Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992-1998: Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement and Agriculture in the River Great Ouse Valley 9781407308548, 9781407322186

Citation preview

BAR 545 2011 JONES (Ed) EXCAVATIONS AT LITTLE PAXTON QUARRY, CAMBRIDGESHIRE

B A R JOnes 545 cover.indd 1

Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 10

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement and Agriculture in the River Great Ouse Valley Edited by

Alex Jones Principal contributors Lynne Bevan, Jeremy Evans, Annette Hancocks, Deborah Jaques, Stephen Rowland and Ann Woodward

BAR British Series 545 2011

22/09/2011 15:46:07

Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 10

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement and Agriculture in the River Great Ouse Valley Edited by

Alex Jones Principal contributors Lynne Bevan, Jeremy Evans, Annette Hancocks, Deborah Jaques, Stephen Rowland and Ann Woodward

With Marina Ciaraldi, Rowena Gale, James Greig, Rob Ixer, Emily Murray, David Smith, Wendy Smith, Margaret Ward and David Williams Illustrations by Nigel Dodds, Bryony Ryder, and Mark Breedon

BAR British Series 545 2011

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 545 Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 10 Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992-1998 © Birmingham Archaeology and the Publisher 2011 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781407308548 paperback ISBN 9781407322186 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407308548 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2011. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Summary Alex Jones..........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction Alex Jones......................................................................................................................................................1 Geology, soils and vegetation.................................................................................................................................2 Fieldwork strategy...................................................................................................................................................5 Previous work.........................................................................................................................................................8 Early prehistoric..............................................................................................................................................8 Iron Age (Fig. 1.6)...........................................................................................................................................8 Romano-British (Fig. 1.7).............................................................................................................................10 Aims......................................................................................................................................................................11 Methodology (Fig. 1.4).........................................................................................................................................11 Arrangement of report...........................................................................................................................................13 Summary of phasing.............................................................................................................................................13 CHAPTER 2 PRE-IRON AGE ACTIVITY (PHASE 1).................................................................................................14 Summary of Phase 1 evidence (Fig. 2.1) Alex Jones.......................................................................................................15 Results Alex Jones............................................................................................................................................................18 Description of Phase 1 features (Areas B, D and E/F)..........................................................................................18 Area B (Figs 2.2–2.4)....................................................................................................................................18 Area D (Fig. 2.5)...........................................................................................................................................18 Area E/F (Figs 2.4 and 2.6–2.8)....................................................................................................................18 Phase 1 finds and dating evidence........................................................................................................................22 Interpretation of Phase 1 features..........................................................................................................................22 Finds .......................................................................................................................................................................23 Copper alloy spearhead Lynne Bevan...................................................................................................................23 Catalogue.......................................................................................................................................................23 Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery Ann Woodward...............................................................................................23 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................23 Fabrics...........................................................................................................................................................24 Forms.............................................................................................................................................................24 Catalogue (Fig. 2.9; all from Phase 1 features in Area B unless otherwise noted).......................................24 Context groups, sherd size and abrasion.......................................................................................................25 Discussion......................................................................................................................................................26 Worked flint Lynne Bevan.....................................................................................................................................27 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................27 Methodology..................................................................................................................................................28 Range and variety..........................................................................................................................................28 Discussion by area.........................................................................................................................................32 Discussion......................................................................................................................................................39 Catalogue.......................................................................................................................................................40 Zoological and botanical evidence...................................................................................................................................40 Animal bone Emily Murray..................................................................................................................................40 Charred plant remains Wendy Smith......................................................................................................................40 Charcoal from pit F958 Rowena Gale..................................................................................................................40 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................40 Materials and methods...................................................................................................................................40 Results...........................................................................................................................................................41 Discussion......................................................................................................................................................41 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................42 Discussion of pre-Iron Age activity Alex Jones...............................................................................................................42 Chronology and sequence (Fig. 2.1).....................................................................................................................42 Settlement and context..........................................................................................................................................42 i



Trade and economy...............................................................................................................................................43 Environment..........................................................................................................................................................43 Ritual and religion.................................................................................................................................................44 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................45

CHAPTER 3 IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS (PHASE 2–PHASE 4)..............................................................................46 Summary (Figs 3.1–3.19, Colour Figs A–C) Alex Jones.................................................................................................49 Results Alex Jones............................................................................................................................................................50 Introduction and phasing..................................................................................................................................................50 Phase 2, Middle Iron Age (Areas B, D and E/F, Fig. 3.1).....................................................................................50 Area B (Figs 2.2, 3.2–3.3).............................................................................................................................50 Area D (Figs 2.5 and 3.4) and Area C (not illustrated).................................................................................56 Area E/F (Fig. 3.1 and Colour Fig. A); the unenclosed settlement...............................................................60 Summary of the Phase 2 finds and faunal evidence......................................................................................68 Summary of the Phase 2 environmental evidence.........................................................................................68 Phase 3, Late Iron Age (Area B and Area E/F; Colour Fig. A).............................................................................70 Area B (Figs 2.2 and 3.2–3.3 and 3.11).........................................................................................................70 Area E/F (Zones V, X–Y, Fig. 2.6, Colour Fig. A, Plate 3.10)......................................................................70 Summary of the finds and faunal evidence from Phase 3.............................................................................84 Summary of the Phase 3 environmental evidence.........................................................................................84 Phase 4, Late Iron Age/Transitional (1st century BC–AD 60, Colour Fig. B).....................................................84 Description and interpretation of Phase 4 feature in Area B (Fig. 2.2).........................................................84 Area E/F.........................................................................................................................................................84 Summary of the finds and faunal evidence from Phase 4.............................................................................94 Summary of the Phase 4 environmental evidence.........................................................................................94 Finds .......................................................................................................................................................................94 Small finds (Fig. 3.20) Lynne Bevan with a contribution by Rob Ixer.................................................................94 Copper alloy brooches...................................................................................................................................94 Worked bone..................................................................................................................................................96 Worked stone objects Lynne Bevan and Rob Ixer.........................................................................................96 Iron Age pottery Annette Hancocks with a contribution by David Williams........................................................98 Summary........................................................................................................................................................98 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................98 Methodology..................................................................................................................................................98 Chronology..................................................................................................................................................100 Taphonomy.................................................................................................................................................. 111 Fabrics.........................................................................................................................................................112 Petrology David Williams (Appendix 3.5)..................................................................................................113 Surface finish...............................................................................................................................................113 Decorative techniques and motifs...............................................................................................................115 Sooting.........................................................................................................................................................115 Forms...........................................................................................................................................................116 Vessel size and function (Fig. 3.36a–b).......................................................................................................117 Catalogue of illustrated forms by phase, key group and area (Figs 3.25–3.35)..........................................119 Discussion....................................................................................................................................................128 Summary of fired clay objects Annette Hancocks.........................................................................................................131 Area B (Phases 2–4)....................................................................................................................................131 Area D (Phase 2).........................................................................................................................................131 Area E/F (Phases 3–4).................................................................................................................................131 Zoological and botanical evidence.................................................................................................................................132 Animal bone Stephen Rowland and Deborah Jaques.........................................................................................132 Summary......................................................................................................................................................132 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................132 Methods.......................................................................................................................................................132 Preservation.................................................................................................................................................134 Main domesticates.......................................................................................................................................134 Cattle............................................................................................................................................................135 Caprovids.....................................................................................................................................................141

ii

Pigs..............................................................................................................................................................146 Horses..........................................................................................................................................................148 Other animals...............................................................................................................................................149 Birds............................................................................................................................................................150 Pathology.....................................................................................................................................................150 Special deposits...........................................................................................................................................151 Spatial variation...........................................................................................................................................151 Bones from sieving......................................................................................................................................151 Discussion....................................................................................................................................................151 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................156 Human remains...................................................................................................................................................157 Plant remains Marina Ciaraldi...........................................................................................................................157 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................157 Methodology................................................................................................................................................158 Preservation and identification....................................................................................................................158 Phase 2 (Middle Iron Age)..........................................................................................................................158 Phase 3 (Late Iron Age)...............................................................................................................................160 Phase 4 (Late Iron Age/Transitional, to AD 60)..........................................................................................166 Discussion....................................................................................................................................................166 Seeds and pollen from feature F1085 (3594) James Greig.................................................................................170 Results.........................................................................................................................................................170 Insects David Smith.............................................................................................................................................171 Well F338, Area B (Phase 2, Tables 3.32–3.33)..........................................................................................171 Iron Age discussion Alex Jones......................................................................................................................................173 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................173 Chronology and sequence...................................................................................................................................173 Pottery dating (Colour Figs A–B)................................................................................................................173 Site sequence...............................................................................................................................................174 Layout, organization and society........................................................................................................................175 Recent research............................................................................................................................................175 Layout..........................................................................................................................................................175 Trade and economy.............................................................................................................................................182 Animal husbandry.......................................................................................................................................182 Charred/waterlogged plant remains.............................................................................................................183 Pottery and other finds.................................................................................................................................184 Occupations and craft activities...................................................................................................................184 Environment........................................................................................................................................................184 Ritual and religion...............................................................................................................................................186 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................................................187 CHAPTER 4 ROMANO-BRITISH SETTLEMENTS..................................................................................................188 Summary of the Phase 5–8 evidence Alex Jones...........................................................................................................188 Results Alex Jones..........................................................................................................................................................188 Phasing................................................................................................................................................................188 Phase 5, Early Romano-British activity (Area E/F and Area A).........................................................................188 Phase 5A, Area E/F (Fig. 1.4, Colour Fig. B).............................................................................................188 Phase 5B, Mid–late Antonine+ (Colour Fig. D)..........................................................................................195 Phase 6, Enclosures AE2, AE1a, AE3 and AE4 group (Area A only, Figs 4.3, 4.5–4.7)....................................195 Description of Phase 6 features...................................................................................................................198 Finds and dating evidence from Phase 6 features.......................................................................................199 Interpretation of Phase 6 features................................................................................................................199 Phase 6–7 features (Fig. 4.6)...............................................................................................................................199 Description and interpretation of Phase 6–7 features..................................................................................199 Phase 7, Later Romano-British activity (Colour Fig. D)....................................................................................199 Description of Phase 7A features Enclosure AE1b, Figs 4.3, 4.8–4.10).....................................................199 Finds and dating evidence from Phase 7A features.....................................................................................202 Interpretation of Phase 7A features.............................................................................................................206 Description and interpretation of Phase 7B features (Enclosure AE5, Figs 4.3, 4.11–4.12).......................206

iii

Finds and dating evidence from Phase 7B features.....................................................................................206 Description of Phase 7C and 7D features, possible enclosures and field boundaries (AE4a–c, Figs 4.3, 4.11–4.13).....................................................................................................................206 Phase 8, Later Romano-British activity (Area A only, early–mid 4th century, Figs 4.3, 4.12–14)....................210 Description and interpretation of Phase 8 features......................................................................................210 Phase 8 finds and dating evidence...............................................................................................................211 Finds .....................................................................................................................................................................211 Small finds..........................................................................................................................................................211 Coins Roger White.......................................................................................................................................211 Other small finds (Fig. 4.15) Lynne Bevan..................................................................................................213 Romano-British pottery (Area A and Area E/F) Jeremy Evans with a contribution by Margaret Ward.............214 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................214 Taphonomy..................................................................................................................................................215 Dating evidence...........................................................................................................................................216 Fabric supply...............................................................................................................................................217 Functional analysis and finewares...............................................................................................................242 Graffiti.........................................................................................................................................................243 Discussion....................................................................................................................................................244 Summary of the fired clay/ daub Annette Hancocks...........................................................................................244 Area E/F.......................................................................................................................................................244 Area A..........................................................................................................................................................244 Faunal and environmental evidence...............................................................................................................................245 Animal bone (Area A and Area E/F) Deborah Jaques and Stephen Rowland....................................................245 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................245 Methods.......................................................................................................................................................245 Results.........................................................................................................................................................245 Discussion....................................................................................................................................................251 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................252 Plant remains (Area E/F) Marina Ciaraldi.........................................................................................................253 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................253 Methodology................................................................................................................................................253 Preservation and identification....................................................................................................................253 Discussion....................................................................................................................................................260 Pollen and plant macrofossils James Greig........................................................................................................261 Plant macrofossils........................................................................................................................................261 Laboratory work..........................................................................................................................................261 Results.........................................................................................................................................................261 Insect remains (Area A and Area E/F) David Smith............................................................................................265 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................265 Methods and analysis..................................................................................................................................265 Results.........................................................................................................................................................266 Discussion....................................................................................................................................................276 Romano-British discussion Alex Jones..........................................................................................................................277 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................277 Chronology and sequence...................................................................................................................................277 Layout and organization......................................................................................................................................278 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................278 Continuity from the later Iron Age..............................................................................................................278 Rural sites newly established in the post-conquest period..........................................................................279 The 2nd and 3rd century countryside..........................................................................................................279 The local settlement pattern.........................................................................................................................281 Trade and economy.............................................................................................................................................281 Animal husbandry.......................................................................................................................................281 Plant remains...............................................................................................................................................282 Pottery and other finds.................................................................................................................................282 Environment........................................................................................................................................................283 Ritual and religion...............................................................................................................................................284 End .....................................................................................................................................................................284 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................................................285

iv

CHAPTER 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND REFERENCES.................................................................................287 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................................287 References .....................................................................................................................................................................288 APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................................. 299

FIGURES CHAPTER 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

Location of Little Paxton quarry within river Great Ouse valley Little Paxton site and its surrounds Little Paxton site and its surrounds: geology Little Paxton, Phase 1–2 areas, the sites investigated Little Paxton and surrounds, the cropmarked evidence Cambridgeshire, Iron Age enclosures Cambridgeshire, Romano-British enclosures

CHAPTER 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15

Location of Phase 1 features within areas investigated Area B, simplified plan of all features Area B, Phase 1 features, plan Areas B and E/F, selected sections of Phase 1 features (S.1–S.6) Area D, simplified plan of all features Area E/F, simplified plan of all features Area E/F, plan of Phase 1 feature F806 and Phase 2 structures Area E/F, plan of features F958 and F991 Prehistoric pottery (Nos 1–14: nos 2, 4, 6–7 and 11, exact wall angles indeterminate, but all from the lower portions of bowls) Flint objects (Nos 1–6) Flint objects (Nos 7–14) Flint, plot of length: breadth Fields 1–2 fieldwalking, distribution of all flint Fields 1–2 fieldwalking, distribution of flint cores Fields 1–2, fieldwalking, distribution of flint tools

CHAPTER 3 Colour Figure A Area E/F, Phase 2 and Phase 3 features Colour Figure B Area E/F, Phase 4 and Phase 5A features Colour Figure C Area E/F, Zone W, Phase 4 and Phase 5A enclosures 3.1 Simplified plan of Middle Iron Age features within areas excavated 3.2 Area B, Phase 2–3 features, sections (S.1–S.22) 3.3 Area B, detail of Structures 1 and 2 3.4 Area D, Phase 2 sections (S.1–S.8) 3.5 Area E/F, Zone V, simplified plan of Phase 2–5 features 3.6 Area E/F, Zones V, X, and Y, Phase 2 sections (S.1–S.22) 3.7 Area E/F, Zone X, simplified plan of Phase 2–5 features 3.8 Area E/F, Zone Ya, simplified plan of Phase 2–5 features 3.9 Area E/F, Zone Ya, southeastern area, detailed plan 3.10 Area E/F, Zone Yb, simplified plan of Phase 2–5 features 3.11 Simplified plan of Late Iron Age features within areas excavated 3.12 Area E/F, Zone V, Phase 3 sections (S.23–S.33) 3.13 Area E/F, Zone V, Phase 3 sections (S.34–S.42) 3.14 Area E/F, Zone X, Phase 3 sections (S.43–S.55)

v

3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48 3.49 3.50 3.51 3.52 3.53 3.54 3.55 3.56 3.57 3.58 3.59 3.60 3.61 3.62 3.63 3.64

Area E/F, Zone Y, Phase 3 sections (S.56–S.66) Area E/F, Zones V and W, Phase 4 sections (S.67–S.76) Area E/F, Zone W, Phase 4 sections (S.77–S.84) Area E/F, Zone X, Phase 4 sections (S.85–S.90) Area E/F, Zone Y, Phase 4 sections (S.91–S.98) Small finds (Nos 1–10) Iron age pottery, percentage of fabrics within Phase 2 Iron Age pottery, percentage of fabrics within Phase 3 Iron Age pottery, percentage of fabrics within Phase 4 Iron Age pottery, percentage of fabrics Iron Age pottery, Phase 2 (Nos 1–16) Iron Age pottery, Phase 2–3 (Nos 17–31) Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 32–44) Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 45–60) Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 61–76) Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 77–92) Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 93–107) Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 108–119) Iron Age pottery, Phase 4 (Nos 120–130) Iron Age pottery, Phase 4 (Nos 131–136) Iron Age pottery, Phase 5 (Nos 137–140) Iron Age pottery, rim diameter (mm) by phase (a), and rim diameters for whole site (b) Animal bone, species proportions (% NISP) of the main domesticates by phase for hand-collected material Animal bone, species proportions (% MNI) of the main domesticates by phase for hand-collected material Animal bone, cattle, kill-off patterns from mandibular wear stage data by phase Animal bone, cattle, kill off patterns from epiphyseal fusion data by phase Animal bone, cattle, skeletal element distribution by phase derived from MNI figures as a percentage of the highest MNI Animal bone, cattle, scatter plot of the depth (Dp) and breadth (Bp) of the proximal metatarsal by phase Animal bone, cattle, scatter plot of the depth (Dd) and breadth (BFd) of the distal metatarsal by phase Animal bone, cattle, scatter plot of the greatest diameter (45) and basal circumference (BC) of the base of horncores by phase Animal bone, cattle, scatter plot of the greatest (45) and smallest (46) diameters of the base of the horncores by phase Animal bone, cattle, scatter plot of the depth (Dd) and breadth (Bd) of the distal tibia, by phase Animal bone, cattle, scatter plot of the lateral depth (DI) and greatest lateral length (GLI) of the astragalus, by phase Animal bone, cattle, reconstruction of withers heights, by phase Animal bone, caprovid, kill-off patterns from mandibular wear stage data (categories after O’Connor 1988), by phase Animal bone, caprovid, kill-off patterns from mandibular wear stage data (categories after Payne 1987), by phase Animal bone, caprovid, kill-off patterns from epiphyseal fusion data, by phase Animal bone, caprovid, skeletal element distribution by phase derived from MNI figures as a percentage of the highest MNI Animal bone, caprovid, scatter plot of the depth (Dd) and breadth (Bd) of the distal tibia, by phase Animal bone, caprovid, scatter plot of the height (HT) and breadth (BT) of the distal humerus, by phase Animal bone, caprovid, scatter plot of the depth (Dp) and breadth (Bp) of the proximal metatarsal, by phase Animal bone, caprovid, scatter plot of the lateral condyle depth (Dem) and breadth (BFd) of the distal metatarsal, by phase Animal bone, caprovid, reconstruction of withers heights, by phase Animal bone, pig, skeletal element distribution by phase, derived from MNI figures as a percentage of the highest MNI Animal bone, horse, skeletal element distribution by phase, derived from MNI figures as a percentage of the highest MNI Animal bone, horse, reconstruction of withers heights, by phase Charred plant remains, percentages of cereal grains and chaff, Phase 2 Charred plant remains, general percentages, Phase 3 Charred plant remains, percentages of cereal grains, Phase 3 Charred plant remains, percentages of chaff, Phase 3

vi

3.65 3.66 3.67 3.68

Charred plant remains, general percentages, Phase 4 Charred plant remains, percentages of cereal grains, Phase 4 Charred plant remains, percentages of chaff, Phase 4 Simplified plan of Hurst Lane, Ely, Cambridgeshire (after Evans et al 2007)

