DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparative Study of Faunal Assemblages from British Iron Age Sites

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparative Study of Faunal Assemblages from British Iron Age Sites Durham E-Theses A comparative study of faunal assemblages from British iron age sites Hambleton, Ellen How to cite: Hambleton, Ellen (1998) A comparative study of faunal assemblages from British iron age sites, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4646/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGES FROM BRITISH IRON AGE SITES The copyright of this thesis rests witli the author. No quotation from it should be published without tlie written consent of the author and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Ellen Hambleton Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeology University of Durham 1998 t 3 M 1999 STATEMENT OF COPYRIGHT The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without their prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. ABSTRACT A Comparative Study of Faunal Assemblages from British Iron Age Sites Ellen Hambleton Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeology University of Durham 1998 The broad aim of this thesis is to further understanding of British Iron Age animal husbandry regimes by undertaking a comparative study of faunal assemblages. More specifically, this involves development of a uniform methodology for comparing published faunal data in order to recognise inter and intra-regional patterns of animal husbandry. Lack of uniformity in methods of recording and presenting faunal data, together with variation in the quality and quantity of information published in reports, serves as a barrier to systematic quantitative comparison. This thesis therefore seeks to develop methods of comparison which utilise the most commonly available forms of faunal data, or convert different forms of data into a single comparable format, in order that inter and intra-regional analyses of the widest possible dataset can be undertaken. To ensure viable comparisons unaffected by small sample bias, only those sites with total cattle, sheep and pig assemblages of NISP>300 or MNI>30 are included in this study. Analyses concentrate on the three main domestic species (cattle, sheep, and pig) which comprise the bulk of all faunal remains recovered from excavations of British Iron Age sites, and utilise three main types of information: Firstly, representation of different skeletal elements is examined in order to recognise the effects of taphonomic and human alteration on each assemblage. Secondly, quantification data for cattle, sheep, and pig is compared, using tripolar graphs to establish the relative importance of different species in each assemblage. Thirdly, mandibular tooth wear data is used for the composition of mortality profiles to compare herd management strategies. Both species proportions and mortality profiles from different faunal assemblages are compared, and examined for any inter and intra-regional similarities. Subsequendy assemblages are examined for relationships between patterns of species proportions and/or mortality profiles and particular site characteristics (topographical location, underlying geology, settlement type, and date). Finally, using the results of these analyses, suggestions are made as to the nature of animal husbandry regimes in different regions, and the factors influencing choice of husbandry strategy in Iron Age Britain. "So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together" Ezekiel 37:7 Contents Acknowledgements vn List of figures vni List of tables XI Chapter 1 Introduction 1 • Iron Age settlement archaeology and agriculture 1 • Climate and Crops 3 • Justification and aims of research 4 Chapter 2 Comparative regional investigations of Iron Age animal 6 husbandry: a review of the literature • Previous approaches 7 • Previous Studies 15 • Summary 18 Chapter 3 The Iron Age dataset and introduction to methods of 19 analysis • Problems in faunal analysis 19 • The faunal dataset 22 • Site characteristics 25 • Methods of analysis 31 Chapter 4 The representation of skeletal elements in Iron Age faunal 36 assemblages • The potential of skeletal element representation as a source of 36 archaeological information • Problems in the study of skeletal element representation 41 • Methods of analysing skeletal element representation 43 • Treatment of skeletal element representation in Iron Age faunal reports 46 • Analysis of the Iron Age data 47 • Iron Age skeletal element representation: conclusions and 55 recommendations Chapter 5 Quantification of faunal remains 57 • Uses of