorl ...... 17–8, 53, 57 clay ...... 18 Spring Gardens, Abingdon, Oxfordshire ...... 62 StantonHarcourt, Oxfordshire...... 55, 70–1, 75, 79, 81, 83 Structures ...... 13, 16, 19, 26, 72–5, 77–8, 86–7

105 Neolithic to Saxon discoveries at Spring RoadMunicipal Cemetery

Sunken-featuredBuilding ...... 4, 6, 12–3, 19,25–7, 35, 37,48, 53–4, 58, 61, 85–8 Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire...... 39, 52–3, 70, 85, 88

T TaplowCourt, Buckinghamshire ...... 72 Teeth ...... 34, 57 Tesco site,Abingdon, Oxfordshire ...... 1,2,68, 70–2, 75 Timber circle ...... 9, 13–4, 25–6, 38, 55, 61, 67, 72–6, 88, 92 circles, Comparative plans of ...... 74 Thames, River ...... 1,4,67, 78

V Vineyard ...... 4, 48, 67, 71, 79, 81, 83, 85–6, 88

W Waterhole ...... 2,75 West Stow,Suffolk ...... 86–7 Wheat...... 58–9, 70, 72, 83, 88 Wyndyke Furlong, Abingdon ...... 4, 42, 67, 71, 75, 78–9, 81

Y Yarnton, Oxfordshire ...... 38–9, 57, 71, 75, 78, 81, 83

106