CHAPTER 4 Colour Figure D All phase plan, Area A 4.1 Area E/F, Zone W–X, Phase 5A sections (S.1–S.10) 4.2 Area E/F, Zone Ya sections (S.11–S.13) 4.3 Area A, simplified plan of all features 4.4 Area A, plan of Phase 5B features 4.5 Area A, Phase 5–Phase 6 sections (S.1–S.11) 4.6 Area A, plan of Phase 6 features 4.7 Area A, Phase 6, F209 sections (S.12–S.14) 4.8 Area A, Phase 6–Phase 7A sections (S.15–S.24) 4.9 Area A, plan of Phase 7A features 4.10 Area A, Phase 7A, detailed plan of structure at northwestern end of Enclosure AE1b 4.11 Area A, Phase 7B–Phase 7C plan 4.12 Area A, Phase 7B, Phase 7C, Phase 8 sections (S.25–S.35) 4.13 Area A, Phase 7D, Phase 8, plan 4.14 Area A, Phase 8, detailed plan of pit F193 4.15 Small finds (Nos 1–6) 4.16 Romano-British pottery, occurrence of wheelmade shell tempered ware (Nos C11–C12) (Note: Phase E/F 5 = Area E/F, Phase 5A; Phase A5 = Area A, Phase 5B; Phases 6, 7A, 7B and 8 (prefixed A), all relate to Area A) 4.17 Romano-British pottery, frequency distribution of Class C vessel rim diameters in Phase 5 4.18 Romano-British pottery, frequency distribution of Class C vessel diameters in Phase 6–Phase 8 4.19 Romano-British pottery (Nos C11.1–10, 12, 13) 4.20 Romano-British pottery (Nos C12.1–12; C13.1–4, 6) 4.21 Romano-British pottery (Nos C15.1–6; C16.1–2; C17.1–2) 4.22 Romano-British pottery (Nos E01.1–3; E02.1–2; E03.1; E12.1; E21.1–5; E23.1) 4.23 Romano-British pottery, occurrence of finewares by phase 4.24 Romano-British pottery (Nos F01.2–5, 8, 11, 14; F02.2; F03.1; F04.1; F05.1, 3; F06.1; F09.1; F11.1; F31.1) 4.25 Romano-British pottery (Nos M02.1; M03.1–2; M04.1; O01.1; O04.1–2; O14.1–2; O16.1; P11.1; Q03.1) 4.26 Romano-British pottery, proportions of major greywares 4.27 Romano-British pottery (Nos R01.1–18, 20–27) 4.28 Romano-British pottery (R02.1–16; R04.1–3, 5–7) 4.29 Romano-British pottery (Nos R05.1–5, 7; R051.1–2; R08.2–6; R081.1; R082.1; R09.1–7; R091.1) 4.30 Romano-British pottery (Nos R11.1–8, 10; R12.1–8; R14.1) 4.31 Romano-British pottery (Nos R16.1–2; R17.1; R21.1; R22.1; R31.1–2; R34.1; R35.1; R36.1; R37.1, R41.1, W01.1; W02.1; W04.1-2; W05.1–2; W06.1) 4.32 Animal bone, cattle, kill-off patterns from mandibular wear stage data (categories after O’Connor 1988) from Phase 5 4.33 Animal bone, cattle kill-off patterns from mandibular wear stage data (categories after O’Connor 1988) from Phase 7 4.34 Animal bone, cattle, scatter plot of depth (Dd) and breadth (Bd) of the distal tibia by phase 4.35 Animal bone, cattle, scatter plot of two breadths (Bp and BFp) of the proximal radius by phase 4.36 Animal bone, cattle, scatter plot of the greatest length (Gll) and depth (Dl) of the lateral side of the astragalus, by phase 4.37 Animal bone, caprovid kill-off patterns from mandibular wear stage data (categories after O’Connor 1988) from Phase 5 4.38 Animal bone, caprovid kill-off patterns from mandibular wear stage data (categories after Payne 1987) from Phase 5 4.39 Animal bone, caprovid scatter-plot of widths and lengths of lower third molar from Phase 5 4.40 Animal bone, caprovid, histogram of widths of lower 3rd molar by phase 4.41 Plant remains, percentages of different categories 4.42 Plant remains, percentages of different cereal remains 4.43 Plant remains, percentages of chaff

vii

4.44 Insect remains, ecological groupings for the insects present PLATES Cover Area D, Enclosure ED1, view north CHAPTER 1 1.1 1.2

View of gravel extraction, looking east Soil strip during Area A excavation, view northeast

CHAPTER 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Pit F342, vertical view (Photo L. Jones) Pit F346, vertical view (Photo L. Jones) Bronze leaf-shaped spearhead (Photo G. Norrie) Scrapers and debitage from feature F991 Material from pit F958

CHAPTER 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20

Area B, well F338 Area B, Structure 2a/b, pre-excavation, view north Area B, Enclosure BE3 ditch F471 Area B, Enclosure BE3–BE4 ditch F372, view east Area B, Enclosure BE4 ditch F472 Area D, Enclosure ED1, aerial view north Area D, narrow entrance, view north Area D, southwestern terminal of main entrance, view south Area D, ditch profile along northwestern side, view north Area E/F, overhead view of Zone V, Phase 3 enclosures Area E/F, Zone V, northeastern ditch of Enclosure FE3 and southwestern ditch of Enclosure FE4 Area E/F, Zone V, southeastern ditch of Enclosure FE1 Area E/F, Zone V, northwestern ditch of Enclosure FE6 Area E/F, Zone X, northern ditch of Enclosure FE8 Area E/F, Zone Y, western ditch of Enclosure FE16 Area E/F, Zone Y, northeastern angle of Enclosure FE13 Area E/F, Zone W, southwestern angle of Enclosure FE29a/b Area E/F, Zone W, boundary ditches F912, F913, view north Area E/F, Zone W, Enclosure FE26a/b ditch terminal, view south Area E/F, Zone Y, Enclosure FE18 ditch, view west

CHAPTER 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Area A, ditch F128, view south Area A, Enclosures AE1a and AE1b, view west Area A, western ditch of Enclosure AE5 Area A, northern ditch of Enclosure AE5

TABLES CHAPTER 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Prehistoric pottery, occurrence Flint collection, summary Flint, from Field 1 (Areas A, C–D, fieldwalking and test-pitting) Flint, from Field 2 (Area E/F, fieldwalking and test-pitting)

viii

2.5 2.6

Flint, from Field 4 (Area B) Charcoal from feature F958 (3415)

CHAPTER 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34

Iron Age pottery, fabrics and quantities in assemblage Iron Age pottery, Phase 2, distribution by feature type Iron Age pottery, Phase 3, distribution by feature type Iron Age pottery, Phase 4, distribution by feature type Iron Age pottery, occurrence of key group material by feature type Iron Age pottery, comparison of relative percentages of fabrics from Little Paxton and other Cambridgeshire sites Iron Age pottery, percentage occurrence of surface finishes within the overall assemblage Iron Age pottery, percentage of scoring at other Cambridgeshire sites Iron Age pottery, percentage of decorative techniques within the material studied Iron Age pottery, percentage of decorative motifs within the material studied Fired clay and daub, summary by area and zone (also includes material from Phase 5A contexts) Animal bone, number of fragments (NISP) of each taxa by phase recovered Animal bone, cattle, mandibular wear stage data Animal bone, cattle, tooth wear stage data from isolated teeth Animal bone, cattle, epiphyseal fusion Animal bone, cattle, MNI by element Animal bone, caprovid, mandibular wear stage data Animal bone, caprovid, tooth wear stage data from isolated teeth Animal bone, caprovid, epiphyseal fusion Animal bone, caprovid, MNI by element Animal bone, pig, mandibular wear stage data Animal bone, tooth wear stage data from isolated teeth Animal bone, pig, epiphyseal fusion Animal bone, pig, MNI by element Animal bone, pig, MNI by element Animal bone, proportions of the main species of animals at Little Paxton compared with other Iron Age assemblages in England Charred plant remains, Phase 2, list of the remains identified Charred plant remains, Phase 3, list of the remains identified Charred plant remains, Phase 4, list of the remains identified Charred plant remains Pollen and spores, parasite ova, Area E/F, list Insect remains, Area B, ecological groupings Insects from Area B, list Details of Phase 2–4 enclosures

CHAPTER 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15

Romano-British pottery, average sherd size by phase Romano-British pottery, occurrence by deposit type Romano-British pottery, occurrence at Haddon by feature type Romano-British pottery, occurrence of Class C fabrics by phase (by count) Romano-British pottery, functional analysis of Class C, shell-tempered wares (by count) Romano-British pottery, occurrence of surface treatments on Harrold and Little Paxton shell-tempered wares (by count) Romano-British pottery, occurrence of Class E ‘Belgic’ wares by phase (by count) Romano-British pottery, occurrence of finewares by phase (by count) Romano-British pottery, functional analysis of Nene Valley colour-coated wares Romano-British pottery, functional analysis of recorded Nene Valley colour-coated wares from Haddon Romano-British pottery, functional analysis of Nene Valley colour-coated wares from Ermine Street sites Romano-British pottery, occurrence of mortaria by phase (by count) Romano-British pottery, proportions of oxidised wares by phase Romano-British pottery, occurrence of Class P fabrics Romano-British pottery, occurrence of Class Q, white-slipped oxidised wares

ix

4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32

Romano-British pottery, occurrence of greywares by phase (by count) Romano-British pottery, functional analysis of greywares (by minimum numbers of rims) Romano-British pottery, occurrence of samian wares by phase (by count) Romano-British pottery, distribution of samian forms by area (by minimum numbers of vessels) Romano-British pottery, occurrence of Class W, whitewares Romano-British pottery, functional analysis of the assemblage by phase (by minimum numbers of rims) Romano-British pottery, functional analysis of the assemblage by phase (by rim equivalent) Romano-British pottery, occurrence of finewares by phase (by sherd count) Animal bone, numbers of fragments (NISP) of each taxa recovered by hand-collection Animal bone, frequency of the main domesticates using NISP and MNI counts by phase Plant remains, list of taxa identified Plant remains, Phase 5a samples taken Plant remains, Area E/F, list Pollen, Area E/F, samples taken Pollen, spores and parasite ova, Phase 5A, list Insects, Area A and Area E/F, ecological groupings Insects, Area A and Area E/F, list

APPENDICES CHAPTER 1 1.1

Summary of evaluations and excavations within Phase 1–2 areas (1992–1998)

CHAPTER 3 3.1 Iron Age pottery, Phase 2–4 type fabric descriptions 3.2 Iron Age pottery, fabric occurrence in Phase 2 3.3 Iron Age pottery, fabric occurrence in Phase 3 3.4 Iron Age pottery, fabric occurrence in Phase 4 3.5 Petrology 3.6 Iron Age pottery, form occurrence in Phase 2 3.7 Iron Age pottery, form occurrence in Phase 3 3.8 Iron Age pottery, form occurrence in Phase 4 CHAPTER 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3A 4.3B 4.3C

Romano-British pottery, fabric descriptions Romano-British pottery, form occurrence by phase Animal bones from the Romano-Celtic shrine at Little Paxton Number of countable specimens (NISP) Post-cranial measurements Individual tooth wear stages for loose teeth (L), and teeth in mandibles (M) for cattle (B) and pigs (S)

x

Chapter 1: Summary and Introduction ‘The River Great Ouse has one of the largest catchment areas of any river valley in the British Isles, yet, sandwiched between the Chilterns to the south and the Nene and Welland valleys to the north, it has not generated a significant archaeological identity. This is something of an anomaly…’ (Dawson 2000a, 1).

SUMMARY Alex Jones

(Zone Y) recorded at Little Paxton. Its size suggests that it may have formed a so-called ‘defended enclosure’ utilized for periodic gatherings. These clusters were separated by ditched boundaries which were periodically re-cut.

Archaeological investigations were undertaken in advance of quarrying within a 53ha concession at Little Paxton, to the north of St Neots in Cambridgeshire from 1992 to 1998 (Figs 1.1–1.3). The archaeological fieldwork involved a total of 10ha of open-area excavation, as well as watching briefs and salvage recording, preceded by air photograph plotting, geophysical survey, fieldwalking and trial-trenching. The fieldwork was undertaken for the predecessor companies of Aggregate Industries by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit (now Birmingham Archaeology). The investigations recorded flint scatters of Mesolithic–Bronze Age date, pits containing Neolithic–Bronze Age pottery, extensive ditched field boundaries and ditched enclosures of Iron Age and Romano-British date, including livestock enclosures and associated droveways.

Similarly, the final phase of pre-Roman settlement (Phase 4, Late Iron Age/ Transitional) comprised livestock enclosures (Zones W and X) with associated droveways and other ditched boundaries. One group of ditched livestock enclosures (Zone W) notably included a repeatedly re-cut D-shaped ditched enclosure associated with a droveway. The other Phase 4 layouts indicated a continuation of animal husbandry as well as a continuing respect for the Phase 3 ditched layouts in Zones X and Y. Two distinct episodes of Romano-British settlement were recorded. The first (Phase 5A, Area E/F) represented a post-conquest continuation of Phase 4 livestock husbandry. Occupation here may have been more or less continuous until around AD 120, when the site was abandoned for the first time in the Romano-British period.

Pre-Iron Age activity (Phase 1) was most extensively represented by ploughsoil scatters of flint artefacts in Fields 1 and 2 in the east of the quarry concession (Fig. 1.4). Three concentrations of Neolithic–Bronze Age features were recorded, mainly comprising pits. These pits may have been dug to commemorate particular events. Some contained large numbers of unabraded sherds of Peterborough Ware and flint artefacts, selected for careful deposition from larger deposits.

The mid/ late Antonine re-occupation of the Little Paxton site was marked by the layout of an irregular field system (Area A), located approximately 500m to the south of the earlier Iron Age/ Romano-British focus. Arable cultivation was replaced in the later 2nd century by a series of rectangular livestock enclosures (Enclosure AE2, Enclosure AE1a), the latter measuring 40m by at least 200m in length (Phase 6). This enclosure was redefined in the mid to late 3rd century (Enclosure AE1b, Phase 7A). Following a possible second Romano-British abandonment of the site a further rectangular enclosure (Enclosure AE5, Phase 7B) was cut on a new, north–south alignment. In turn, the enclosure was replaced by small ditched fields or market garden plots (Phase 7C), cut following the Phase 7B alignment. All Area A enclosures were probably associated with livestock herding. The latest Romano-British activity (Phase 8, early 4th century) was defined by two pits which contained possible ‘closure’ deposits, marking the final Romano-British abandonment of the site.

The Iron Age settlement remains have been attributed to three phases. The earliest settlement features at Little Paxton were of Middle Iron Age date (Phase 2). These included an enclosed settlement focus (Area B), an unenclosed settlement focus comprising 20 ring-gullies (Area E/F), and a single, small enclosure (Area D). A number of undated field boundaries may also belong to this phase. The more extensive Late Iron Age (Phase 3) settlements were characterized by ditched livestock, and other enclosures, principally within Area E/F. Three clusters of Phase 3 activity were recorded here. One comprised a group of intercutting enclosures (Zone V). Here, the act of re-excavating the fills of earlier enclosures may be interpreted as a re-affirmation of occupation rights by a mobile population. Other interpretations are also possible. The second cluster comprised a group of irregularly-shaped livestock enclosures set within a ditched compound (Zone X). The third cluster comprised the largest single enclosure

INTRODUCTION Alex Jones Archaeological excavations were undertaken during 1992–1998 by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit (now Birmingham Archaeology) on behalf of ECC

1

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 1.1 Location of Little Paxton quarry within river Great Ouse valley

The river drains a varied geology (Fig. 1.3). The Anglian glaciation was particularly influential in shaping the present landform in the river basin (Green 2000, 9), its main product being a chalky till, a blue-grey to dark grey clay, which masks the solid geology except where cut through by the river. Upstream from Little Paxton the river flows over Jurassic Oxford Clay, clay and shales, and Jurassic Kellaway Beds, mostly comprising sands (Roseff 2000, 27).

Quarries Limited, CAMAS Aggregates and Bardon Aggregates (now Aggregate Industries) within the southern half (Phase 1–2 areas) of Little Paxton quarry (Figs 1.1–1.3), Cambridgeshire, located 4km to the north of St Neots. Within an area of 53ha in the southern half of the quarry, a total of 10ha were excavated in detail. Other areas were subjected to watching brief or salvage recording. The southern area of the quarry was examined by air photograph analysis; and trial-trenching, geophysical survey and fieldwalking were undertaken within selected areas. The interventions are summarised in Appendix 1.1.

The post-Anglian period is represented by river terraces, overlying sand and gravel deposits, deposited by braided rivers across much of the river valley floor (Green 2000, 11). Coarse gravel was deposited in high stage events and sand in lower stages or by activity away from the main channels. Three possible river terraces have been recognised. The third terrace (at between 10m and 18m above modern alluvium) is the earliest feature of postAnglian river development, which contains Palaeolithic artefacts. The second terrace comprises deposits at between 5m and 10m above modern alluvium, at Brampton and also

Geology, soils and vegetation The River Great Ouse (Figs 1.1–1.2) is one of England’s largest rivers by catchment size and overall length. Its headwaters rise (at approximately 90m AOD) near the western border of Northamptonshire and the river enters the sea near King’s Lynn (Green 2000; at approx. 5m AOD).

2

Chapter 1: Summary and Introduction

Figure 1.2 Little Paxton site and its surrounds

elsewhere underlain by deposits associated with animal remains normally attributed to the Ipswichian period (Green 2000, 13). The first terrace, on which the Little Paxton site is located, lies at between 2m and 4.5m above modern alluvium (Green 2000, 13), often merging with it. The modern alluvium generally lies within a channel cut into deposits underlying the first terrace (Green 2000, 14). This alluvium is often a calcareous grey-brown silt-clay, with gravel present towards its base. A date of 3813 +/45 has been obtained from a gravel horizon at the base of alluvium near Bromham (Green 2000, 14).

The Little Paxton site is located at approximately 13m AOD in height, while flooding occurs annually at around the 12m level (Figs 1.3–1.5; Roseff 2000, 28). At the quarry, the soil has a low natural fertility and a low clay content, being mostly comprised of sand, making the soil easily drained, but also prone to drought. By contrast the clay soils on the east side of the river have higher fertility (ibid, 28). At Little Paxton, the gravel deposits are an average of 3m in depth, overlying sorted and banded very dark grey chalky silt and sand, probably a Pleistocene lacustrine deposit laid down in a pre-

3

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 1.3 Little Paxton site and its surrounds: geology

Devensian stage (Plate 1.1). Some alluvial deposits may be of Neolithic date, with a rising water level recorded in the Late Bronze Age (ibid, 32), a pattern perhaps repeated in the Welland Valley (French et al 1992). At two sites downstream of Little Paxton the water level is recorded to have risen between the Romano-British and the medieval periods, without recorded deposition of alluvium (Robinson 1992, 198). Overall, the gentle gradient of the river catchment, and the deep soils with their high waterretention capacity, mean that generally the Great Ouse is a sluggish river with a delayed reaction to rainfall, slow to rise or fall (Roseff 2000, 28).

Little Paxton is around 20km downstream of Bedford. The quarry area was located at least 700m to the west of the present river course. At the quarry, the river terrace gravels varied in depth from 1m in the west of the concession, to 6m in the east (Roseff 2000, 28). Relict stream courses form the western, and probably the eastern boundaries of Fields 1 and 2 (Fig. 1.4). These fields comprise a wide, slightly raised area of terrace gravels (French 1992) on which the Iron Age and Romano-British settlements are located. An alluvial deposit forms the present-day topsoil. River management schemes in the 17th and 19th centuries

4

Chapter 1: Summary and Introduction

Plate 1.1 View of gravel extraction, looking east Fieldwork strategy

will have reduced flooding, including tidal flooding (Roseff 2000, 28).