quantified faunal data 57 • Methods of Quantification 58 • Availability of NISP, MNI and MNE data 62 • Comparability ofNISP, MNI and MNE data 64 • Sample size 68 IV Chapter 6 Species proportions in Iron Age faunal assemblages 72 Introduction 72 Methods 72 British Iron Age Species Proportions 78 Region 80 Geology 86 Topographical Location 91 Site Type 95 Date 100 Conclusions 105 Chapter 7 Ageing of Iron Age domesticates 107 • Uses of age data 107 • Methods of Ageing 108 • Two methods of ageing from dental wear: the advantages and limitations 110 for comparative study of Iron Age faunal material. Chapter 8 Method for converting the results of different analyses of 114 mandibular tooth wear into a similar format. • Aim 114 • Method 114 • Results 116 • Testing the method. 117 • Discussion and Conclusion. 121 Chapter 9 Mortality profiles of Iron Age domesticates 122 Sample size 122 Comparability of tooth wear data derived from different methods 123 Pig 124 Sheep 126 Sheep: regional analysis 132 Sheep: site characteristics 135 Cattle 142 Cattle: regional analysis 147 Cattle: site characteristics 150 Conclusions 156 Chapter 10 Summary/Discussion: Animal Husbandry regimes in Iron 157 Age Britain • Regional Patterns 157 • Future work 165 Chapter 11 Methods: evaluation and future direction 168 • Identification of trends and outliers 168 • Published data: Limitations and recommendations 169 • Use of methods outside the British Iron Age 173 Summary 175 Bibliography 176 Appendix 1 Information available in published Iron Age faunal reports 187 Appendix 2 Site characteristics and species proportions of Iron Age 190 faunal assemblages Appendix 3 Representation of different skeletal elements in Iron Age 195 fauna assemblages Appendix 4 Mortality profiles based on tooth wear data 225 Appendix 5 Reading Tripolar Graphs 245 VI Acknowledgements I am indebted to the following for their contributions to this research: My supervisors, Colin Haselgrove and Peter Rowley-Conwy, for providing a wealth of knowledge, enthusiasm, and patience. Sue Stallibrass and Dale Serjeantson for their helpful insights into the subject matter, and Sue for her guidance on the analysis of the Port Seton assemblage. Mark Robinson and Bob Wilson for their help with access to, and comprehension of, the Upper Thames Valley faunal archive. Also, James Rackham for making available unpublished data from Stanwick. My parents for their continued love and support throughout. Duncan for giving his best and taking my worst. All my family and friends, particularly Rosie, Paul, and Room 001, for precision application of encouragement, nagging, and welcome distractions. NERC for flmding the project. Many Thanks. vn List of Figures Chapter 2 Figure 1: Map of Britain depicting Fox's (1938) 'Highland' and 'Lowland' zones. Figure 2: Map of Britain depicting Regions covered by Piggott's (1958) 'Stanwick' and 'Woodbury' cultures. Figure 3: Map of Britain depicting Cunliffe's (1991) model of the distribution of different Iron Age agricultural economies. Chapter 3 Figure 4: Model of the taphonomic history of a faunal assemblage (after Meadow 1981). The decreasing size of the symbol (from top to bottom) denotes the loss of information through taphonomic time. Figure 5: Map of Britain depicting geographical regions and location of sites used in this study. Chapter 4 Figure 6: a) Percentage survival of parts of goat skeletons from the Kuiseb River villages b) Percentage survival of parts of bovid skeletons from Makapansgat. (after Brain 1981) Figure 7: Percent MNI of the Star Carr red deer compared with caribou from three types of Nunamiut Eskimo sites: a) Kill-butchery sites b) Residential base camps c) Hunting camp, (after Legge & Rowley-Conwy 1988) Figure 8: Patterns of skeletal element representation in three Iron Age cattle assemblages using MNI method: a) with separate proximal and distal long bone elements b) with whole bone elements Figure 9: Representation of skeletal elements from different Iron Age cattle, sheep, and pig assemblages: a) using MNI method b) using NISP method. Figure 10: Representation of skeletal elements in two Iron Age cattle assemblages illustrating the differences