Evaluation of the Phase 1–2 (Fig. 1.4) areas within the quarry initially involved air photograph analysis (Fig. 1.5; Air Photo Services Ltd 1992), selective geophysical survey (Geophysical Surveys of Bradford 1992), and trialtrenching (Leach 1992; Jones 1992). The second stage in the evaluation of Fields 1–4 involved fieldwalking and test-pitting in Fields 1 and 2 (Bevan 1996a, Bevan 1996b, Bevan 1997, Bevan and Dingwall 1997), undertaken immediately prior to topsoil stripping, followed by area excavation.

A section at the western end of Field 1 (Roseff 2000, fig. 4.3) shows that the uppermost 1.2m of gravels were darkened with organic matter to a depth of 1.2m, and were clearly post-glacial deposits, laid down by high energy water, deposited by a braided river, at times fast flowing (ibid, 32). This river, dividing modern Fields 1 and 4, re-worked the adjoining glacial gravels. The stream was probably active in the Neolithic (Roseff 2000, 32). The presence of 1.2m of post-glacial gravel at Little Paxton indicates that the river flowed further to the west in early prehistory (Roseff 2000, 32) and that a braided river crossed the site in prehistory, at times fast flowing, sometimes affected by tidal changes. By the Neolithic and Bronze Age, parts of the south of the quarry at least were no longer riverine; and by the Iron Age most, if not all of the southern half of the quarry lay away from the river course, which had presumably migrated eastwards towards its present course. Some alluviation of fine-grained sediments has also occurred since the Neolithic (ibid, 32).

Subsequent area excavations were targeted to examine the main cropmarked concentrations. The Neolithic–Bronze Age features have been identified during excavation of the cropmarked settlement complexes of mainly Iron Age and Romano-British date. Five area excavations (Areas A–E/F, Fig. 1.4) have been undertaken in the southern half of the quarry between 1993 and 1998. The results of fieldwork in each area have been summarised in interim reports (Jones and Ferris 1994, Jones 1995, Jones 1998, and Jones 2001a). A watching brief was also maintained during topsoiling operations outside the excavated areas, with salvage recording, where appropriate, to record feature concentrations.

By the end of the early Holocene (c 7000 BP) oak, elm and hazel woodland was well established along the river valley, along with some surviving pine woodland (Scaife 2000, 19). At the time of the earliest activity in the quarry, during the Mesolithic period (Atlantic period) deciduous trees replaced pine. In the higher temperatures, along the better drained soils along river terraces, including Little Paxton, lime may have predominated, while the wetter valley bottoms would have supported alder carr with willow, oak, elm and hazel dominant on the heavier clay soils (Scaife 2000, 20) and oak, elm and hazel on less welldrained, clay soils.

Excavation in 1993 initially involved the examination of Romano-British enclosures (Area A, Jones and Ferris 1994), and a complex of Neolithic pits (Area B, Jones 1995). Later features included two ring-gullies and Middle–Late Iron Age farmstead enclosures (Area B). A Middle Iron Age enclosure and other Iron Age features were examined in 1996 (Jones 1998, Areas C–D). The most extensive

5

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 1.4 Little Paxton, Phase 1–2 areas, the sites investigated

6

Chapter 1: Summary and Introduction

Figure 1.5 Little Paxton and surrounds, the cropmarked evidence

7

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 investigations reported in this volume, undertaken over two seasons (1997–1998), involved a complex of ditched enclosures and livestock pens of Middle–Late Iron Age and early Romano-British date, extending over an area of 5ha (Jones 2001a, Area E/F). The results of the 1992–1998 investigations have been summarised (Jones 2000a), and also assessed (Jones 1999, Jones 2000b, Jones 2000c).

which will have dominated the river valley landscape. He suggests that the individual ceremonial complexes developed along the river valley at intervals of 5 to 6km. Despite this apparent regularity in spacing, the complexes were populated by different monument types, including mortuary monuments, cursuses, hengiform monuments, pit alignments, ditched territorial boundaries, and barrows or ring ditches (Malim 2000, 57). These complexes can variously be interpreted as being sites at the boundaries between ‘territories’ or, alternatively, at their centres. The monument distribution may suggest that each was a focus of a discrete community (Malim 2000, 81). Each of these sacred locations was a focus of ceremonial for hundreds or thousands of years, often continuing into the Iron Age or Romano-British periods, as at Little Paxton (Jones 2001b). The contemporary Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age settlements are generally elusive (Brown and Murphy 1997, 4).

Pre–1992 archaeological fieldwork within other areas of the same quarry has comprised watching briefs, largely unpublished, with the exception of an early prehistoric ritual complex (Evans 1997a) and a Romano-British shrine (Jones 2001b). Previous work The river gravels along the west bank of the River Great Ouse between Buckden to the north and St Neots to the south are a diminishing archaeological resource, having been significantly affected by gravel extraction. An overview of the archaeological resource of the Cambridgeshire river gravels (French and Wait 1988, figs 26–27) from the early prehistoric to the medieval periods included a survey of the evidence from Little Paxton and the surrounding area. The report identified enclosures, field systems and a shrine of 3rd–4th AD century date (Jones 2001b) both within, and immediately surrounding the Phase 1–2 areas of the quarry, and highlighted their broader archaeological value. The Ouse Valley conference, held in 1994, and publication of many of the papers (Dawson (ed.) 2000) acknowledged the importance of bringing significant work undertaken within this valley system to a wider audience. These papers, together with the Regional Research Agenda and Strategy (Glazebrook (ed.) 1997, and Brown and Glazebrook (eds) 2000) form a basis for this section of the introduction.

Iron Age (Fig. 1.6) The Iron Age in East Anglia has been less studied than that of other British regions, in particular, Wessex (Bryant 2000, 14). Settlement in the Late Bronze Age–Early Iron Age was sporadic within East Anglia, with sites largely focused on the lighter soils adjoining the river valleys, the Fen edge (Bryant 1997, 23), and along the River Great Ouse valley. In some parts of East Anglia there is also evidence for the expansion of settlement onto the edges of boulder clay areas (ibid, 25; Bryant 2000, 14). The transition from Early to Middle Iron Age was characterised by changes in pottery style and manufacture (Bryant 1997, 26); notably the replacement of flint by sand and shell for temper. Pottery may not always provide a precise chronology (Bryant 2000, 14) since in parts of East Anglia hand-made pottery in sand and shell tempers continued in use into the Romano-British period (ibid, 26), making pottery often of limited value as a chronological indicator.

Early prehistoric Gravel extraction in the St Neots–Little Paxton area has produced a number of finds of Palaeolithic date (Austin 1997; Reynolds 1999 and 2000). The earliest artefacts from the Phase 1–2 Little Paxton investigations comprise stray flint finds of Mesolithic date. Comparatively few find-spots of Mesolithic date are recorded along the River Great Ouse valley between Ely and north of Bedford (Dawson 2000b, fig. 6.1), although the identification of Mesolithic technologies is admittedly difficult. Studies of material from the River Great Ouse valley, the Upper Thames region and the Chilterns has suggested movement away from the lower valley locations, associated with the rise in sea level in the 6th to 4th millennium BC (Dawson 2000b, 46). Along the middle River Great Ouse, from north Cambridgeshire to Buckinghamshire, Mesolithic sites occupy a variety of topographical locations (ibid, 47).

The Middle and Later Iron Age in East Anglia was marked by an intensification of permanent settlement (Hill 2007, 23), extending in some counties into boulder clay areas. This intensification took the form of the infilling of gaps around existing settlements, as well as the permanent settlement of areas previously only seasonally occupied (Hill 2007, 23) such as for transhumance. The increasing number of Iron Age settlements dating after around 150 BC has been interpreted by Bryant (2000, 16) to represent population increase and/ or changes in settlement pattern around this time, and by Hill (2007, 24), to new inheritance systems, property entitlements and agricultural strategies. The dominant settlement type comprised ‘open villages’, farms and hamlets not surrounded by a bank or ditch (Hill 2007, 19). These typically contained 3–4 contemporary ring-gullies, although sites with up to 10–20 have been recognized. Some of these latter may have been seasonally occupied. In some locations settlement shift was recorded (Hill 2007, 20). Both square and rectangular enclosures

A number of surveys of the early prehistoric period in the River Great Ouse valley have been published (eg Field 1974, Green 1974, Knight 1984 and Malim 2000). Malim’s survey (2000) has drawn attention to the patterning of ceremonial complexes of Neolithic-Bronze Age date

8

Chapter 1: Summary and Introduction

Figure 1.6 Cambridgeshire, Iron Age enclosures are recorded, used for domestic, defensive, ritual, or multi-functional purposes (Bryant 1997, 28). Much of East Anglia is characterized by a lack of hillforts or large enclosures (Hill 2007, 19). Few have yielded evidence for internal occupation (Bryant 1997, 29). Large enclosures such as Arbury Camp, Belsar’s Camp and Wandlebury may have acted as local foci (Hill 2007, 19). Bryant (1997, 29) has suggested that these sites performed a mainly ritual function, by analogy with the association of some Norfolk hillforts with Late Iron Age ritual enclosures.

Anglia (Hill 2007, 26) were increasingly characterised by small units, including single farmsteads, defined by a ditch. Some larger concentrations of settlement were also found, for example at Stanstead Airport, Essex (Havis and Brooks 2004). Such boundaries helped to define new clusters of farmsteads, and within particular clusters, the individual family units. Within the River Great Ouse and Cam valleys in particular, paddocks, trackways, and ditched boundaries marked a ‘compartmentalisation’ of space in the later half of the 1st century BC, also seen elsewhere in the later Iron Age (Hill 2007, 26), reflecting a different allocation system for land distribution.

In contrast to evidence from the surrounding areas, from the late 2nd to early 1st century BC open agglomerated settlements in southern Cambridgeshire and southern East 9

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 1.7 Cambridgeshire, Romano-British enclosures

open settlements were generally rare, although some examples do occur in south Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Essex (ibid, 49). Linear patterns of rural settlement are also recorded throughout East Anglia (Taylor 2007, fig. 4.3), with a particular emphasis along the river valleys in the west of the region and in the Fenland. Whilst enclosed settlements were numerous in the Fenland, Norfolk and north Suffolk, the rural landscape here comprised small or large farmsteads, as well as hamlets associated with field systems (Taylor 2007, 50). Within East Anglia and the

Romano-British (Fig. 1.7) The later Iron Age–Roman tribal territories along the River Great Ouse were organized around civitas centres at St Albans, Caistor, and Leicester (Dawson 2000c, 107). Enclosed settlements are the most common Roman settlement type within East Anglia, particularly so in Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, while in Norfolk and northern Suffolk the numbers of enclosed and linear settlements are more equal (Taylor 2007, 49). By contrast,

10

Chapter 1: Summary and Introduction East Midlands the distribution of villa sites, usually of 2nd to 4th century in date, includes clusters around the main urban centres (King 2004, 361).

•

Within the River Great Ouse valley in particular there is a clear increase in the number of all types of rural settlements in the Roman period (King 2004, 360), including rural settlement within boulder clay areas. Dawson (2000c, 124) notes that a number of later Iron Age sites in the river valley did not survive the 1st century AD. Villa sites often originate in the 2nd century, frequently overlying Iron Age predecessors. Non-villa settlements typically include farmstead enclosures (eg Wavendon Gate, Williams et al 1996). Comparatively few nucleated settlements/ hamlets/ small villages are recorded within the River Great Ouse valley (Dawson 2000c, 125). Open settlements are not common, but can extend over large areas, for example the settlements at Kempston, Bedfordshire (Dawson 2000c, 125–126), and Grandford, Cambridgeshire (Potter and Potter 1982). Settlement on the Bedfordshire claylands is less intense, often occupying sites of Iron Age origin (Dawson 2000c, 113–114).

• • •

Methodology (Fig. 1.4) The first stage of site evaluation involved re-plotting of aerial photograph evidence (Air Photo Services 1992). The rectified plot of cropmarked features provided the basis for definition of the subsequent evaluation strategy. Geophysical survey (Geophysical Surveys of Bradford 1992), using a fluxgate gradiometer, targeted some of the main cropmarked concentrations and other areas for which no archaeological information was available. Trialtrenching was undertaken in two stages (Leach 1992, Jones 1992) in Autumn 1992. It aimed to intersect the main cropmarked features, to determine their survival and character, and to recover dating evidence and samples for environmental analysis. A representative sample of the features and feature-types was hand excavated. Additionally, test-pits were dug at one or both ends of each trench, to confirm the identification of the ploughsoil/ subsoil horizon, and to test the composition of the underlying gravel deposits.

Several small towns are recorded along the River Great Ouse valley. Dunstable and Sandy possibly originated as mansiones/ mutationes (Black 1995), while Magiovinum, Towcester, Godmanchester and Cambridge originated as forts (Todd 2004, 48). Forts were established at Water Newton (Todd 2004, 52) and Godmanchester (Burnham and Wacher 1990) to secure strategic routes and river crossings. Ermine Street (Margery 1973, no. 22), constructed on the east bank of the River Great Ouse, formed the first northward line of communication, built by military surveyors following troops on campaign (Upex 2008, 41). Little Paxton is located approximately midway between Godmanchester (Burnham and Wacher 1990) and Sandy, Bedfordshire (Dawson 1995). Eynesbury, a suburb of St Neots, is located near to a possible junction between Ermine Street and a second Roman road (Margery 1973, no. 231), linking Ermine Street with Watling Street to the west. A zone of concentrated Roman occupation is recorded at Eynesbury (Spoerry 2000, 146), variously interpreted as a small town, villa or estate centre. Roman livestock complexes near to the Little Paxton site are located at Eaton Socon (Gibson 2005) and Eynesbury (Ellis 2004).

Trial-trenching and geophysical survey were undertaken in advance of quarrying in the southern half of the quarry. The strategy for fieldwalking, test-pitting and excavation was devised in accordance with the quarry working programme. Areas were allocated for fieldwalking, testpitting and then excavation and watching brief/ salvage recording at least a year before quarrying was due to take place.

Aims

Subsequently, Fields 1 and 2 (Bevan 1996a and Bevan 1996b, Bevan 1997, Bevan and Dingwall 1997) were fieldwalked and test-pitted, in an attempt to further define the extent and character of early prehistoric activity, and to provide datable artefacts. Following ploughing and harrowing the fields were walked, with collection of all artefacts within 25m squares based on the National Grid. Each square was given a unique number and letter designation (eg J4). Following fieldwalking, 1m square test-pits were dug at 50m centres. Half of the spoil from each machine-dug test-pit was hand-sieved to further test the artefactual composition of the topsoil. Where sufficient quantities of finds were recovered

The overall aims of the excavations were to define and date changes in settlement form and economy from the Neolithic to the end of the Romano-British period, and to relate these changes to the development of the river valley environment - providing where possible an integrated model of settlement and economic change. The detailed aims of the excavations were to: • •

Characterise the flint and pottery dating, their sources, and their distributions within the settlement areas (including the distributions of fieldwalking material), and to consider how this evidence could contribute to an understanding of the possible structured deposition of artefacts within a ritual context. Compare the evidence of change in settlement and economy from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age with the Middle–Late Iron Age. Examine the evidence for the Roman land use and the surrounding environment. Compare the model of changes in settlement location, form and economy proposed for the settlement with data for other contemporary landscapes within the River Great Ouse vlley.

Consider the evidence for the earliest activity and settlement on site. Define the chronology of site activity.

11

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Plate 1.2 Soil strip during Area A excavation, view northeast from test-pitting at 50m centres, further test-pits were dug at 25m centres, to further examine the artefact concentrations, for example within the northern half of Field 2 (Bevan 1997). During excavation, a further six east–west aligned machine-cut trial trenches were dug in the west of Area E/F (not illustrated on Fig. 1.4). This trenching was intended to investigate the potential for the identification of features sealed and protected by alluvial deposits adjoining a stream course running alongside the present boundary between Fields 1 and 3.

ploughsoil was removed by motor-scraper (Plate 1.2) working under continuous archaeological supervision, and the site was later cleaned by JCB excavator as necessary to expose the uppermost archaeological horizon. Before excavation was undertaken, a base-plan was prepared using a total station EDM, which provided a basis for definition of the initial sampling strategy, and its subsequent refinement. Sampling of the ditches was targeted at the feature intersections to elucidate the sequence of activity, with discrete lengths of linear features also being additionally hand-excavated. Pits and postholes were examined in half-section. Within Area B many of the Neolithic pits were totally excavated, with total wet or dry sieving of their entire fills, to maximise finds recovery. Samples for environmental analysis within each of the areas investigated were taken from sealed, well-dated feature fills, and were processed on-site to enable rapid ‘feedback’ which contributed to the evolving strategy for excavation and further environmental sampling. Samples from waterlogged deposits were also collected and processed for the recovery of pollen and insect remains.

The first excavation comprised an area of approximately 2ha, including the Romano-British ‘ladder’ cropmarked complex, excavated in early 1993 (Area A). Excavation in Area B was undertaken in two stages, in June and October– December 1993. Two contiguous areas measuring 60m and 80m square were investigated; both were positioned to examine the majority of the cropmarked features. Excavations in Area D in 1996 (Field 1) investigated a cropmarked enclosure within an area measuring 26m by 50m. Two cropmarked ring-ditches (Area C) were also examined, but in the event no surviving trace of either feature could be identified. Excavation in the northern settlement (Area E/F), was undertaken in two contiguous areas in 1997 (Area E) and 1998 (Area F; together called Area E/F, a total area of approximately 6 ha, which mainly contained Middle to Late Iron Age enclosures. Outside the excavated areas a watching brief was maintained during overburden removal to identify and record other features, such as field boundaries.

Recording employed separate running numerical sequences for contexts (four digit numbers) and features (three digit numbers, prefixed by an ‘F’). Features were defined to include negative features such as ditches, pits and postholes, but also positive features such as floors and banks. Where several hand-excavated cuttings were dug through the same feature, the segments were distinguished by the addition of a decimal suffix to the feature number (eg F206.01, F206.02), and additionally the feature fills were separately numbered, to facilitate the analysis of spatial patterning within artefact distribution. The results of excavation in Area E, dug in 1997 and Area F, dug in

Within all area investigations, the excavation and sampling procedures were similar (as elsewhere within the quarry), to permit inter-comparison of the results. Most of the

12

Chapter 1: Summary and Introduction Summary of phasing

1998, have been integrated. For simplicity, the results of work in Area E/F has been sub-divided into four zones (V, W, X and Y, See Fig. 1.4), defined according to the main enclosure concentrations.

Phase 1 Phase 2

Pre-Iron Age activity (Chapter 2) Middle Iron Age activity (Areas B, D, and E/F, Chapter 3) Phase 3 Late Iron Age activity (Areas B and E/F, Chapter 3) Phase 4 Late Iron Age/Transitional (100 BC–AD 60, Areas E/F), Chapter 3) Phase 5A/B Early Roman activity (AD 60–160, Areas A and E/F), Chapter 4 Phase 6 AD 160+ to early 3rd-century activity (Area A), Chapter 4 Phase 7 Mid to late 3rd-century activity (Area A), Chapter 4 Phase 8 Early 4th-century activity (Area A), Chapter 4

Arrangement of report The report is presented in five chapters. Chapter 1 comprises the summary and introduction. Chapter 2 describes the features and finds of pre-Iron Age date, and concludes with a discussion of the early prehistoric evidence. Chapter 3 describes and interprets the Iron Age evidence. Chapter 4 considers the Romano-British evidence, with a notional start date of AD 60. Chapter 5 contains the acknowledgements and references. Appendices are provided at the ends of Chapter 4.

13

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1) ‘the performance of ritual involves formalised repetitive actions which may be detected archaeologically through a highly structured mode of deposition’ (Richards and Thomas 1984, 215).

Figure 2.1 Location of Phase 1 features within areas investigated 14

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1) SUMMARY OF PHASE 1 EVIDENCE (Fig. 2.1) Alex Jones

of the area, although other interpretations are also possible. The pottery recovered included Peterborough Ware, Grooved Ware and Beaker fabrics. The flint was mainly of later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date, although earlier material was also recovered in small quantities. The flint derived mainly from fieldwalking, although quantities were also recovered from Phase 2 pits (Chapter 3, this volume). These Phase 1 prehistoric features were identified during the examination of later settlements. The features belonging to Phase 1 are described first, followed by the artefactual evidence for pre-Iron Age activity.

For simplicity, all pre-Iron Age activity has been allocated to this phase. Several sub-phases of activity are, in fact, represented. The earliest of these, dated to the Mesolithic, was represented by flint scatters only. The earliest feature groups were ‘small filled pits’ containing pottery dating from the Middle Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age as well as flint artefacts. These pits may have originally contained offerings of pottery or flint celebrating temporary occupations

Plate 2.1 Pit F342, vertical view (Photo L. Jones)

Plate 2.2 Pit F346, vertical view (Photo L. Jones) 15

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 2.2 Area B, simplified plan of all features

16

Figure 2.3 Area B, Phase 1 features, plan

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1)

17

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 RESULTS Alex Jones Description of Phase 1 features (Areas B, D and E/F) Area B (Figs 2.2–2.4) The earliest features comprised three irregular pit clusters, cut into the gravel subsoil, located in the southeastern sector of the excavated area. The southern group of features comprised three small, flat-based pits (F342, Fig. 2.4.S.1; F343, S.2; F346, S.3, Plates 2.1– 2.2), with near-vertical sides and measuring 0.2–0.7m in diameter and 0.1–0.3m in depth. The western group comprised two oval pits (F380–F381), a pit (F389) measuring 0.8m in depth, and two smaller pits (F387– F388). A further small pit (F361, Fig. 2.2) located 20m to the south of pit F389 may have been associated. The northern group of features comprised a cluster of small pits (F325, Fig. 2.4.S.4; F327, F331, F350–F353, F357). These appeared to be similar in fill and form to the southern group, except that the northern group appeared to be more severely plough-truncated – here the maximum surviving depth of the latter group was 0.1m. The southern group of features was filled with charcoal-rich dark grey sand-silt. No artefacts were recovered from the northern group of features, despite extensive sieving of their fills. Accordingly this group is attributed to Phase 1 on the basis of the recorded similarity in form and fill material between the northern and southern feature groups, as well as by the absence of later artefacts. The western group of features was filled with dark grey-brown silt-sand. A small flint end scraper was recovered from pit F389. Area D (Fig. 2.5) The only feature belonging to this phase was an elongated pit (F561), cut into the gravel subsoil. It was sub-oval in plain, measured 2.5m in length, and was filled with brown silt-sand (2137). Figure 2.4 Areas B and E/F, selected Phase 1 features (S.1–S.6)

Area E/F (Figs 2.4 and 2.6–2.8)

sections of

The earliest features investigated here were of Neolithic–Bronze Age date. The only datable features of this phase were three pits (F806, Figs 2.4.S.5 and 2.7; F958, Fig. 2.8 and Fig. 2.4.S.6; F991, Fig. 2.8), measuring up to 0.3m in depth. Pit F806 was filled with mid-grey silt (2976). The primary fills of pits F958 and F991 were brown-black silt, heavily stained with charcoal (3415 and 4050 respectively). The upper fills comprised mid-brown silt-gravel, flecked with gravel (3414, 4049).

18

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1)

Figure 2.5 Area D, simplified plan of all features 19

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 2.6 Area E/F, simplified plan of all features 20

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1)

Figure 2.7 Area E/F, plan of Phase 1 feature F806 and Phase 2 structures 21

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 More extensive evidence of pre-Iron Age activity was represented by ploughsoil scatters of flint artefacts, recovered by fieldwalking and test-pitting. Other Mesolithic–Bronze Age flint finds were represented by residual material recovered during excavation at a Romano-British settlement complex (Area A, Fig. 1.4; see Chapter 4, this volume) and Iron Age and early Romano-British settlement complexes (Areas B, C–D and E/F, Fig. 1.4). A Bronze Age leaf-shaped copper alloy spearhead was also recovered during fieldwalking in Field 2. Interpretation of Phase 1 features The Phase 1 features identified in Areas B (Figs 2.2– 2.4) and D (Fig. 2.5) comprised relatively shallow pits, cut to a regular profile, which exhibited no signs of weathering. The unifying morphological characteristics of the group comprised a regular bowl-shaped profile, cut through the dirty brown hogging, to expose the underlying clean gravel. Elongated pits F380–F381 in Area B are similar in morphology to pit F561 in Area D. The pit groups may also be distinguished by the absence of later artefacts. In his discussion of the Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Etton near Maxey, Pryor (1998, 355ff) defined a number of internal features as ‘small filled pits’. These included ‘high status’ finds and evidence of ritual deposits. As at Little Paxton, it is most unlikely that the pits were dug to dispose of rubbish. Nor may the features have been cremations, since at Etton the pits contained animal, rather that human bone; a very small quantity of animal, and no human bone was found in the Little Paxton Phase 1 pits. Rather, Pryor interprets the function of the Etton pits as each representing an ‘event’, in which a group of finds was placed in the ground (ibid, 354), connected with a rite, such as human cremation, conducted within the interior of a contemporary enclosure. By analogy, the finds at Little Paxton, such as the flint knife ‘placed’ in pit F361, could have represented the property of a cremated individual. Similarly, the Phase 1 pits at Little Paxton which were apparently devoid of finds may have received ‘offerings’ such as food, drink or organic materials which have not survived, even in the form of stains. Alternatively, the ‘offerings’ may have been placed in the upper pit fills, as at Etton, which at Little Paxton would have been scoured-out by severe plough truncation. The exposure of clean yellow gravel in the base of the pits at Little Paxton argues for a symbolic, rather than literal, meaning, since the absence of natural weathering suggests that the bases of the pits would have been open for only a very short period of time. The ‘small filled pits’ at Etton were located within a Neolithic causewayed enclosure, and were filled with material related to ceremonials conducted within the enclosure interior.

Figure 2.8 Area E/F, plan of features F958 and F991 Phase 1 finds and dating evidence In Area B, pit F342 contained ten sherds of Peterborough Ware, and nine sherds of Beaker pottery. Pit F346 contained 34 sherds of Peterborough Ware and 16 sherds of Beaker pottery. In both cases Peterborough Ware and Beaker fragments were found in the same context. The large size of the Peterborough Ware sherds, and their relative lack of abrasion has led Woodward (this chapter) to suggest that the Beaker material was intrusive. Ten sherds of Peterborough Ware were found in pit F561 in Area D. The remaining Neolithic– Bronze Age pottery comprised a possible Collared Urn fragment (from Phase 2 Structure 1 in Area B), and seven sherds of Grooved Ware (from Phase 2 Structure 2a/b in Area B, this chapter). Pit F346 contained three flint blades, ten flakes, a waterrolled core and a notched flake. Pit F342 contained five flint flakes, one of which had been retouched. Pit F361 produced a single flint blade, ‘placed’ at the base of the cut. Pit F561 in Area D contained four flint flakes, including a serrated flake and a long utilised flake. Two Phase 1 features in Area E/F produced the largest quantity of flint from Phase 1 features. In Area E/F pit F991 contained three scrapers, a retouched flake and 204 flakes, including burnt material which could have derived from a hearth. Adjoining pit F958 contained a scraper fragment, a retouched flake and 160 waste flakes.

22

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1) FINDS

examples, for ceremonial purposes (Ehrenberg 1977, 22–23). Ehrenberg suggested that the widespread distribution of side-looped spearheads within Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire was typical of the distribution of tool types compared with the riverine distribution of basal-looped spearheads, pegged spearheads and swords (Ehrenberg 1977, 22). Perhaps this implies that side-looped spearheads were regarded as being more utilitarian, rather than ceremonial items of equipment. It is quite possible that the usage of this item was contemporary with certain of the later elements of the flint assemblage, although, in common with lithic projectiles, its use was more in keeping with off-site, rather than on-site, activities.

Most of the Phase 1 pottery derived from Phase 1 features. Most of the flint was residual in later features, or derived from fieldwalking. Copper alloy spearhead Lynne Bevan A Bronze Age leaf-shaped spearhead (Plate 2.3) was recovered during fieldwalking in Field 2. Apart from being broken across the socket, the spearhead was in a good condition. Despite the loss of the diagnostic elements of the socket, the general shape of the blade and the proportions of the spearhead suggest that it was a side-looped spearhead of Middle Bronze Age date (Ehrenberg 1977, fig. 4) rather than one of the larger, pegged leaf-shaped spearheads, characterised by a broader and more rounded blade and a wider socket (Ehrenberg 1977, fig. 22). The closest parallel in Ehrenberg’s catalogue of ‘Bronze Age Spearheads from Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire’ is an example collected from Ashbury, Berkshire in 1906 (Ehrenberg 1977, fig. 4.9). When the original, complete length of the Little Paxton spearhead is estimated and compared to the Ashbury example, the sizes of the two artefacts are almost identical.

The recovery of this item is exceptional, particularly during fieldwalking, and in view of the general paucity of metalwork finds of Early and Middle Bronze Age date within the southern, as opposed to the northern, zone of the ‘eastern counties’ (Brown and Murphy 1997, 15–18). Moreover, the production, distribution, use and deposition of metalwork is not well understood throughout the region, despite being the subject of much discussion and research (Brown and Murphy 2000, 9). While this stray find indicates human activity in the region during the Middle Bronze Age, the nature of this activity remains enigmatic.

Such spearheads would have been used in warfare, hunting, and, presumably, in the case of the larger

Catalogue 1

Spearhead of probable side-looped type, broken across the socket. Leaf-shaped blade with circular socket. Length: 62mm, width of blade: 20mm, diameter of socket: 10mm. Field 2, surface find.

Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery Ann Woodward Introduction A total of 84 sherds of earlier prehistoric pottery, weighing 196g, was recovered. They came from six different features from various areas of the site: from three adjacent pits F342, F343 and F346 in the southern part of Area B, from Phase 2 Structures 1 and 2a/b (Chapter 3, this chapter) in the centre of that area, and from an isolated pit (F561) in Area D. The material dates from the Middle Neolithic through to the Early Bronze Age period, roughly from around 3000 cal BC through to about 1600 cal BC. Some of these features also produced datable flint artefacts (Bevan, this chapter). The pottery was recorded according to the guidelines of the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group and the following criteria are entered in the archive: feature, context, sherd type, fabric, colour, form, number of sherds, weight, diameter surviving and percentage present for rim sherds, type of decoration, motifs, dating and abrasion. The data is summarised in Table 2.1.

Plate 2.3 Bronze leafshaped spearhead

(Photo G. Norrie) 23

Tables last updated 26/05/11 Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 TABLE 2.1 PREHISTORIC POTTERY OCCURRENCE Feature

Layer

Fabric

F346

1729

F1 F2 F3

Rim

Base

Dec Wall

Wall

1 1 1 3 10 5

5

Wt. (g)

Style

Min. No. Vessels

Fig. No.

39 PW 1 2.8.1 3 PW 1 2.8.2 1 B 1 2.8.3 Total 5 43 3 1730 F1 1 17 58 PW 4 2.8.4–7 F346 F3 2 5 17 B 2 2.9.8–9 F4 3 4 B 1 Total 3 15 25 79 7 1725 F1 1 2 7 18 PW 3 2.9.10 F342 F5 1 5 10 B 1 F6 1 1 8 B 2 2.9.12 F7 1 5 B 1 F8 1 3 PW 1 2.9.11 Total 1 1 5 13 44 8 F343 1726 F5 1 1 B 1 F399 1861 F10 1 7 EBA 1 2.9.14 F401.05 1924 F12 3 4 9 GW 1 F561.01 2137 F9 1 3 PW 1 2.9.13 F11 3 10 LN/ EBA 2 Total 5 1 27 51 196 24 Key: PW: Peterborough Ware; GW: Grooved Ware; B: Beaker; LN/EBA: Later Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age

Table 2.1 Prehistoric pottery, occurrence

Fabrics

Later Neolithic or Early Bronze Age fabric

Twelve fabric types were defined: they are described below in chronological groups. The fabrics were assessed using a hand lens.

F11 Grog.

Peterborough Ware fabrics

Most diagnostic fragments have been illustrated. They are described below, according to their context groups. The Peterborough Ware sherds tended to be brown, buff or red-brown in colour, with grey interior surfaces and core, whilst the Beaker fragments were generally red in colour. The sherds of Grooved Ware were buff with a grey core and the possible fragment of Collared Urn was grey, with a buff interior surface.

Forms

F1 Sand and grog with sparse medium and large angular ill-sorted flint inclusions. F2 Sand and sparse large angular ill-sorted inclusions. F7 Hard sandy with sparse medium angular flint and sparse medium angular quartz inclusions. F8 Grog and vesicles (inclusions burnt out). F9 Sand and vesicles (inclusions burnt out).

Catalogue (Fig. 2.9; all from Phase 1 features in Area B unless otherwise noted)

Grooved Ware fabric

1

F12 Laminated fabric with sparse medium shell inclusions and vesicles. Beaker fabrics F3 F4 F5 F6

2

Fine sand and grog. Fine and coarse sand. Hard sandy sparse small rounded flint inclusions. Hard sandy with medium density small and medium rounded flint inclusions.

3 4 5

Early Bronze Age fabric F10 Sandy and laminated.

24

Sharp shoulder sherd from a Mortlake style bowl, decorated with impressions made with a hollow bone, straw or quill. Peterborough Ware. 1729, F346. Very worn wall sherd decorated with bird-bone impressions. Peterborough Ware. 1729, F346. Small wall sherd decorated with lines of twisted cord impressions. Beaker. 1729, F346. Wall sherd decorated with impressions made with a hollow bone, straw or quill. Same vessel as No. 1., a Mortlake style bowl. 1730, F346. Rim sherd decorated with twisted cord herringbone pattern on the top of the rim and short twisted cord impressed strokes inside the rim. Peterborough Ware. 1730, F346.

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1) 6 7 8

9 10

11 12 13 14

Wall sherd decorated with continuous diagonal rows of whipped cord impressions: ‘maggots’. Peterborough Ware. 1730, F346. Very worn wall sherd decorated with bird-bone impressions. Peterborough Ware. 1730, F346. Rim and upper wall from a small Beaker. Simple necked rim and fine randomly arranged birdbone impressions below the rim. There were also several small joining fragments from the base of this vessel; these showed that the base possessed a central raised boss. 1730, F346. Small wall sherd decorated with lines of twisted cord impressions. Beaker. 1730, F346. Outer section only of an out-turned flattened rim sherd, decorated on the top with very worn diagonal lines. Originally the decoration may have been executed in twisted cord. Peterborough Ware. 1725, F342. Very worn wall sherd decorated with bird-bone impressions. Peterborough Ware. 1725, F342. Wall sherd decorated with incised chevrons and rough horizontal lines. Beaker. 1725, F342. Flattened rim sherd decorated on the top with incised herringbone. Peterborough Ware. 2137, F561.01, Area D. Wall sherd decorated with incised diagonal lattice; possibly from the collar of a Collared Urn. Early Bronze Age. 1861, F399, Structure 1, Phase 2.

Not illustrated 15 Seven sherds, all from one vessel, three of which are decorated with wide incised grooves, c 2mm in width. Grooved Ware. 1924, F401.05, Structure 2a/b. Context groups, sherd size and abrasion Three features contained pottery belonging to more than one chronological style. These included two pits (F342, F346, Fig. 2.3) in the pit group which also included feature F343 which contained no finds. Both contained fragments from Peterborough Ware vessels and from Beakers. Whilst it is accepted that Grooved Ware and Beakers may have been partly in contemporary use, it has been shown that Peterborough Ware dates from an earlier horizon, starting in the Middle Neolithic (Gibson and Kinnes 1997). Feature F342 produced ten pieces of Peterborough Ware, from four vessels and nine sherds from three different Beakers, while feature F346 contained 34 fragments from a minimum of six Peterborough Ware vessels and 16 pieces from four Beakers. Sherds of both traditions were found in both layers of the pit, and sherds from the same Mortlake style bowl were found in both contexts. Pit F561.01 (Area D) contained ten sherds of Peterborough Ware together with two pieces of undiagnostic pottery with grog inclusions: these may have been of later Neolithic or Early Bronze Age date.

Figure 2.9 Prehistoric pottery (Nos 1–14: nos 2, 4, 6–7 and 11, exact wall angles indeterminate, but all from the lower portions of bowls) 25

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Grooved Ware dates from the Late Neolithic period and recent consideration of the available radiocarbon dates suggests that the tradition was current in the period 3000 to 2000 cal BC (Garwood 1999, 152). Sherds displaying wide grooves similar to those on the pieces from Little Paxton are found at Etton (Pryor 1998, figs 206–209) and at Fengate (Pryor 1978, figs 37–42). The latter contained stone, sand and grog, but shell inclusions were similar to those present in the Little Paxton sherds are recorded for Grooved Ware from Maxey, Bardyke (Pryor et al 1985, vol 2, fig. 177, 15–16).

Taking the assemblage as a whole, most of the Peterborough Ware was unabraded (89%). This contrasted with the Beaker sherds, of which only 44% were fresh and unabraded. Other Beaker sherds were abraded (16%), moderately abraded (24%) or very abraded (16%). This evidence might suggest that it was the Peterborough Ware that was in situ in the pits, and that the Beaker material, derived from various sources, was intrusive. The generally larger size of the Peterborough Ware sherds would support this hypothesis. The Beaker sherds came from higher levels of the pit fills, or the only fills. An exception was the lower fill (1730) of feature F346 which contained 15 Beaker sherds, along with 27 pieces of Peterborough Ware. This deposit may be interpreted as redeposited midden material.

The small sherds from Beakers (Nos 3 and 9), decorated with lines of twisted cord impressions, are too small to be assigned to particular types, but they probably come from examples of the later styles, which are particularly common in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. No. 8, with its simple rim, slack rounded profile and raised base with a central boss, belongs to the East Anglian tradition, as originally defined by Clarke (1970). Possible parallels are the vessels from Rollesby, with a central boss inside the base, and from Barton Bendish, with all-over impressed decoration (both Norfolk; Clarke 1970, figs 392 and 425 respectively). However, bird-bone impressions are extremely rare on Beaker pottery. East Anglian Beakers belong to Case’s Style 2 (formerly Middle style), which, on the evidence of the few radiocarbon dates available, may have started c 2250 to 2000 cal BC (Case 1993, 264). The sherd with incised chevron decoration (No. 12) probably comes from a relatively developed Beaker. Incised decoration is known on Beakers from nearby Eynesbury (Clarke 1970, fig. 783; type S1), from Fengate (Abbott 1910, fig 4.B), Ely and Whittlesford (Clarke 1970, fig. 994, type S4 and fig. 632, type N3). The Beaker fabrics at Little Paxton contained sand, sometimes associated with grog or fine flint inclusions. Similar sandy fabrics are recorded for Beaker sherds from Briar Hill, and flint was used in the Beakers from the barrow at Barnack, Cambridgeshire (Donaldson 1977, 209–210). But at Fengate most of the Beakers contained fine shell along with naturally occurring traces of flint, quartz, haematite and fossiliferous limestone (Gibson 1980, 234–245).

Discussion Peterborough Ware is named after the site at Fengate, Peterborough originally investigated by Wyman Abbott (Abbott 1910). Two sub-styles have been defined: Mortlake and Fengate, but it is generally accepted that the distinction between these styles may be ambiguous, and it is not always possible to ascribe small sherds to a particular style. Consideration of radiocarbon dates for the Peterborough tradition, mainly relating to sites in Wales and southern England, now indicates an earlier start date for the tradition than was previously envisaged. The suggested time span is c 3400–2500 cal BC, starting in the Middle Neolithic period (Gibson and Kinnes 1997). The shoulder and wall sherds (Nos 1 and 4) and lower wall fragments (Nos 2, 7, 8 and 11), all decorated with various forms of impressions, derive from Mortlake style bowls. Similar sherds have been found at the site between Barnack and Bainton, Cambridgeshire (Pryor et al 1985, vol. 2, 273, 19 and 20) and at Pode Hole, Peterborough (Woodward 2001), while larger assemblages have been recovered from the causewayed enclosures at Briar Hill, Northamptonshire (Bamford 1985, fig. 55, NP 81–4 and fig. 56, NP 92) and Etton, Cambridgeshire (Pryor 1998, Figs 202–3, PR 1–12). Such sherds display a variety of impressed decoration executed with whipped cord, the ends of bird or small mammal bones, straws and quills. The three rims (Nos 5, 10 and 13) probably come from Mortlake bowls also, the cord-impressed herringbone decoration on the rims, and the internal motifs seen on No. 5, being common features of such vessels. At Little Paxton the fabrics represented include sand, grog and some flint and angular quartz. Similar fabrics were recorded at Pode Hole and at Briar Hill, although in the latter case leached shell and organic inclusions were also common. At Etton most of the Peterborough Ware sherds contained shell with varying amounts of grog and sand, but no flint.