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transactions Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE WOOLHOPE NATURALISTS' FIELD CLUB HEREFORDSHIRE "HOPE ON" "HOPE EVER" ESTABLISHED 1851 VOLUME XLVII 1992 PART II TRANSACTIONS OF THE WOOLHOPE NATURALISTS' FIELD CLUB HEREFORDSHIRE "HOPE ON" "HOPE EVER" ESTABLISHED 1851 VOLUME XLVII 1992 PART II TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Proceedings, 1992 - 129 Iron Age and Romano-British Farmland in the Herefordshire Area by Ruth E. Richardson - 144 Excavations at Kilpeck, Herefordshire, by R. Shoesmith - - 162 John Nash and Humphry Repton: an encounter in Herefordshire by D. Whitehead - - 210 REPORTS OF SECTIONAL RECORDERS Archaeology, 1992, by R. Shoesmith - 237 Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club 1992 Botany, 1992, by P. Thomson using Botanical Society Records for Herefordshire 245 All contributions to The Woolhope Transactions are COPYRIGHT. None of them may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior Buildings, 1992, by J. W. Tonkin - 247 permission of the writers. Applications to reproduce contributions, in whole or in part, should be addressed in the first instance, to the editor whose address is given in Geology, 1992, by P. Cross the LIST OF OFFICERS. 252 The Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club is not responsible for any statement made, or Herefordshire Field-Names, 1992, by G. Sprackling 254 opinion expressed, in these Transactions; the authors alone are responsible for their own papers and reports. Industrial Archaeology, 1992, by J. van Laun 260 Mammals, 1992, by W. H. D. Wince 262 Ornithology, 1992, by Beryl Harding 263 City of Hereford, Conservation Area Advisory Committee, 1992, by Joe Hillaby 267 Archaeological Research Section, 1992, by P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wessex Hillforts Project
    Bibliography Ainsworth, S, Oswald, A and Pearson, T 2001 ‘Discovering Our FSA. Cambridge Hillfort Heritage’, PAST (The Newsletter of the Prehistoric Society), — 1998 Barbury ‘Castle: an Archaeological Survey by the Royal 39, November 2001, 3-4 Commission on the Historical Monuments of England’. RCHME Aitken, M J 1974 Physics and Archaeology, 2 edn. Oxford: Clarendon Survey Report, AI/3/1998 Press — (ed) 1999 Unravelling the Landscape, an Inquisitive Approach to Aitken. M J and Tite, M S 1962 ‘Proton magnetometer surveying on Archaeology. Stroud: Tempus some British hill-forts’, Archaeometry, 5, 126–34 — 2000 Liddington Castle Archaeological Earthwork Survey. English Alcock, L 1968a ‘Cadbury Castle’, 1967, Antiquity, 42, 47–51 Heritage survey report, AI/4/2001 — 1968b ‘Excavations at South Cadbury Castle, 1967, a summary Bowden, M 2005 ‘The Middle Iron Age on the Marlborough report’, Antiq J, 48, 6–17 Downs’, in Brown, G, Field, D and McOmish, D (eds) — 1969 ‘Excavations at South Cadbury Castle, 1968, a summary The Avebury Landscape – Aspects of the Field Archaeology of the report’, Antiq J, 49, 30–40 Marlborough Downs. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 156-63 — 1970 ‘South Cadbury Excavations, 1969’, Antiquity, 44, 46–9 Bowden, M, Ford, S and Gaffney, V 1993 ‘The excavation of a Late — 1971 ‘Excavations at South Cadbury Castle, 1970, summary Bronze Age artefact scatter on Weathercock Hill’, Berkshire report’, Antiq J, 51, 1–7 Archaeol J, 74, 69–83 — 1972 ‘By South Cadbury is that Camelot…’ Excavations at Cadbury Bowden, M and McOmish, D 1987 ‘The Required Barrier’, Scottish Castle 1966–1970. London Archaeol Rev, 4, 76–84 — 1980 ‘The Cadbury Castle sequence in the first millennium BC’, — 1989 ‘Little Boxes: more about hillforts’, Scottish Archaeol Rev, 6, Bull Board Celtic Stud, 28, 656–718 12–16 — 1995 Cadbury Castle, Somerset: the Early Medieval Archaeology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wessex Hillforts Project
    THE WESSEX HILLFORTS PROJECT Index Page numbers in bold refer to entrances 98, 99, 136, 158 brooches 124 Cheviot Hills 8 illustrations. field system 99 Buckland Rings, Hampshire Childe, Gordon 4 magnetometer survey 86, 99, 21, 27–8 Chiselbury, Wiltshire 99, 112, 100, 101, 102–3, 144 Bury Hill, Hampshire 134, 136, 137, 139 A morphology and setting 98, comparison with Danebury Chiseldon 133 ABC chronological system 4–5 98–9, 133 145 Chisenbury Trendle, Wiltshire aerial photographic record 33 occupation 103, 118, 143, ditches 56 138 aerial photography 18, 38, 147, 159, 161 earthworks 55 Cissbury, Sussex 7, 13, 16, 44, 131, 133, 139–40, 153 previous finds 98, 99 entrances 54–5, 55 53 Alcock, Leslie 151 quarry scoops 103 excavation 32, 152 Cley Hill, Hampshire 134 Alfred’s Castle, Oxfordshire ramparts 98, 98–9, 103, 118, external enclosure 56 Codford Circle, Wiltshire 137 background 82–3 136, 138, 161 horse rearing 56 Conderton (or Dane’s) Camp, digital terrain modelling 85, topographical recording 37 magnetometer survey Worcestershire 16–17, 85, 89 trackway 102 27, 34, 35, 46, 56–8, 18, 34, 35, 127, 136, entrances 81, 87 barrows 120, 162 144, 147, 150 excavations 83–4, 86–8 Alfred’s Castle 82 morphology and setting 55, Coombe Down, Wiltshire 113 linear anomalies 86 Barbury Castle 103 55–6, 135 Credenhill, Welsh Marches 5 magnetometer survey 62, 83, bowl 127 occupation 13, 14, 56, 140, Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire 83–6, 84, 144, 155 disc 64, 99 143, 159, 162 5, 16, 44 morphology and setting 81, the Lambourne Seven 97 previous finds 55 Croft