Sherd No. 14 with bold incised diagonal lattice decoration probably comes from the collar of an Early Bronze Age Collared Urn. The incised lattice motif occurs most commonly on the necks of Secondary Series Collared Urns of Northwest type (Longworth 1984, pls. 82–93). Where lattice occurs on the collar it has usually been executed in cord technique, but a few examples of incised lattice on the collar are known eg the vessels from Bradwell, North Yorkshire and Brightwell, Suffolk (Longworth 1984, pls. 106c and 107a respectively). Collared Urn fabrics are usually dominated by grog inclusions, with occasional occurrences of local rock fragments. The sandy

26

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1) fabric evidenced at Little Paxton is unusual, but can be matched at Swarkestone in Derbyshire (ApSimon 1960, 37, no. 44).

although the rare occurrences of cremated bone were of animal not human origin. Amongst the pottery there was a high proportion of rim and decorated sherds, as if the fragments deposited had been purposely selected. This characteristic, and the occurrence of burnt sherds, are also apparent at Little Paxton. Pryor points out that ‘small filled pits’ were also common inside the causewayed enclosure at Hambledon Hill in Dorset, and that many of the undated pits inside the enclosure at Orsett, Essex may have been of similar type (Pryor 1998, 376). It does not seem likely that the Little Paxton pit groups described here were located inside such a surviving enclosure, but it may be that an important focal monument lay in the area to the east of the area investigated in 1992–1998, now completely destroyed by gravel quarrying. Gibson (1980) has pointed out that the high proportion of fine Beaker wares found in the Wyman Abbot pits at Fengate may indicate that the fillings were deposits of a ritual nature, and the pits there may have been located inside yet another unrecognised early enclosure.

It is likely that all of the pottery described and discussed above was made fairly close to the site. Macroscopic examination of the fabrics has not led to the identification of any inclusions that would not have been obtainable locally, and they differ in detail from the fabrics of similar pottery styles found on other sites in the region, such as Fengate. However, many of the inclusion types concerned are found very widely, and the existence of pots brought in from a distance cannot be ruled out. Immediately east of the areas excavated lies a complex of ring ditches, a ‘hairpin’ enclosure and a RomanoBritish shrine (Jones 2001b), and further Neolithic monuments may have existed nearby (Malim 2000, fig. 8.9). The limited excavations that were undertaken in these areas produced no early prehistoric pottery. Similarly, the complex of sites: long barrow, three cursus monuments, rectangular pit alignment enclosure and ring ditch at Eynesbury (Ellis 2004) produced very little artefactual material. However, beneath the ring ditch there were pits, postholes and charcoal deposits associated with Mortlake pottery, and these were succeeded by an enclosure of Grooved Ware date (Malim 2000, 72). All these features lay below an Early Bronze Age barrow of two phases. At Little Paxton Area B the Collared Urn sherd from Structure 1 and the Grooved Ware fragments from Structure 2a/b were derived from Phase 2 fills which also contained significant groups of Iron Age pottery.

Worked flint Lynne Bevan Introduction

The total assemblage comprised 1,253 items of humanly-struck flint, weighing 9,127g, recovered by fieldwalking, test-pitting, trial-trenching and excavation in Fields 1–4 (Fig. 1.4). Table 2.2 summarises the derivation of this material. The assemblage includes chronologically-diagnostic material from the later Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age. Flint-working techniques evident in the usage of barely-modified pebble cores for the production of broad flakes, and a The small pit groups may be similar to those excavated low proportion of blades and blade-like flakes, suggest beneath the ring ditch at Eynesbury and can be related a mainly Neolithic to Bronze Age focus of activity. to the series of ‘small filled pits’ defined by Francis Closer chronological resolution was possible, however, Pryor at Etton (Pryor 1998, 353ff). These pits were in Areas B and D where small groups of flint, flakes filled with dark, charcoal-rich material and contained and blades were derived from primary contexts – pits, deposits of flint implements, pottery and bone, some of from which pottery of Middle Neolithic–Early Bronze which were burnt. The majority of the pits, which were Age date was also recovered (Woodward, this chapter). located inside the causewayed enclosure, contained While the flint from primary contexts in Areas B, D earlier Neolithic Mildenhall Ware, but nine contained and E/F offered more potential for chronological and Fengate Ware, four Grooved Ware, and one each were cultural investigation, fieldwalking (Fields 1–2) and, to associated with Peterborough Ware and Beaker pottery. a lesser extent, test-pitting within these areas revealed Pryor argued that the pits, which never intercut, may a much larger flint assemblage than was derived from updated people, 26/05/11 excavation. represent the funeraryTables rites oflast individual TABLE 2.2 FLINT COLLECTION, SUMMARY Fieldwork type/ location Field 1 fieldwalking and test-pitting Field 2 fieldwalking and test-pitting Area A Area B Areas C–D Area E/F

Quantity of all worked flint 251 162 37 (all residual) 21 from Phase 1 deposits; 54 residual 6 from Phase 1 deposits; 53 residual 370 from Phase 1 deposits; 299 residual

Table 2.2 Flint collection, summary TABLE 2.3 FLINT FROM FIELD 1 (AREAS A, C–D, FIELDWALKING AND TEST-PITTING) Flint types Scrapers Serrated Sickle Borer Axe butt

Area A

5 1

Areas C–D

276 1

Field 1 test-pitting 1

Field 1 fieldwalking 14

Totals 26 2

1

1

Field 1 fieldwalking and test-pitting 251 Field 1 fieldwalking and test-pitting 251 Field 2 fieldwalking and test-pitting 162 Field 2 fieldwalking and test-pitting 162 Area A Area A 37 (all residual) 37 (all residual) Area B Area B 21 from Phase 1 deposits; 54 residual 21 from Phase 1 deposits; 54 residual Areas C–D 6 from Phase 1 deposits; 53 residual Areas C–D 6 from Phase 1 deposits; 53 residual Area E/F Area E/F 370 from370 Phase 1 deposits; 299 residual from Phase 1 deposits; 299 residual

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 TABLE TABLE 2.3 FLINT (AREAS A, C–D,A, FIELDWALKING AND TEST-PITTING) 2.3FROM FLINTFIELD FROM1FIELD 1 (AREAS C–D, FIELDWALKING AND TEST-PITTING) Flint types Area A Area Areas Field 1 fieldwalking Totals Totals Flint types A C–D Areas Field C–D 1 test-pitting Field 1 test-pitting Field 1 fieldwalking Scrapers Scrapers 5 6 1 14 26 5 6 1 14 26 Serrated Serrated 1 1 2 1 1 2 Sickle Sickle Borer Borer 1 11 1 Axe butt Axe butt Arrowheads 1 3 Arrowheads 1 34 4 Denticulated 1 1 Denticulated 1 1 Fabricators 2 Fabricators 22 2 Blades Blades 2 2 2 24 4 Knives Knives 1 1 1 12 2 Other Other 10 8 1 29 48 10 8 1 29 48 retouchedretouched Cores Cores 4 3 2 19 28 4 3 2 19 28 Flakes Flakes 15 38 2 174 229 15 38 2 174 229 TOTALSTOTALS 37 59 6 245 347 37 59 6 245 347

Table 2.3 Flint, from Field 1 (Areas A, C–D, fieldwalking and test-pitting) TABLE TABLE 2.4 FLINT (AREA2 E/F, FIELDWALKING AND TEST-PITTING) 2.4FROM FLINTFIELD FROM2FIELD (AREA E/F, FIELDWALKING AND TEST-PITTING) Flint types Flint types Scrapers Scrapers Serrated Serrated Arrowheads Arrowheads Plano-convex Plano-convex knife knife Blades Blades Other Other retouchedretouched Cores Cores Flakes Flakes TOTALSTOTALS

Area Fieldwalking Test-pitting Totals Totals Area Fieldwalking Test-pitting E/F E/F 38 15 53 38 15 53 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 11 29

11 29

3 16

3 16

1

14 146

14 46

19 570 669

19 570 669

27 82 146

27 82 146

15 16

46 667 15 831 16

46 667 831

Table 2.4 Flint, from Field 2 (Area E/F, fieldwalking and test-pitting)

Flint types

weighed, quantified, and tabulated. For simplicity, all the material, whether primary, residual or derived from topsoil, is discussed together. The collections are described by area or field (Fig. 1.4). The assemblages containing excavated (primary or residual) material are discussed first, followed by the assemblages recovered by test-pitting and fieldwalking. A selection of key artefact types has been illustrated (Figs 2.10–2.11), and catalogued. Non-illustrated material is referred to in the text by area, layer, and feature number, as appropriate.

Quantity

Scrapers

1

Sickle

1

Axe butt

1

Blades

4

Other retouched

5

Cores

3

Flakes

60

TOTAL

75

Range and variety

Table 2.5 Flint, from Field 4 (Area B)

Raw material

The artefactual composition of the assemblages from Field 1 appears in Table 2.3 and the Field 2 and Field 4 assemblages are also tabulated (Tables 2.4 and 2.5 respectively).

The raw material used is generally of high quality, translucent beige and opaque light to dark grey in colour, the majority of which was probably obtained from on-site gravel deposits, since some items retained traces of pebble cortex characteristic of a river gravel origin. However, some variation was noted among the assemblage. For example, the flint assemblage from Field 1, which is of a generally high quality translucent flint, also included some pieces of a coarser, yellowishgrey flint. Although large pebble nodules were

Methodology For the purposes of analysis, the flint collections from fieldwalking, trial-trenching and excavation were examined with a hand lens at x10 magnification, recorded on BUFAU flint recording forms, individually 28

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1)

Figure 2.10 Flint objects (Nos 1–6)

29

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 2.11 Flint objects (Nos 7–14)

30

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1) available among the flint from Field 2, the flint was of unpredictable quality, with a high incidence of cortical inclusions, varying in colour from light grey and brown to dark grey. Here, it was particularly noticeable that the darker flint was of an apparently better quality than the light flint and was favoured for tool manufacture, especially for scrapers.

flake, rather than blade, detachments removed from a series of randomly placed platforms across the flint’s surface, or they were ‘pebble cores’ consisting of split pebbles with a series of broad flake detachments from the broken end. With the exception of a few unusually large pebble nodule cores, weighing 461g and 308g respectively, both from fieldwalking in Field 2, the average flake core weight was 35g and the average pebble core weight was somewhat higher, at 61g.

In some areas, there were also several pieces of very high quality flint of a dark grey or brown colour, the large size of which, often combined with a chalky remnant cortex, was suggestive of flint from primary, mined, deposits. Most of these pieces came from Field 2, including two exceptionally large flakes measuring 80mm and 99mm in length, the larger of which is illustrated (F629/2282 and F561/2137, Fig. 2.10.1). Potentially mined flint also included two side and end scrapers (F1145/3705, F1114/3705), a retouched flake (F948/3376), and three large flakes ranging from 40–48mm in length (F604.01/2207, F948/3376, F1052/3551). While close dating of the potentially mined flint is not possible based upon a limited range of artefacts and waste, it is most likely that flint was being brought to the site from mined deposits in the southern chalklands during the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age. Another possibility is that the material derived from Grimes Graves in Norfolk.

Flake cores with multiple platforms and pebble cores are both characteristic of later prehistoric flintworking; for example in the assemblage from the Late Bronze Age riverside zone at Runnymede Bridge, Egham, Surrey (Bevan forthcoming). At Mount Sandal, Coleraine, Ireland, in a similarly-mixed assemblage to that from Little Paxton, multi-platformed flake cores were used to determine the focus of post-Mesolithic activity (Woodman 1985, 53). Blades and miscellaneous Neolithic tools There was a number of blades in the collection, the earliest of which is an obliquely-truncated blade of later Mesolithic type from Area A (F126, 1258, Fig. 2.10.4). Other blades included a serrated form (F922.01/3279, Fig. 2.10.5) and a long retouched blade (F918.02/3305, Fig. 2.10.6), both from Area E/F. Serrated blades are generally associated with the Early Neolithic period (Edmonds 1995, 37).

Some of the larger flakes, including an illustrated example from Area B (F361.01/1770, Fig. 2.10.2), came from large nodules of locally-available pebble flint which was utilised for tool production during the Neolithic.

A sickle and an axe, both of which were broken, were found in Area B (F382.02/1837, Figs 2.11.7–8). These are both Neolithic tool types. Other Neolithic tools include fabricators or strike-a-lights, two of which were found during fieldwalking in Field 1 (eg U/S, Fig. 2.11.9). Also of Late Neolithic date was a planoconvex knife found during fieldwalking in Field 2 (Fig. 2.11.10).

Cores Of the 77 cores and core fragments identified in the assemblage, 23 were prepared blade cores of later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic type, the majority of which were recovered during fieldwalking in Fields 1–2. Two core trimming/ rejuvenation flakes from blade cores were also identified. The average weight of this type of core was just over 25g. Such cores were characterised by a series of narrow detachments from one, two, or, occasionally, more platforms. Some blade cores were pyramidal, with a single platform, others were bi-polar, with two platforms from opposing ends of the core (eg Fig. 2.10.3). Others exhibited a series of platforms across the body of the core, revealing that in many instances the core had been utilised beyond its apparent usefulness, an indication of resource stress. Most flake cores and some blade cores had multiple platforms, although the flake cores tended to be post-Mesolithic in date. It is possible that some low weight flake cores and cores with both flake and blade platforms, for example in Area E/F, were of Neolithic date.

Scrapers Of the 80 scrapers recovered, 25 were discoidal forms, suggestive of an Early Bronze Age date (eg Fig. 2.11.11). This is particularly true of ‘thumbnail’ scrapers, a typical Beaker type, close parallels for which have been recovered from the Late Neolithic/ Beaker site at Hockwold-cum-Wilton (Bamford 1982, fig. 30.g). Among the other scrapers in the collection cortical survival on the dorsals is common. Although less chronologically diagnostic, this characteristic also occurs in Beaker-related industries. Both corticated and (mainly) de-corticated types of scrapers occur at Fengate, in Late Neolithic/Bronze Age assemblages from Storey’s Bar (Pryor 1978, fig. 47) and the second millennium ditch assemblages from Newark Road (Pryor 1980, fig. 67). They also occur in Beaker-related industries such as those from Fifty Farm, Mildenhall Fen (Leaf 1935, fig. 1.1–8, 120) and the Early Bronze

The less chronologically-diagnostic cores were probably of Bronze Age date. They either tended to have

31

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Age barrow at Chippenham, Cambridgeshire (Leaf 1935, fig. 4.2–8). One scraper was a denticulate form (F550.14/2150), a type of scraper often associated with Mid-Late Bronze Age industries (Saville 1981, 21; Harding 1991, fig. 45.84–85). However, at Etton, Cambridgeshire, some denticulates came from closed middle Neolithic contexts (Middleton 1998, 233) and denticulates also occurred at Fengate (Pryor 1980, 118–121) and Maxey (Pryor 1985, 161–163), suggesting a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date for these implements (Middleton 1998, 233).

such areas would have been male preserves, perhaps in the way that the large scraper assemblage might have been associated with female labour and scraper-related activities. Waste flake analysis

A high number of retouched implements, particularly scrapers, are regarded as evidence for habitation foci (Schofield 1987, 280). The scraper-dominated assemblage from Field 1, which also includes a high proportion of other retouched implements, is of particular interest in this respect.

The archaeological potential of studying material derived from fieldwalking is well-established (eg Haselgrove et al 1985, Gaffney and Tingle 1989, Schofield 1991). When a sufficiently large sample of complete blades and flakes is available it is possible, by plotting the measurements on scattergrams, to determine whether the assemblages from each area are dominated by blade-like flakes, or broad flakes characteristic of earlier or later prehistoric periods (Pitts and Jacobi 1979). Ideally, this could allow intraarea comparison and some impression of relative dating to be gained. Originally it was intended that the metrical analysis of length: breadth indices of all complete waste flakes and blades could be conducted on the Little Paxton assemblage for comparative purposes (Bevan 2000). However, the only area with a sufficiently large sample for which tabulation of flake and blade sizes was possible was Area E/F, discussed later in this chapter.

Arrowheads

Discussion by area

Both of the illustrated arrowheads (layer 2886/SF2, Fig. 2.11.12 and F550.00/2107, Fig. 2.10.13) are of the Sutton type as defined by Green (1980). This is a relatively common form of arrowhead which is found throughout ‘the full chronological and cultural span of the occurrence of barbed and tanged arrowheads’ and occurs ‘with particular frequency in the graves of Beaker archers’ (Green 1980, 138). Moreover, the occurrence of Sutton tpe arrowheads here is not unusual in terms of their widespread distribution in southern England. Arrowheads are, however, generally associated with off-site, rather than site-based, activities and while their presence attests to activity in the general area during the Early Bronze Age, the main focus of the activity is difficult to identify or to relate to other Bronze Age tools found in the area.

Area A (Field 1, Table 2.3)

The assemblage was mostly roughly-divided between ovoid scrapers which range from the Neolithic (eg Wainwright 1972, fig. 41.F29–F30, F32–F36, F39, 55) to the Late Bronze Age in date (eg Clark 1936, fig. 9.4– 7, 44), and side and end scrapers, the latter being more a feature of Early Neolithic industries. Exceptions to this division were the discoidal and denticulate forms.

Thirty-seven items of humanly-worked flint were recovered; all derived from Phase 5–8 contexts (Romano-British, Chapter 4, this volume) or the topsoil, the total weight of which was 425g. Flint tools included five scrapers, two blades, a serrated blade, ten retouched flakes, and four cores. The earliest material consisted of an obliquely-truncated later Mesolithic blade (layer 1298), a single-platform blade core (F302/1643), a fragment from a second blade core (layer 1252), a flake with blade detachments on one surface (layer 1365) and an ovoid scraper made from a blade core (layer 1298). The cores and fragments might be contemporary with the later Mesolithic blade, although an Early Neolithic date is equally possible. The only diagnostically later item in the collection was a small discoidal scraper typical of Beaker/ Early Bronze Age industries (F176/1354).

The five arrowhead preforms from Fields 1–2 attest to arrowhead manufacture, which is more likely to have been carried out at a home base. With the exception of one incipient barbed and tanged form (layer 3001, Fig. 2.11.14), they date to the Neolithic period since the majority of them appears to have been intended as leafshaped forms and one is transverse, a typically Later Neolithic form of arrowhead (Edmonds 1995, 98–100). Edmonds (1995) has suggested that arrowheads became more important during the later Neolithic as social symbols, rather than projectiles used for hunting and conflict. Their manufacture might have been restricted to specific working areas within a settlement. Logically,

Area B (Field 4, Table 2.4) The flint assemblage comprises a total of 15 artefacts and 60 flakes weighing 520g, the majority of which came either singly or in very small groups, from stratified contexts or ploughsoil. The raw material used probably originated from on-site gravel deposits, since some items retained traces of pebble cortex. The flint is of a generally high quality, translucent beige and opaque light to dark grey in colour.

32

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1) Area E/F (Field 2, Table 2.4)

With the exception of a later Mesolithic opposed platform core (F364.01/1774, Fig. 2.10.3) and a possibly contemporary small end scraper (F389.01/1834), the majority of the chronologically-diagnostic tools date to the Neolithic period. These include a sickle fragment and an axe butt fragment (F382.02/1837, Fig. 2.11.7–8), both unfinished, and four blades. Three of the blades were recovered from pit F346 which also contained Middle Neolithic–Early Bronze Age pottery, together with ten flakes, a water-rolled core and a notched flake. Another pit (F342) contained pottery of similar date range and five flint flakes, one of the latter being a large, irregularly-shaped flake with traces of retouching. A fourth blade was the sole find from pit F361 (Fig. 2.10.2) where it had been ‘placed’ at the base of the cut. At 80mm in length, this was the longest of the blades, since the others were in the range of 41–50mm. The blade was also patinated and iron-stained, and may have had a Neolithic origin. A fragment from a second blade core (feature F362.04) was also identified, to which a generally Neolithic date is attributed, and two flake cores (features F346 and F396.01) of probable Bronze Age date, the heaviest of which (from feature F346) weighed 49g.

The assemblage consisted of 669 items of humanlyworked flint, comprising one small barbed and tanged arrowhead (Fig. 2.11.12), 19 cores, 38 scrapers, eleven blades, 30 retouched flakes, one of which was serrated, and 566 unretouched flakes and four chunks. The weight of the total assemblage was 2789g. Core preparation was minimal, and most cores tended to be rough and multi-platformed. They were worked from different directions, presumably for the production of broad flakes, suggesting a Bronze Age date for the majority of the collection. This general date is supported by the barbed and tanged arrowhead and several discoidal scrapers, both typical Early Bronze Age forms. While arrowheads are usually associated with off-site activities, scrapers are one of a limited range of tools to be found in settlement areas with any degree of frequency (Schofield 1987, 280), suggesting that the area was a focus of domestic activity during earlier prehistory. The collection suggests a low density, episodic, usage of the landscape, with some evidence for tool manufacture and usage. While the majority of the flint collection was derived from features of Phase 2–6 date, or the topsoil, two Phase 1 features produced large quantities of struck flint. The largest concentration, a total of three scrapers, a retouched flake and 204 flakes including micro-debitage, came from pit F991 (4050, Plate 2.4). The material from feature F991 weighed approximately 322g, of which 40g was burnt. The degree of burning suggests that it was partly derived from hearth material. This is a strong possibility in view of the presence of scrapers, artefacts commonly associated with the hearth-based work of women (Hayden 1992, Bevan 1997). The debitage appears to have been partly the result of scraper manufacture.

Areas C–D (Field 1, Table 2.3) The small assemblage of 59 items from Areas C–D consisted of one barbed and tanged arrowhead (Fig. 2.11.13), six scrapers, a knife, three cores, one denticulate piece and 47 flakes, including eight retouched flakes and one serrated flake (Fig. 2.10.5). The total weight of the flint was 491g. The stratified material came from pit F561. It comprised four flakes, including a serrated flake of opaque light grey flint with iron staining on the surface (Fig. 2.10.5) and a long utilised flake of high quality dark grey flint from a very large nodule of possible primary origin (layer 2137, Fig. 2.10.1). Chronologically-diagnostic pieces of flint consisted of two blade cores with very small detachments of probably Early Neolithic date (Test-pits 2 and 13, Bevan 1996c), a (residual) Bronze Age barbed and tanged arrowhead (Fig. 2.11.13 from Phase 2 ditch F550, found with an ovoid, shallowflaked scraper and a retouched flake, and a denticulate of probable Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age date (also from Phase 2 ditch F550).

The discoidal scraper and two flakes, the largest of which exhibits a single retouched edge, had traces of discoloured cortex, which, where damaged, was white, chalky and characteristic of flint from a primary, mined source. These items, together with most of the smaller waste flakes, were of a high quality dark brown translucent flint. One of the two longer scrapers exhibited white recortication through which it had been retouched, a clear indication of resource stress, a factor which might be partly explained had flint been imported from a mined source at some distance from the site.

The remaining flints are considered to be Neolithic to Bronze Age in date, and were residual material within features of Phase 2–3 date and the topsoil. Apart from an abraded multi-platformed flake core weighing 93g (topsoil layer 2000), their size indicates that very small pebble nodules were being utilised. An end scraper (F550.14/2149) had been retouched through white recortication, an indication that good quality flint was at a premium.

A steeply-worked edge fragment from a scraper, a retouched flake and 160 waste flakes were recovered from the adjoining pit F958 (3415, Plate 2.5). This material weighed a total of 172g and was generally very similar to the flint from feature F991, both in its colour and quality as well as in terms of flake morphology. Again, there were no formal cores among the material.

33

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Plate 2.4 Scrapers and debitage from feature F991

Plate 2.5 Material from pit F958

34

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1) March/ Manea area of the Fens (Middleton 1990, fig. 3, 17–18). In contrast, the Mesolithic waste flakes from the Fens are much narrower and exhibit a more restricted and spatially tighter patterning (Middleton 1990, fig. 2, 16). Field 1 fieldwalking and test-pitting (Figs 2.13–2.15, Table 2.3) The assemblage comprised 251 items, weighing a total of 3,454g. The flint consisted of 54 artefacts and 176 struck flakes and chunks. There was a high incidence of white re-cortication among the collection. Despite the difficulties in identifying contemporaneity among fieldwalking assemblages, a generally Neolithic date is supported by the presence of certain chronologicallydiagnostic tools. These comprise eleven blade cores, three arrowhead preforms, two of which were leafshaped (unstratified) and one transverse, and a borer, the latter dating to the later Neolithic (Edmonds 1995, 95, fig. 65). That the arrowheads were unfinished links them with a home base, where they would have been manufactured along with other retouched implements, rather than with hunting, an off-site activity. Further evidence for flintworking is in the form of a hammerstone made from a reused core. The average weight of the blade cores was 27g and the flake cores fell within three weight ranges: 10–16g, 33–42g and 60–62g. It is possible that the lighter weight cores were contemporary with the blade cores.

Figure 2.12 Flint, plot of length: breadth

While no closely chronologically-diagnostic material could be related to Phase 1 features, the presence of a discoidal scraper in feature F991, as well as the core reduction strategy employed among the debitage from both pits, suggests an Early Bronze Age date. The general appearance of the debitage, amongst which refitting was not possible, also suggests contemporaneity. It is interesting that no substantial cores were recovered in the higher quality mined flint. This might suggest that cores were utilised beyond the point of apparent usefulness as has been observed elsewhere among the Little Paxton assemblage, especially if good quality flint was at a premium, and was possibly removed elsewhere for further reduction or re-use as hammerstones.

Other tools associated with settlement are scrapers, awls and burins (Schofield 1987, 280), and the presence of 15 scrapers in the assemblage is strongly suggestive of some degree of settlement in the vicinity. Although not generally chronologically-diagnostic tools, discoidal-shaped scrapers with shallow flaking around the circumference, a type prevalent in Areas C–D, is a form usually associated with the later Neolithic period (Edmonds 1995, 96, fig. 66). Other retouched items included 30 retouched flakes and a small flake knife. The distribution of the flint implements did not reveal any particular focus of Neolithic or other settlement within the area fieldwalked. However, it might be significant that four of the retouched flakes were found together (Bevan and Dingwall 1997).

Separate chronological phases of tool manufacture and use cannot be identified in the collection. However, the evidence (a complete absence of diagnosticallyearlier material, unskilled knapping resulting in multi-platformed flake cores and broad, squat flakes) suggests a generally Beaker/ Early–Later Bronze Age date for the collection, in accordance with the results of previous work in Field 2 (Bevan 1997, Bevan and Dingwall 1997). This general dating is supported by the length: breadth measurements of all complete flakes and blades from Area E/F (Table 2.4, Fig. 2.12) which compared well with scattergrams of Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age waste flake dimensions from the

Field 2 fieldwalking and test-pitting (Figs 2.13–2.15, Table 2.4) A total of 162 items of humanly-struck flint, weighing 1448g was collected during fieldwalking and testpitting. The assemblage comprised one plano-convex knife (Fig. 2.11.10), two arrowhead preforms, one of which is illustrated (Fig. 2.11.14), 15 scrapers, 16 retouched flakes, three blades, 27 cores/ core fragments, 84 flakes and 14 chunks. The assemblage weighed 2723g.

35

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 2.13 Fields 1–2 fieldwalking, distribution of all flint

36

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1)

Figure 2.14 Fields 1–2 fieldwalking, distribution of flint cores 37

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 2.15 Fields 1–2, fieldwalking, distribution of flint tools 38

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1) Despite the difficulties in recognising struck flint in an area where natural, unworked flint is present in the soil, a few items were recovered from most grid squares. The high incidence of cores and core fragments in the collection is indicative of flint-knapping activities, mainly concentrated towards the northern edge of the field. The collection appears biased in favour of cores and larger implements which are easier to recognise than small flakes in soil containing large quantities of natural flint. Therefore the number of cores suggests a more intensive use of the area than is supported by the fairly low flake count. Two squares in the extreme northeastern corner of the field yielded both cores and the largest amounts of flint flakes.

Fen-edge’, have been the subject of archaeological research, proving useful in the reconstruction of ‘settlement density and land use strategies’ (Hall and Coles 1994, Brown and Murphy 1997, 14). It was originally proposed that close examination of the Little Paxton assemblage might provide detailed information regarding the changing use of the landscape throughout successive periods in prehistory. While the resulting information was not as detailed or as conclusive as originally hoped, this varied assemblage has, to some extent, elucidated prehistoric activity in the area from the Mesolithic to the Late Bronze Age, indicating that the majority of the Little Paxton assemblage appears to have been generated during later prehistory.

A high number of scrapers and retouched implements attest to settlement in the immediate area (Schofield 1987, 280), the scale and duration of which cannot be ascertained on the basis of the fieldwalking collection alone. Flint implement distribution is more generalised than core distribution, although there is a paucity of retouched pieces in the southeastern quarter of the field. While the unstratified nature of the assemblage precludes close dating, scraper morphology and the presence of six blade cores, three blades and a Late Neolithic plano-convex knife (Fig. 2.11.10) are suggestive of a generally Neolithic date. A later Mesolithic date is equally possible for some of the blade cores and one of the blades. Certain elements of the collection, including two barbed and tanged arrowhead performs, are later. Waste flakes tend to be short or squat, rather than blade-like, supporting a generally later Neolithic to Bronze Age date (Pitts 1978).

Comparison of the main tool types from the separate phases of archaeological investigation has revealed typological and chronological differences between the areas studied. It has also identified artefactual parallels from other broadly contemporary sites, including Fengate (Pryor 1978, 1980), Broome Heath, Norfolk (Wainwright 1972), and Hurst Fen, Suffolk (Clark et al 1960). Some intra-area variation was apparent. The earliest tools date to the later Mesolithic and the majority of these occurred in the small assemblage from Area A. By contrast, the majority of material from the excavation in Area B was of Neolithic date. A later focus of activity, probably during the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age, was suggested by the material from Areas C/D. A Beaker/Early Bronze Age date was suggested by the majority of the large assemblage from Areas E/F, as well as possible settlement in the form of a large scraper assemblage. Mainly Late Neolithic material was collected in Fields 1 and 2 (which included Areas C–D and E/F respectively). The earlier flint material therefore derived from the south of the site, and the later material from the north, although there is not sufficient evidence to suggest the gradual progression of activities from south to north.

Discussion The Little Paxton flint assemblage has proved useful in the reconstruction of Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age settlement in the area. However, while material from different chronological periods has been identified in the Phase 1–2 areas of the quarry, despite the greater evidence for a later prehistoric occupation, settlement appears to have been of relatively low density, even during the Neolithic to Bronze Age. While there is some evidence for activity foci in Areas B and E/F in the form of pits, there is no evidence for flintworking on anything other than a domestic basis. However, certain aspects of the assemblage, for example, the small Mesolithic component and the presence of Phase 1 features, support the re-occupation of the same lowland locations during the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic, a general tendency observed within the eastern counties (Brown and Murphy 1997).

Flint tools and debitage are not only of value for purposes of technological comparison or dating, but also in terms of what they can reveal regarding human activities in a landscape. The flints from stratified deposits of Middle Neolithic–Early Bronze Age date from Area B are of some interest in this respect. The stratified material of Beaker–Early Bronze Age date from Area E/F, particularly the scrapers and other material from feature F991, are of even more value in reconstructing social, as well as gendered, activity zones since there is a strong possibility that these objects were derived from hearth material, after having been produced and used by prehistoric women. Little Paxton offers the opportunity for several different levels of archaeological recovery and clarity of understanding in a landscape beyond the Fens, within an area for which there is less data available in published form. Closer chronological and social resolution might be possible in the light of future research and dissemination.

Flint is well represented in the region (ie the eastern counties as defined in Glazebrook 1997) where it was utilised until the Late Bronze Age (Saville 1995), and possibly into the Iron Age. In the past, lithic scatters revealed by survey work, ‘most notably in the Fen and

39

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Catalogue

14

(All dimensions are maximum) Fig. 2.10.1–6 1 2 3

4 5 6

ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL EVIDENCE

Large utilised flake, dark grey flint, of probable mined origin. Length: 99mm, width: 42mm, thickness: 13mm. 2137, F561.01, Area D. Large blade-like flake of coarse yellow-grey, opaque flint. Neolithic. Length: 82mm, width: 25mm, thickness: 6mm. 1770, F361.01, Area B. Blade core with two opposed platforms, medium-brown flint. Later Mesolithic. Length: 30mm, width: 26mm, thickness: 15mm. 1774, F364.01, Area B. Obliquely-truncated blade, medium grey-brown flint. Later Mesolithic. Length: 36mm, width: 9mm, thickness: 5mm. 1258, F126, Area A. Serrated blade, light brown flint. Length: 35mm, Width: 10mm, thickness: 3mm. 3279, F922.01, Area E/F. Retouched blade, light brown flint. Length: 56mm, width: 15mm, thickness: 4mm. 3305, F918.02, Area E/F.

Animal bone Emily Murray Features F346 and F342 in Area B contained small calcined fragments of possible animal bone. Fill 1725 of feature F325 contained a few calcined fragments of animal bone, and two small unburnt fragments comprising the metapodial shaft of a neonatal sheep/ goat, and part of the distal tibia of a pig, with unfused epitheses. The small quantity of bone did not justify detailed analysis. Charred plant remains Wendy Smith Charred hazelnut shell fragments were recovered from features F806, F958 and F991, and a single wheat grain was recovered from feature F958 (all Area E/F). No further analysis was undertaken on these samples. Charcoal from pit F958 Rowena Gale

Fig. 2.11.7–14 7

8

9

10 11

12

13

Bifacially-worked arrowhead preform, medium brown flint. Probable barbed and tanged form of Early Bronze Age date. Length: 34mm, width: 21mm, thickness: 8mm. Field 1, Test-pit 3, 3001.

Introduction

Sickle fragment with extensive pressure-flaking on one surface. Medium brown flint. Neolithic. Length: 39mm, width: 26mm, thickness: 7mm. 1837, F382.02, Area B. Axe butt fragment, pressure-flaked on one surface. Medium brown flint. Neolithic. Length: 52mm, width: 35mm, thickness: 5mm. 1837, F382.02, Area B. Fabricator (strike-a-light), light to medium brown flint. Late Neolithic. Length: 74mm, width: 25mm, thickness: 12mm. Area A evaluation, U/S. Plano-convex knife, light brown flint. Late Neolithic. Length: 56mm, width: 34mm, thickness: 15mm. Area E/F, U/S. Discoidal scraper with concave dorsal, light to medium brown flint. Early Bronze Age. Diameter: 40mm, thickness: 5–10mm. 3418, F951, Area E/F. Barbed and tanged arrowhead, Sutton B Type (Green 1980, fig 45.h, 122), medium greybrown flint. One barb is broken. Early Bronze Age. Length: 22mm, Width: 20mm, Thickness: 3mm. SF2, layer 2886, Area E/F. Barbed and tanged arrowhead fragment, broken near the tip, Sutton C Type (Green 1980, fig. 45.n, 122). One barb is unfinished. Early Bronze Age. Light grey opaque flint. Length: 24mm, width: 20mm, thickness: 3mm. 2107, F550, Area D.

Seven environmental samples were collected from Phase 1 deposits within Areas C–D and E/F. Charcoal occurred in each deposit but only in pit F958 in Area E/F, in sufficient quantity to warrant detailed examination. This report includes the identification of charcoal (attributed as fuel debris) from the fill of pit F958. The analysis was undertaken to indicate the type of fuel used and the character of local woodland. Materials and methods Environmental samples were processed by flotation and sieving using a 600μm mesh. The resulting flots were scanned by W Smith under low magnification and the charcoal separated from plant macrofossils. Charcoal fragments measuring >2mm in cross-section were considered for species identification. Although frequent in both samples, the charcoal was comminuted and degraded, and often included reddish (possible iron) deposits throughout the cellular structures. The material was too fragmented to include intact radial segments of roundwood. The samples were prepared for examination using standard methods (Gale and Cutler 2000). Charcoal fragments were supported in washed sand and examined using a Nikon Labophot-2 microscope at magnifications up to x400. The anatomical structures were matched to prepared reference slides. When possible, the maturity of the wood was assessed (ie heartwood/ sapwood).

40

Tables last updated 26/05/11 Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1)

TABLE 2.6 CHARCOAL FROM FEATURE F958 (3415) Sample

Context

Feature

Alnus/ Corylus 2 -

102 3415 F958 109 Key: h= heartwood; s = sapwood The number of fragments identified is indicated

Corylus

Pomoideae

Prunus

Quercus

4 3

12 4

4 4

31h 4h, 3s

Table 2.6 Charcoal from feature F958 (3415)

Results

Discussion

The charcoal analysis is summarised in Table 2.6 and discussed below. Group names are given when anatomical differences between related genera were too slight to allow secure identification to genus level, eg members of the Pomoideae (Crataegus, Malus, Pyrus and Sorbus), and, in addition, when poor condition of the charcoal prevented the positive identification of unrelated but anatomically similar taxa, eg Corylus and Alnus. Where a genus is represented by a single species in the British flora this is named as the most likely origin of the wood, given the provenance and period, but it should be noted that it is rarely possible to name individual species from wood features, and exotic species of trees and shrubs were introduced to Britain from an early period (Godwin 1956; Mitchell 1974). Classification follows that of Flora Europaea (Tutin et al 1964–1980).

Pit F958 comprised one of a group of three pits (including features F991 and F806) in Area E/F, dated to the late Neolithic–Bronze Age. The pit fills included flint finds. Charred seeds were rare, although a wheat grain was recorded from pit F958 (Smith, this chapter). Since the pits appeared to have been used as rubbish dumps, it seems likely that the charcoal in feature F958 represents spent fuel debris. The charcoal analysis indicated the use of firewood from several species including oak (Quercus sp.), hazel (Corylus avellana), the hawthorn/ Sorbus group (Pomoideae) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). The charcoal was too comminuted to assess the use of narrow roundwood, coppiced stems or large wood, although fragments of oak, which included heartwood, could suggest the use of wood from mature or semi-mature trees. Heartwood, however, sometimes develops in relatively juvenile wood.

The anatomical structure of the charcoal was consistent with the following taxa or groups of taxa:

Environmental evidence

?Betulaceae. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertner, European alder Corylaceae. Corylus avellana L., hazel Fagaceae. Quercus spp., oak Rosaceae. Subfamilies: Pomoideae which includes Crataegus spp., hawthorn; Malus sp., apple; Pyrus sp., pear; Sorbus spp., rowan, service tree and whitebeam. These taxa are anatomically similar; one or more taxa may be represented in the charcoal. Prunoideae which includes P. avium (L.) L., cherry; P. padus L., bird cherry, and P. spinosa L., blackthorn. In this instance the broad heterocellular rays suggest P. spinosa as the more likely.