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses An experiential and comparative analysis of the landscapes of movement and visibility at ve Late Iron Age earthwork complexes in Britain BITHELL, SAMUEL,THOMAS How to cite: BITHELL, SAMUEL,THOMAS (2020) An experiential and comparative analysis of the landscapes of movement and visibility at ve Late Iron Age earthwork complexes in Britain, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/13691/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 An experiential and comparative analysis of the landscapes of movement and visibility at five Late Iron Age earthwork complexes in Britain By Samuel Thomas Bithell Abstract: In recent decades, the territorial oppida of Late Iron Age Britain have begun to be assessed more as landscape constructs than individual sites. In addition, studies of other contemporary complexes frequently excluded from the classification of oppida have revealed remarkable similarities with the traditionally defined territorial oppida.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wessex Hillforts Project
    1 Hillfort studies and the Wessex Project by Andrew Payne The Wessex Hillforts Project was initiated in effort and organisation must have been 1996 to answer a need for more wide-rang­ involved in their construction, the reasons ing data on hillfort interiors for the purposes why they were constructed are more difficult of placing their future management on a to comprehend. The term hillfort has been sounder footing and enhancing knowledge applied to many different types of site and of the internal character of the various hill- their varying sizes, morphologies and situa­ fort types represented in Wessex. It was tions strongly suggest a range of different hoped that the combined results of the pro­ motives for their construction, spanning a ject would considerably extend academic considerable date range (Fig 1.1). understanding of the socio-economic role of We usually associate hillforts with the hillforts in southern England during the 1st Iron Age, the period when many new hill- millennium BC, thereby allowing a greater forts were built, but the origins of hillfort level of interpretation to be offered to visi­ building lie at least as far back as the Bronze tors at those sites with public access. Age. During the 800 years before the The primary methodology employed by Roman invasion of Britain (the period that the project was geophysical survey supple­ we conventionally term the Iron Age) the mented by examination of aerial photo­ role of hillforts seems to have changed. New graphic evidence, documentary research and evidence is only gradually being uncovered selective digital modelling of site micro- that helps to extend our understanding and topography.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wessex Hillforts Project
    3 The Regional Pattern by Mark Corney and Andrew Payne The hillforts of Wessex: their P Williams Freeman. Both worked primarily morphology and environs in Hampshire, although Sumner also extended his survey work into neighbouring by Mark Corney southern Wiltshire and Dorset. His pioneer­ ing survey of Cranborne Chase (Sumner Introduction 1913) resulted in the presentation of plans produced to a very high standard of draughts­ The methodical study of Wessex hillforts has manship that had a profound influence on the its origins in the late 19th century and open­ graphic style of the early RCHM surveys in ing two decades of the 20th century and, West Dorset. (These were largely produced with the notable exception of Pitt Rivers’ during the 1930s but, owing to the outbreak excavations at Winkelbury, Wiltshire (Pitt of the Second World War, were not published Rivers 1888), initially developed as a non- until 1952.) Williams Freeman published sur­ intrusive survey tradition. Given that this veys of many Hampshire hillforts (1915) and volume is presenting the results of non-intru­ although his graphical style did not match sive methodologies it is worth pausing to that of Sumner, he provided an important review the development of this tradition in record of many sites as they appeared 100 Wessex. Although the late 19th century years ago (see for example the section on marks the main starting point for investiga­ Norsebury, pp 66–71). tions, any review must acknowledge the con­ This auspicious start to non-intrusive tribution of the superb surveys produced by investigation was to prove something of a false Philip Crocker on behalf of Sir Richard Colt dawn as the emphasis began to move rapidly Hoare.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Bronze Age & Iron Age Hampshire