The site was located near the River Great Ouse, close to a Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement and ritual complex at Eynesbury, St Neots (Ellis 2004). A study of the region by French and Wait (1988) suggests that deforestation was complete by the Late Neolithic. Current evidence from Little Paxton indicates that woodland components included oak (Quercus sp.), hazel (Corylus avellana), the hawthorn/ Sorbus group (Pomoideae) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) – a relatively narrow range of taxa when compared to that identified from charcoal deposits from the Neolithic and Bronze Age ritual complex and burial pits at Barfield Road, Eynesbury. The latter included oak (Quercus sp.), maple (Acer campestre), hazel (Corylus avellana), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), willow (Salix sp.) or poplar (Populus sp.), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), the hawthorn/ Sorbus group (Pomoideae), purging buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and alder (Alnus glutinosa).

Pit F958 (Fig. 2.4.S.6, Figs 2.6–2.7) The pit formed one of a group of three dating to the Neolithic–Bronze Age within Area E/F. Pit F958 contained an assemblage of flint artefacts of Early Bronze Age date. The pits were up to 0.3m deep. Charcoal was comparatively abundant, but consisted of small, poorly preserved fragments measuring less than 5mm in the longest axis. The taxa identified included oak (Quercus sp.) heartwood and sapwood, hazel (Corylus avellana), the hawthorn/ Sorbus group (Pomoideae) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) (Table 2.6).

These differences may be attributable to firstly, the greater number of samples available from Barfield Road, secondly, the preference and selection of firewood from the species named at Little Paxton, or, thirdly, a significant reduction in woodland cover at Little Paxton.

41

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 The charcoal was too fragmented to assess origins from wood gathered from managed woodland.

The Peterborough Ware recovered from Phase 1 pits in Area B (Fig. 2.3) and pit F561 in Area D (Fig. 2.5) provides a date range of 3400 cal BC to 2500 cal BC, starting in the Middle Neolithic for the earliest features at Little Paxton quarry. Fragments of Beakers (approximately 2250–2000 cal BC) were often mixed with the Peterborough Ware, and in most cases are considered intrusive. This could suggest that some of the pits remained at least partly open for a considerable length of time. With the exception of small quantities of Grooved Ware (dated 3000 cal BC–2000 cal BC) and Collared Urns from Phase 2 Structures 1–2a/b in the same area, no other pre-Iron Age pottery was recovered from excavation. Although not a chronological indicator in itself, Thomas (1999, 69) notes that extensive pitdigging is associated with the Neolithic.

Conclusion The analysis of charcoal, interpreted as dumped fuel debris, derived from a late Neolithic–Bronze Age pit F958 in Area E/F. The taxa identified indicated the use of firewood collected from oak (Quercus sp.), hazel (Corylus avellana), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and the hawthorn/ Sorbus group (Pomoideae). The relatively narrow range of species probably reflects either the small amount of charcoal examined from the site or possibly preferential selection. Comparison with charcoal deposits from the nearby coeval site at Barfield Road, Eynesbury, from which a similar but more extensive range of trees and shrubs was identified, implies that the environment at Little Paxton would also have supported a diverse range of woodland species.

Settlement and context While the Area B pit groups indicate settlement from the Middle Neolithic, however transitory in nature, the flint finds may be associated both with off-site, and on-site activities. The comparatively large number of scrapers from Field 1 suggests settlement rather than low-intensity activity, such as hunting. The arrowheads found in Field 2 suggest hunting, although the evidence for flint knapping, and the high number of scrapers and retouched implements in the same field indicates settlement of mainly Neolithic date. The arrowhead pre-forms found in Fields 1–2 also belong in a domestic context as do the scrapers, also mostly of Neolithic date. The worked flint from pits F958 and F991 (Area E/F) suggest knapping in a domestic context, while the pit group from Area B may belong in a ritual context (see below). The worked flint collections suggest that the same locations were re-visited in the later Mesolithic and earlier Neolithic. A later settlement focus of Early Bronze Age date is indicated by the pit group in the north of Area E/F. Analysis of the flint distributions from fieldwalking (Bevan and Dingwall 1997; Figs 2.12–2.14) indicates other concentrations of the material, in the northeast, and south of Field 2, outside the recorded concentrations of Phase 1 features. Evidence of early activity in these areas may be wholly represented by ploughsoil scatters. The copper alloy leaf-shaped spearhead (Bevan, this chapter) from the same field may indicate later, Middle Bronze Age activity, for hunting, warfare, or even ceremonial purposes.

DISCUSSION OF PRE-IRON AGE ACTIVITY Alex Jones This section of Chapter 2 is arranged thematically, broadly following the defined research themes of the project (Jones 2000b). The pre-Iron Age evidence is dominated by the fieldwalking assemblages, which represent material from the uppermost feature fills which had been scoured out by repeated deep ploughing. The fieldwalking assemblages are also valuable in that they address one of the central aims of the project landscape usage rather than individual site histories. Although limited in number, the Phase 1 features are important in documenting the earliest activity on the site, as well as possibly being exemplars of a particular ceremonial activity. Chronology and sequence (Fig. 2.1) As explained above, this chapter describes the evidence from a number of sub-phases of activity, for simplicity all grouped into Phase 1. The earliest activity at the Little Paxton site, comprising later Mesolithic flint finds (from Area A, and from Field 2), may represent little more than occasional hunting expeditions. Later material tends to suggest a shifting focus of activity within the quarry. Neolithic material predominantly derives from Field 1, (fieldwalking) and from Field 4 (Area B excavation). Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age flint was recovered from Area C and Area D. Area E/F produced Beaker/Early Bronze Age flintwork. Thus, the earlier material was found towards the south of the area investigated, the later material within the collection from the north of the concession, although there is not sufficient evidence to suggest a gradual northward movement of settlement or activity over this time-frame.

Malim (2000, 82) has suggested that ceremonial complexes were located along the valley bottoms, generally coinciding with braided channels or river confluences. One focus of ritual activity which contained a cursus, and a number of ring-ditches is suggested around the junction between the River Great Ouse and the Diddington Brook (Fig. 1.2; Malim 2000, 72). To the east of Little Paxton quarry lay a ring-ditch complex (Evans 1997a; Fig. 1.5),

42

Chapter 2: Pre-Iron Age Activity (Phase 1) located approximately 200m to the northeast of the northeastern site boundary. The excavated ring ditch measured approximately 43m in diameter, enclosing a small knoll. The ditch was deflected around a post, measuring approximately 0.55m in diameter, with an adjoining cremation pyre dating 1840–1780 cal BC (ibid, 19). The ditches comprised ‘ring-monuments’ linking to later Bronze Age circular enclosures, rather than with later Neolithic ceremonial enclosures (ibid, 19). One of the ring-ditches may have been a mortuary enclosure associated with cremation (ibid, 20). It has been suggested that the original firing of the pyre was an act of consecration preparing the ground for the monument (ibid, 22). Malim (2000, 57) notes that these early prehistoric complexes may have been sited at the boundaries or centres of ‘territories’ roughly 5–6 km in radius, located at braiding or river confluences (ibid, 82); rather than respecting the topography, and acting as foci for groups occupying differentiated lengths of the River Great Ouse. Similarly, Field (1974, 128– 129) identified ‘clusters’ of ring-ditches from aerial photography located at a corrected distance apart of 5–6km.

the extensive flint distributions. The Middle Neolithic– Bronze Age pottery was probably made close to the site. It is possible that some of the pottery may have been brought to Little Paxton from a distance, based on the widely-found inclusions identified.

Extensive surveys, eg Biddenham, Bedfordshire (Dawson 2000b, 47) have suggested increasing sedentary activity towards the Early/ Middle Neolithic (Dawson 2000b, 47). Within the Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire stretches of the River Great Ouse Mesolithic sites occupy a variety of topographic locations (Dawson 2000b, 47) – while riverside loops may be preferred, areas of greensand and clay have also produced Mesolithic find-spots (Dawson 2000b, 49). Although data is limited, it has been suggested that there may be functional similarities between artefact groups found within the middle River Great Ouse valley, and those derived from the upper Thames and the Fen edge (Dawson 2000b, 49).

The hazelnut shells recovered from features F806, F958 and F991 (Area E/F) indicate the use of other natural resources.

Much of the flint raw material derived from the river gravels. The flint from Field 1 was of generally high quality, whilst the material from Field 2 was more varied in quality. This difference may reflect the different chronologies of activity; the Field 1 material mostly Neolithic in date, while the Field 2 material may be later Mesolithic–Neolithic. Some of the Field 2 material, late Neolithic–Early Bronze Age in date, was of very high quality, probably derived from mined sources. Other evidence, including blade cores with several platforms indicate usage beyond apparent usefulness, while the retouching of implements across recortification indicates resource stress, because good quality flint mined from a source away from the site was at a premium. The size of flint artefacts from Areas C–D indicates that small pebble nodules were being used.

Environment The boundary between Fields 1 and 4 was created by a meandering stream, probably active in the Neolithic, which re-worked the adjoining glacial gravels (Roseff 2000, 32). In the area surrounding the stream the uppermost 1.2m of gravels was darkened with organic matter, and comprised post-glacial deposits, laid down by high energy water (ibid, 32). By the Neolithic the south of the quarry was no longer riverine. Located in Field 4, the Area B complex was located away from the broad, north–south aligned raised band of terrace gravels which was preferred for settlement in the Iron Age and Romano-British periods (Chapters 3–4, this volume). Some overall alluviation has occurred since the Neolithic (ibid, 32), which took the form of the infilling of abandoned channels and overbank flooding. Along the Welland valley (French et al 1992) alluviation is recorded in the Neolithic, followed by a rise in water level during the Bronze Age.

Garrow (2007) has published a study of Neolithic pits in East Anglia. This study identified a total of 1,492 pits of this date in the region (ibid, fig. 3), compared with around 10% of total from Wiltshire, Kent and North Yorkshire, indicating that pits were a particularly numerous component in the Neolithic of East Anglia. Plotting pit distributions indicates that most were located within river valley systems, and on sand/ gravel (ibid, figs 3–5), as at Little Paxton quarry. The potential bias introduced as a result of numerous quarry excavations has to be acknowledged. Garrow’s comparative analysis of pit, artefact scatter and monumental locations suggest some similarity in patterning between the first and the latter elements, with artefact scatters found most extensively.

Some evidence of the surrounding environment was provided by the charcoal from pit F958 in Area E/F. This produced evidence of oak hardwood and sapwood, hazel, hawthorn/ sorbus and blackthorn, a narrower range of species than recorded from Eynesbury (Ellis 2004), south of St Neots. The Neolithic long barrow at Eynesbury, (Ellis 2004) was located in open grassland, with woodland including oak, maple, hazel, ash and willow/ poplar on the wetter ground, and blackthorn and hawthorn in the woodland margins or in scrub.

Trade and economy The only sources of information concerning Neolithic– Bronze Age trade and economy comprise the pottery and

43

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Neolithic contexts here also provided evidence for nearby cultivation.

filled with material of alluvial origin. If this material was deliberately filled into some of the pits there could have been an intention to express a symbolic difference between the pits filled with quantities of finds, and the pits devoid of artefacts. This interpretation may also apply to the pits at Little Paxton, in particular the northern feature group (Fig. 2.3).

Ritual and religion The Phase 1 pits (Fig. 2.3) were characterised by a shallow, bowl-like shape (eg Thomas 1999, fig 4.1). They may be distinguished from the Iron Age pits at Little Paxton which were generally larger, more straight-sided and complex in fill sequences, as well as few in number, possibly because the high watertable may have made then unsuitable for storage. The undated pits have been phased according to their different morphology. Thomas (1999, 64) asserts that a bowl-shape was unsuitable for storage. The Phase 1 pits at Little Paxton have clean, unweathered profiles, another common characteristic (eg Case 1982, 121), suggesting filling (at least of the pit base) soon after excavation. Another characteristic is the presence of basal burnt deposits (eg Spong Hill, Norfolk, Healy 1988, 6) - exemplified by features F325, F327, F357 in Area B at Little Paxton.

Pryor (1998, 354) interprets such pits as representing an event, such as a human cremation, taking place elsewhere within an enclosure. Thomas (1999, 70) observes: ‘the early Neolithic pit deposits make use of the act of crossing the threshold between above-ground and below-ground as a means of commemorating particular events, whether feasts, gatherings or periods of occupation. By placing representative residues of such events in the ground, a trace of their memory was created…transforming the significance of a place, associating it with a particular practice or social grouping’ a practice which is perhaps broadly comparable to the modern ‘time capsule’.

The finds recovered from the pits at Little Paxton suggest a ritual context, since they include a high proportion of rim and decorated sherds, and burnt sherds, which do not predominate in the everyday disposal of rubbish. At Little Paxton, Woodward (this chapter) has highlighted the selection of decorated and rim fragments for burial, and Bevan (this chapter) also noted that the same features contained unusually large worked flint fragments, which would be unexpected in a rubbish deposit. Similar, carefully-selected pit deposits are recorded elsewhere (Thomas 1999, 66). The number of vessels represented in the pit fills from features F342 (ten sherds from four vessels), F346 (34 sherds from six vessels of Peterborough Ware and 16 sherds of Beaker pottery from four vessels) supports the suggestion that material from larger deposits was sub-selected (Thomas 1999, 68, Richards and Thomas 1994, 53). This interpretation could also apply to the very small quantity of animal bone found at Little Paxton.

Such ritual ‘marking’ of particular locations in the early prehistoric period may have been particularly important to highlight the visitations of a more-or-less nomadic community. Later in the Neolithic, further pit digging could have represented a return to a venerated location, rather than the first activity there (ibid, 73). It is not, of course, possible to establish if the Area B pits belong to one or more such events, although the pottery recovered belongs to a relatively broad time-span, dating from the Middle Neolithic to the Bronze Age. The flint assemblage from Phase 1 and Iron Age features includes diagnostic material dating both to the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, which also suggests more than one event. The recovery of Beaker pottery may indicate that the practice of pit cutting, begun in the Middle Neolithic, was long lived. Similar evidence for continuity of pit digging, from the Early–Late Neolithic was found at Eynesbury (Ellis 2004, 103). It is in the context of this crossing of the threshold between above-ground and below-ground that the significance of the exposure of clean yellow gravel in the pit bases may be appreciated. The dark brown gravel hogging was similar in colour to the topsoil (from which it was derived), while the clean gravel may have been a visual metaphor for the below-ground element of the ceremonial. The unweathered pit profiles indicate that the pit bases were not open for long. The remainder of the features may have been severely truncated, and it is possible that the features could have represented visible markers in the above-ground landscape. Other, shallower features could have been entirely scouredout by truncation.

A relatively unusual feature of the Little Paxton pits is the apparent mixing of Peterborough Ware and Beaker pottery, not only within the same feature but also within the same context. More commonly the sherds are ‘segregated’, as at Spong Hill (Healy 1988, 18), suggesting a chronological change in pottery style or cultural differences between those visiting a site through time (Thomas 1999, 74), but the scale of the present evidence from Little Paxton is too small to enable deductions to be made on this point. It is possible that the ‘mixing’ could have resulted from the pits remaining partly open for an extended period of time. At Eynesbury (Ellis 2004, 103) some of the Neolithic pit clusters contained quantities of artefactual material, while others contained no finds, but were

Given the significance with which the localities where such pits were dug are likely to have been imbued, they 44

CHAPTER 2: PRE-IRON AGE ACTIVITY (PHASE 1) are often found in areas containing ditched funerary monuments (eg Windmill Hill), although no such monument can be suggested at Little Paxton quarry. It is unlikely that such a ditched monument could have been entirely scoured out by plough truncation. At Eynesbury (Ellis 2004, 103), similar pits - at least some of which containing ‘structured deposits’ were probably contemporary with the hengiform ring-ditch, although only two were located within it. Rather the pits are here interpreted as defining an area of ritual significance adjoining the ring-ditch, perhaps highlighting social distinctions between those using the pits and the hengiform structure. The pits also may be of particular significance in linking the south cursus and the River Great Ouse (ibid, 103).

ring-ditches served as nodal points in the landscape (Evans and Knight 2000, 97). To the east of the quarry, an excavated ring-monument dated to 1800–1600 BC, respecting the site of an earlier pyre cremation burial (Evans 1997a), was located to the east of the Phase 1–2 area. This monument will have provided an important focus for ritual activity, which continued to be respected into the RomanoBritish period (Jones 2001b). A further focus of ritual activity was located at Stirtloe/ Buckden (Fig. 1.5), near the junction between the Diddington Brook and the River Ouse, where a ceremonial complex included a cursus aligned towards a group of ring ditches at the junction between the brook and the river (Malim 2000, 72), approximately 1km to the northeast of the Little Paxton site. The cursus may have been aligned on an earlier monument, which was also respected by the ring-ditches.

Of course, not all pit groups of Neolithic date are associated with ritual activity. The pit clusters at Barleycroft Farm (Evans and Knight 2000, 94) were interpreted as representing short-lived or permanent settlement, or repeat visits to a campsite within the annual round, dated to the Early Neolithic period.

CONCLUSION Within a landscape context, the evidence for pre-Iron Age activity is significant in ‘filling in the blanks’ between the better-known, and probably contemporary ceremonial complexes, clearly identified by aerial photography, forming a related part of a broader, ceremonial landscape. Furthermore, the pits and ploughsoil flint scatters underline the fragility of the early prehistoric landscape, and of the difficulties in identification. In particular, the pit groups may have been intended to commemorate particular occupations of the area, the exposure of clean gravel in the pit bases representing a visual metaphor for the below-ground element of the ceremony.

Although none of the cropmarked ring-ditches identified within the quarry by aerial photography (eg Area C, Area E/F, Figs 1.4–1.5) has survived recent ploughing, the associated mounds would have formed impressive aboveground landscape features during the early prehistoric period. The possible evidence for the later prehistoric respect of these Phase 1 monuments is considered in Chapter 3. Briefly, the site of one cropmarked ring-ditch (in Area E/F) appears to have continued to be respected into the Iron Age when it probably formed a boundary marker, later celebrated by field boundaries (see Chapter 3, this volume). Similarly, at Barleycroft, Cambridgeshire,

45

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

COLOUR FIGURE A AREA E/F, PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3 FEATURES 46

CHAPTER 3: IRON AGE SETTLEMENTS (PHASES 2–4)

COLOUR FIGURE B AREA E/F, PHASE 4 AND PHASE 5A FEATURES 47

COLOUR FIGURE C AREA E/F, ZONE W, PHASE 4 AND PHASE 5A ENCLOSURES

EXCAVATIONS AT LITTLE PAXTON QUARRY, CAMBRIDGESHIRE, 1992–1998

48

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) SUMMARY (Fig. 3.1–3.19, Colour Figs A–C) Alex Jones

B was mostly enclosed, the Phase 2 settlement remains in Area E/F belonged to one or more unenclosed settlements. The other element of the Middle Iron Age landscape was a single small enclosure (Area D). Field boundaries found within Areas B, D, and E/F may also be attributable to this phase.

The Iron Age settlement remains have been attributed to three phases. The earliest features associated with settlement at Little Paxton were Middle Iron Age (Phase 2) in date. Whilst Middle Iron Age settlement in Area

Figure 3.1 Simplified plan of Middle Iron Age features within areas excavated

49

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 More extensive Late Iron Age settlement (Phase 3, Colour Fig. A) was characterised by ditched enclosures and compounds. The main focus of this activity was within Area E/F. Three clusters of Phase 3 activity were recorded here. One (Zone V) comprised a group of intercutting enclosures. The second was represented by a group of irregularly-shaped enclosures set within a ditched compound (Zone X). The third and final cluster comprised the largest single enclosure (Zone Y) recorded at Little Paxton. The clusters were also defined by ditched boundaries aligned northwest– southeast which continued to be maintained throughout the sequence, suggesting an element of ‘planning’ of the layouts. A single ditched enclosure in Area B represented the latest settlement in that area.

associated with a well (F338) and other features, together with two ring-gullies (Structures S1 and S2a/b). Later Phase 2 activity comprised two adjoining enclosures (Enclosures BE3–BE4), and other, possibly contemporary features. Area B (Figs 2.2, 3.2–3.3) Description of Phase 2 features: the enclosed settlement The earliest Phase 2 ditched enclosure was pentagonal in plan (Enclosure BE1). The depth and profile of the ditch varied, becoming generally deeper and more rounded in profile towards the changes in alignment and at the entrances. The ditch was generally U-shaped in profile, and measured a maximum of 1.6m in width, and between 0.7m and 1.2m in depth. Ditch F362 (Fig. 3.2.S.1–2) was backfilled with yellow-brown siltsand, with traces of occupation material. Ditch F366 (Fig. 3.2.S.3) was backfilled with dark brown clay-silt, flecked with charcoal. The ditch fills suggested gradual infilling during the weathering of an earthen bank located inside of the ditch.