    HAMPSHIRE LATE BRONZE and IRON AGE (1600 BC – 43 AD) Resource Assessment D Allen 2007 Preamble Shennan, S J and Schadla-Hall, R T (eds), 1981 The Archaeology of Hampshire: From the Palaeolithic to the Industrial Revolution, Hants Field Club & Archaeol Soc, Monog 1. Hinton, D A and Hughes, M (eds) 1996 Archaeology in Hampshire: A Framework for the Future , Hants County Council. Stoodley, N (ed), 2002 The Millennium Publication: A Review of Archaeology in Hampshire 1980-2000. Hants Field Club & Archaeol Soc., Hants Archaeol Committee The past 25 years have seen two attempts, in the form of conference and proceedings, to gather together and synthesise the ever-growing body of information relating to the archaeology of Hampshire (1981, 1996) and to offer some form of research agenda. A review covering two decades of work has also been published (2002) which was retrospective in nature. This latter document does, however, contain a significant, if simple, gazetteer of ‘archaeological discoveries’ in the county over the twenty-year period. Inheritance Earlier communities Neolithic and Early Bronze Age ritual and burial monuments were acknowledged or utilised by later communities in a number of ways. There are also instances of the curation of artefacts from earlier periods and their deposition in features of later date. Neolithic field monuments in Hampshire are limited to long barrows (39 are known), with a scatter of flint mines on the western approaches. The barrows have a wide distribution and study of the Early Neolithic flintwork in the area (Gardiner 1996) suggests that they were foci for contemporary settlement activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Hopton Castle, Shropshire Archaeological Evaluation Report
    Wessex Archaeology Hopton Castle, Shropshire Archaeological Evaluation Report Ref: 71504 April 2010 HOPTON CASTLE SHROPSHIRE Archaeological Evaluation Prepared for: Videotext Communications Ltd 49 Goldhawk Road LONDON SW1 8QP by Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park SALISBURY Wiltshire SP4 6EB Scheduled Ancient Monument No. 106648 Report reference: 71504.01 Path: X/projects/71504/post ex/report/TT Hopton Castle report (ed LNM) April 2010 © Wessex Archaeology Limited 2010 all rights reserved Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786 Hopton Castle, Shropshire Archaeological Evaluation DISCLAIMER THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WAS DESIGNED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF A REPORT TO AN INDIVIDUAL CLIENT AND WAS PREPARED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THAT CLIENT. THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT DOES NOT NECESSARILY STAND ON ITS OWN AND IS NOT INTENDED TO NOR SHOULD IT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY THIRD PARTY. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY WILL NOT BE LIABLE BY REASON OF BREACH OF CONTRACT NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE (WHETHER DIRECT INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL) OCCASIONED TO ANY PERSON ACTING OR OMITTING TO ACT OR REFRAINING FROM ACTING IN RELIANCE UPON THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT ARISING FROM OR CONNECTED WITH ANY ERROR OR OMISSION IN THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THE REPORT. LOSS OR DAMAGE AS REFERRED TO ABOVE SHALL BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ANY LOSS OF PROFITS OR ANTICIPATED PROFITS DAMAGE TO REPUTATION OR GOODWILL LOSS OF BUSINESS OR ANTICIPATED BUSINESS DAMAGES COSTS EXPENSES INCURRED OR PAYABLE TO ANY THIRD PARTY (IN ALL CASES WHETHER DIRECT INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL) OR ANY OTHER DIRECT INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE QUALITY ASSURANCE SITE CODE 71504 ACCESSION CODE CLIENT CODE PLANNING APPLICATION REF.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Character Assessment Highres
    CRANBORNE CHASE AND WEST WILTSHIRE DOWNS AONB INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT Final Report Prepared for The Countryside Agency by Land Use Consultants June 2003 43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD Tel: 020 7383 5784 Fax: 020 7383 4798 [email protected] CONTENTS Acknowledgements.................................................................................... i 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 2. Physical Influences............................................................................... 5 3. Ecological Character......................................................................... 13 4. Human Influences.............................................................................. 19 5. Social and Economic Influences....................................................... 31 6. Overview of Agricultural Character................................................ 41 7. Recreational Influences..................................................................... 53 8. The Landscape Character of Cranborne Chase and the West Wiltshire Downs ................................................................................ 61 Type 1: Chalk Escarpments ................................................................... 63 1A Melbury to Blandford Chalk Escarpments ..................................... 65 1B West Wiltshire Downs Chalk Escarpment..................................... 73 1C Fovant and Chalke Escarpment......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Hillforts: Have We Progressed? by Barry Cunliffe
    4 Understanding hillforts: have we progressed? by Barry Cunliffe By their very nature hillforts have been a between 1926 and 1932, Christopher source of fascination for antiquarians and Hawkes sampled a similar number in archaeologists alike over many centuries. Hampshire between 1925 and 1939, while Prominently sited and redolent of power, in Dorset Mortimer Wheeler and his team these sites have challenged the imagination. excavated three, one of them, Maiden Cas­ When were they built, in what circum­ tle, on an heroic scale showing, for the first stances, who lived there and what were their time, the great potential of area excavation lives like? – the questions have remained within the interior (Wheeler 1943). much the same for generations and still The excavations of the period 1900–60 demand answers. The explanations of early were carried out within the invasionist para­ antiquarians were imaginative, inevitably digm. The forts were believed to be the involving mythical beings, historical figures result of turbulent times when Britain was or races of invaders – the giant Bevis, Caesar subject to waves of invasion and internal or Alfred, the Danes and the Saxons: folk strife. In consequence excavation tended to tales and pseudo histories merged. The 19th focus on defences and gates where, it was century saw the beginnings of serious intru­ believed, signs of the history of these inva­ sive investigation. Sometimes excavations sions, and responses to them, could be read. were carried out on a large scale. At Wor­ Although Wheeler’s area excavation at lebury in Somerset the Reverend Francis Maiden Castle was an exception in provid­ Warre excavated nearly a hundred Iron Age ing details of the occupation within, ‘inva­ pits within the protection of the fort’s sions’ featured large in the site’s defences and later C W Dymond sectioned interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamdon Hill, Montacute, Somerset
    Hamdon Hill, Montacute, Somerset. An Archaeological Evaluation Adam Slater CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT Hamdon Hill, Montacute, Somerset - An Archaeological Evaluation - (NGR 48402 16085) Adam Slater With contributions by Mike Allen, Grahame Appleby, Matthew Brudenell, Lawrence Billington, Natasha Dodwell, Christopher Evans, Charles French, Lorrain Higbee, Mark Knight, Chris Stevens and Simon Timberlake Cambridge Archaeological Unit UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE April 2009/Report No. 880 Event Number: TTNCM14/2009 CONTENTS Page NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Planning Background and Archaeological Considerations 2 Topography, Geology and Archaeological Background 3 Methodology 7 EXCAVATION RESULTS 10 Soil Geomorphology Mike Allen 10 Soil Profiles Charles French 12 Artefact-Sampling Results 13 Trench Results 14 Trench 1 14 Trench 2 14 Trench 3 14 Trench 4 18 Trenches 5 & 6 19 Trench 7 21 Trench 8 25 Trench 9 25 Trench 10 26 Human Bone Natasha Dodwell 26 Material Culture 27 Lithics Lawrence Billington 27 Early Prehistoric Pottery Mark Knight 29 Later Prehistoric Pottery Matthew Brudenell 29 Metalwork Grahame Appleby 31 Geology, Worked and Burned Stone Simon Timberlake 31 Environmental and Economic Data 38 Faunal Remains Lorrain Higbee 38 Archaeobotanical Samples Chris Stevens 40 DISCUSSION 44 Earlier Prehistoric Activity 44 Later Prehistoric Activity 44 The Enclosure 46 Internal Features 47 External Features 47 Undated/Unphased 48 A Broader Perspective 48 CONCLUSIONS 50 References 54 APPENDICES Feature and Deposit Descriptions 60 Finds
    [Show full text]