The final phase of pre-Roman settlement (Phase 4, Late Iron Age/Transitional, Colour Fig. B) was mainly recorded in the southeast of Area E/F. Here a group of ditched animal pens (Zone W) were associated with a ditched droveway. Within Zones X and Y further enclosures were dug in Phase 4, which included some selective re-cutting and re-definition of the Phase 3 enclosures.

Enclosure BE1 had two entrances. The northern was defined by two round-ended and slightly misaligned ditch terminals, 2m apart, and a single posthole (F379), the sole survivor of an entrance structure. The full width of the eastern entrance could not be confirmed at excavation, since only the southern terminal could be located. The only possibly contemporary internal feature was a further posthole (F365).

RESULTS Alex Jones Introduction and phasing Three phases of Iron Age activity (Phases 2–4) were defined, as follows: Phase 2: Middle Iron Age (Areas B, D, E/F) 400–100 BC Phase 3: Late Iron Age (Areas B, E/F) 100 BC–AD 43 Phase 4: Late Iron Age-Transitional period (to AD 60, Area E/F only)

A shallow curvilinear field boundary ditch (F363) was located to the northwest of Enclosure BE1, and a well or waterhole (F338, Fig. 3.2.S.4, Plate 3.1) was sited to the east of the enclosure. Feature F338 was roughly circular in plan and measured a maximum of 1.5m in depth. Its primary fill was a banded deposit comprising lenses of grey-brown silt, sand and gravel (1751). Above were deposits of brown-yellow silt-sand, which had accumulated as a result of the weathering of the well sides (1741, 1750). These were sealed by deposits of brown-yellow silt-sand (1747–1748). The upper well or waterhole fills comprised grey-brown silt-sand (1749, 1740) overlain by a layer of dark brown stonysilt (1719), the uppermost fill of the feature. A shallow, east–west aligned gully (F354), cut to the west of the well may have been associated.

The Iron Age evidence is described by phase, and then by area (Fig. 1.4). Within the largest area, Area E/F, the results are for clarity further sub-divided by zone (V, W, X and Y), following the main feature concentrations observed. For simplicity, some re-numbering of the original feature numbers has been undertaken. Phases 3 and 4 are distinguished ceramically, as well as stratigraphically. Phase 3 pottery is predominantly handmade, while Phase 4 ceramics include early wheelmade pottery (see Hancocks and discussion, this chapter).

Two roughly circular ring-gullies, dug approximately 10m apart (Structures 1 and 2a/b: Figs 3.2–3.3) were cut to the northeast of Enclosure BE1. Structure 1, measuring 16m internally in diameter, comprised two curvilinear gullies (F398–F399, Fig. 3.2.S.5–8) together defining approximately two thirds of the circumference of a circle. The northernmost (F398, Fig. 3.2.S.5–6) was flat-based in profile, measuring a maximum of 0.7m in depth, and 1.1m in width. The southernmost (F399, Fig.

No datable evidence of Early Iron Age activity was recorded. Phase 2, Middle Iron Age (Areas B, D and E/F, Fig. 3.1) Ceramically, the earliest Middle Iron Age features comprised a ditched enclosure (Enclosure BE1), 50

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.2 Area B, Phase 2–3 features, sections (S.1–S.22)

51

F399.01

F450

F398.01

S5

S7

S6

F449

S10

F407

F448

S9

F446

Disturbance

52 S8

F399.03

0

5m

3 .3

F431

F423.01

F423.05

S15

F408.01

F423.03

F473.01 F429

F423.06

S.14

F441.05

Structure 2b

F411.01

F411.02

F421 F420

F473.09

S11

F402

F441.03

Structure 2a/b

F441.01

F330

F430 F473.03

S13

S22

F432

S12

Figure 3.3 Area B, detail of Structures 1 and 2

Structure 1

F398.03

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Plate 3.1 Area B, well F338

Plate 3.2 Area B, Structure 2a/b, pre-excavation, view north 3.2.S.7–8) was flat-based, except towards its western terminal where it became W-shaped, probably as a result of re-cutting (Fig. 3.2.S.8). Overall it measured 0.15m in depth, and between 1.2m and 0.5m in width. Both gullies appear to have been dug in sections, with slight changes of angle. Features F398–F399 were backfilled with dark brown silt-clay-sand, flecked with charcoal. The shallow depth of the eastern end of gully F398 and the absence of a clearly defined eastern terminal may suggest that its eastern continuation

may have been scoured-out by plough truncation. In contrast, the original southern terminal of the deepercut southern gully (F399) was clearly defined at excavation. The western entry-gap of Structure 1 measured 3m in width, and contained an oval post-pit (F446, Fig. 3.2.S.9) and four postholes (F407; F448, Fig. 3.2.S.10; F449–F450). Features F407, F449–F450 formed a line tangential to the entrance; posthole F450 was located

53

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Plate 3.3 Area B, Enclosure BE3 ditch F471

Plate 3.4 Area B, Enclosure BE3–BE4 ditch F372, view east

54

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Plate 3.5 Area B, Enclosure BE4 ditch F472

roughly centrally. No other associated features could be identified within the interior of the structure. Structure 2a/b (Fig. 3.2.S.11–S.15, Plate 3.2) was oval in plan, measuring 8m in diameter along its longest axis. It was represented by an original ring-gully (Structure 2a, F473.01–F473.04, F473.09, Fig. 3.2.S.11–14), and a re-cut (Structure 2b, F423.01–06, Fig. 3.2.S.13–15) of the southern, and part of the southeastern sides of the original feature. The gullies were cut in sections, with slight changes in angle. They measured an average of 0.6m in width and 0.3m in depth. The eastern Structure 2a entry-gap measured 3m in width, and was defined by two misaligned ring-gully terminals. The southern Structure 2b terminal (F423.06, Fig. 3.2.S.14) was cut inside the terminal of the earlier ring-gully. The Structure 2a/b entrance was further defined by two adjoining postholes (F420–F421, Fig. 3.2.S.11). The backfilled Structure 2a ring-gully (F473) was cut by two postholes (F402, F430), possibly associated with Structure 2b. Further postholes were cut both inside (F431) and outside (F432) the structure.

Enclosures BE3–BE4 formed a later sub-phase of Middle Iron Age activity (Figs 2.2, 3.2, Plate 3.3). Enclosure BE3 was roughly U-shaped in plan (Fig. 3.2.S.16–7). Its southwestern side respected the northeastern side of Enclosure BE1, and its eastern side was cut into backfilled Structure 1 (F398–F399). The eastern end of its northern side was defined by ditch F372 (Plate 3.4), which also continued uninterrupted to the east to form the northern boundary of Enclosure BE4 (see below), but the remainder of this side may have been cut away by Phase 3 Enclosure BE2 (see below). The southern terminal of the western entrance to the Phase 2 enclosure was identified, but no other evidence of the ditch entrance terminals or of any associated structures could be found. The eastern and western Enclosure BE3 ditches were U-shaped in profile, with a slight ‘step’ on the outside face, and traces of a basal cleaning-slot were recorded along part of its length. The ditch measured up to 0.8m in depth and a maximum of 1.2m in width (Fig. 3.2.S.16–17). Postholes (F385 and F393) and gullies (F391–F392 and F395) were recorded within the enclosure interior.

Structures 1 and 2a/b may have been contemporary with a northwest–southeast aligned small ditch (F416, Fig. 2.2) to their north. Other slighter ditches, including curvilinear ditches, were also recorded to the east of Structure 2 (F428, F429, F403) which may have been associated with ditch F416. They measured a maximum of 0.1m in width and depth.

The western side of Enclosure BE4 respected the eastern side of adjoining enclosure BE3. The intervening gap, which measured 2m in width, may have defined a droveway. The northern (F372), western and southern sides (Fig. 3.2.S.18; F472) of Enclosure BE4 were fully defined. Entrances may be suggested at its northeastern and southeastern angles. The alignment of the northern

55

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 ditch (F372) was continued to the east of an entry-gap in the northeastern angle of the enclosure by a further east-west aligned ditch (F419). The primary fills of ditch F372, derived from the weathering and gradual infilling of the ditch base, were sealed by deposits derived from weathering and collapse of an internal earth bank. The northern side of the enclosure (F372) was re-cut (F454). Later, a small palisade trench (F397, not illustrated), perhaps for a fence, was cut along the southern side of backfilled ditch F372/F454. The southern enclosure ditch may have returned to the north, perhaps forming the southern part of the enclosure’s eastern side (F442–F444). This possible corner of the enclosure was only poorly-defined because of modern truncation. The remainder of the eastern side of the enclosure may have been dug away by later Phase 2 activity (see below).

the north of the main feature concentration, where a more gradual process of infilling may be suggested. In the south of the area investigated were a number of shallow possible field boundary ditches, cut on mainly east–west (F467, F328, F333, F335a, F349, F465, F468, F469) and north–south (F335) alignments. Feature F466 was cut on a northeast-southwest alignment. These features are provisionally attributed to this phase, although no datable pottery was recovered from their backfills. Interpretation of Phase 2 features The Middle Iron Age settlement in Area B marks a resumption in activity in this area which was abandoned during the Bronze Age (Chapter 2, this volume). Two sub-phases of Middle Iron Age activity may be suggested. The first sub-phase may have been represented by Enclosure BE1, and by the two structures, although these are not necessarily contemporary. The second sub-phase was formed by adjoining Enclosures BE3–BE4, which may have been contemporary. The plan of both these enclosures suggests an organic layout, probably respecting Enclosure BE1. Whilst Enclosure BE3 clearly post-dated Structure 1, which it cut, it is possible that Enclosure BE4, which contained quantities of occupation material within its ditch backfills, could have been associated with Structure 2a/b. Alternatively, it is possible to suggest that Structure 2a/b was contemporary with Enclosure BE4.

The western and southern Enclosure BE4 ditches (F472, Fig. 3.2.S.18, Plate 3.5) were cut to a regular U-shaped profile, and measured between 1m–1.5m in width and 0.8m in depth. The ditch fills were high in organic content. The ditch sides exhibited little evidence of weathering, suggesting rapid infilling. There was no evidence of any contemporary entrance structures or any possibly contemporary features located within the interior of this enclosure. Southwest–northeast aligned ditch F332 (Fig. 3.2.S.19) and an adjoining posthole (F337), both located to the south of the enclosure could have been associated. The relatively unweathered profiles of the Enclosure BE3 ditches suggest that they were probably rapidly backfilled after abandonment. The fill sequences in the Enclosure BE4 ditches contained some occupation material, including quantities of daub, found in the southern ditch.

The posthole group in the north of Area B and other Middle Iron Age enclosures is more difficult to interpret. The posthole group, possibly together with adjoining gully F368 could have formed a stockade, possibly for livestock.

Part of an irregular, roughly D-shaped possible enclosure in the north of Area B was defined by eight postholes (for simplicity not individually numbered on Fig. 2.2), cut at an average separation of 4–5m. The postholes were mainly circular in plan, and measured an average of 0.5m in diameter. This posthole group was backfilled with dark brown silt-sand. One contained a pot base in situ. The posthole group could be associated with a gully (F374), recorded for a length of 5m, and an adjoining, curvilinear gully (F368).

A number of possible field boundaries, cut following different alignments, are also attributed to this phase. Field boundaries F363 and F466 may have respected Enclosure BE1. Other, curvilinear field boundaries may have been contemporary with this enclosure group. The east–west and north–south field boundaries recorded in the south of the excavated area form a different, and undated arrangement, possibly related to Enclosures BE3–BE4, or later Phase 2 activity. Area D (Figs 2.5 and 3.4) and Area C (not illustrated)

Other ditches recorded within Area B may belong to enclosures which extended outside the excavated area. To the northwest of the posthole group was a slightly curvilinear ditch (F433), recorded for a length of 50m. An adjoining pit (F382) could have been associated. Ditch (F419) was cut by a curvilinear, mainly north– south aligned ditch (F371). Most of this ditch group were rapidly backfilled with occupation debris including charcoal, except along the length of ditch F371 cut to

Description of Phase 2 features Middle Iron Age activity in Area D was represented by a single ditched enclosure (Enclosure ED1) first seen as a cropmarked feature, and possibly also by pits, postholes and field boundary ditches, all cut into the natural gravel subsoil (2154).

56

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.4 Area D, Phase 2 sections (S.1–S.8)

The main feature of this phase was a rectangular enclosure with rounded corners (F550, Fig. 3.4.S.1–S.4; F551, S.5, Plate 3.6). It measured 18m internally northeast–southwest, and 14m southwest– northeast. Two gaps were recorded in the ditch circuit. One, measuring 2m in width, was located along the southeastern side, the second, measuring only 0.2m in width (Plate 3.7), was located along the northeastern side.

pronounced along and adjoining its northwestern side (Fig. 3.4.S.2–4). Ditch F551 (Fig. 3.4.S.5), was of an irregular, U-shaped profile, measuring a maximum of 0.6–0.8m in depth, and 1.2m–1.7m in width. Ditch F550 was broadest, probably as a result of re-cutting, at its southeastern and southwestern (Fig. 3.4.S.2) corners, where it measured a maximum of 3m in width, narrowing to just 1m to the northwest (F550.13). The northeastern terminal (F551.03, Fig. 3.4.S.5) of the larger entrance was enlarged as a result of re-cutting, as was the southeastern ditch terminal of the smaller entrance (F551.01). This re-cutting has also caused the ditch terminals to be slightly misaligned.

The depth and profile of the ditches varied around the perimeter of the enclosure. The majority of the ditch (F550, Fig. 3.4.S.1–4, Plates 3.8–3.9) was U-shaped in profile with a basal cleaning slot, more

57

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Plate 3.6 Area D, Enclosure ED1, aerial view north

Plate 3.7 Area D, narrow entrance, view north

58

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Plate 3.8 Area D, southwestern terminal of main entrance, view south

Plate 3.9 Area D, ditch profile along northwestern side, view north

59

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Ditches F550 and F551 were backfilled with brown silt-sands. The lower ditch fills accumulated as a result of the weathering of the ditch sides. It was notable that the upper ditch fills on the southeastern side of the enclosure had a high stone content, in contrast to the upper fills on its northwestern side, which were mostly stone-free. The remaining hollow within the ditch was backfilled with brown silt, probably derived from ploughing after abandonment of the feature. The fill of ditch segment F550.06 was particularly charcoal-rich.

One possibility to be considered is that the enclosure comprised a ditched barrow, of Arras type, principally found in East Yorkshire (Stead 1991). This interpretation clearly cannot be proven. The small size, if not the rectilinear form of the Area D feature is perhaps paralleled by ditched square enclosures of Iron Age date, such as those excavated at Maxey (Pryor et al 1985, fig. 44, enclosures 17 and 18; Simpson 1985). Such barrows originally comprised a mound of material dug out of the encircling quarryditch, enclosing a burial. The form of these ditched sites is described by Whimster (1981, 111) as ‘almost invariably square although in many cases the sides are not absolutely parallel, and it is normal for the corners to show marked round angles’. In addition to Maxey, a cluster of six cropmarked square barrows has been located in Cambridgeshire, at Hemingford Grey (Whimster 1981, appendix D3), Fulbourn, Fenstanton, Brampton, Willingham near Cambridge, and Hinxton near Cambridge (Hill et al 1999).

A number of features were recorded within the enclosure interior, but which may not necessarily be contemporary. A large, flat-based pit (F560), with a barrel-shaped profile, was located within the southwestern angle of the enclosure. The backfills of this pit contained a possible loomweight and a possible rubbing stone. To the west was an oval pit (F570) cut into Phase 1 feature F561, and an L-shaped gully (F559, Fig. 3.4.S.6) which could have formed part of a structure. A group of postholes (F555, F556, F562, Fig. 3.4.S.7), measured an average of 0.3m in diameter. A re-cut posthole (F557) and a gully (F553) were also recorded.

The Little Paxton site is distinguished from those catalogued by Whimster by the absence of an internal burial, and the presence of an eastern, and possibly a northern, entry-gap, as well as by its rectilinear form. Entrance causeways were considered by Whimster to be an attribute indicative of a domestic function, for example at Lockington, Leicestershire and Tixall, Staffordshire (1981, 123). Stead (1991, fig. 20) interprets a number of square ditched enclosures from Garton Station (1991, fig. 20) as square barrows, despite the presence of a single entrance causeway, and the absence of surviving evidence of burial. Stead suggests that the causeways indicate that access was required to their interior, leading to the construction of an internal bank rather than an overall mound. The narrow gap along the northern circuit of the enclosure is too narrow to define an entrance causeway. It is interpreted here as evidence of gang-work – expected in the context of a quarry-ditch, but perhaps less so in the context of a farmstead enclosure. Furthermore, no pottery was recovered from the barrow or enclosure ditch terminals, in contrast to the pattern of pottery distribution from the farmstead enclosures at Little Paxton and elsewhere (Hill 1995). The absence of finds from the possible square barrows at Maxey was one factor contributing to their interpretation. The finds from the Little Paxton barrow/ enclosure may be residual material, mainly derived from the earlier features, in particular pit F560, which produced a particular concentration of pottery.

Possible Phase 2 postholes and field boundaries were also located outside the enclosure. The field boundaries were mostly cut on a northwest–southeast alignment (F552/F575, F569, F574), except for ditch F568 which was cut southwest–northeast, and ditch F554 which was dug roughly west–east. Ditch F575 was a re-cut of feature F552. Field boundaries F569 and F574 appeared to respect the enclosure. In contrast, field boundary F552 was cut across the partly backfilled ditch F550, and then returned to the south. The field boundaries were mostly shallow, and U-shaped in profile, and backfilled with light brown silt, with sand and gravel. A cluster of small postholes (F565, F558, F563, F566, F573, F577–F581) and two further postholes (F571 and F572, Fig. 3.4.S.8), measuring an average of 0.3m in diameter and 0.1m in depth, were also located to the south of the enclosure. The elongated shape of posthole F571 might suggest re-cutting. The Phase 2 features in Area C (see Fig. 1.4 for location; not illustrated in detail) comprised a curvilinear gully (F480), first seen as a cropmarked feature, two postholes (F478, and F483), both containing posts burnt in situ, and a possible pit (F479), all cut into the gravel subsoil (2009). Interpretation of Phase 2 features

If the encircling ditch defined a barrow, the excavated pits and postholes may be earlier features.

The regular, rectilinear form, and comparatively small size of the Area D enclosure does not appear to be paralleled at Little Paxton quarry, the remainder of the Iron Age enclosures here being of irregular, curvilinear form.

Area E/F (Fig. 3.1 and Colour Fig. A); the unenclosed settlement In contrast to the evidence from Area B, Phase 2 settlement in Area E/F was unenclosed - mainly

60

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.5 Area E/F, Zone V, simplified plan of Phase 2–5 features

61

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.6 Area E/F, Zones V, X, and Y, Phase 2 sections (S.1–S.22)

62

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) represented by ring-gullies. The Phase 2 features were cut into the subsoil (2501), and into an overlying alluvial deposit in the extreme northwest of the area excavated.

this building, and a further posthole located to the north (F841, Fig. 3.5) could have been associated. Gullies G1a–c, and 2–3 were backfilled with yellow or brown sand-silt.

Description and interpretation of Phase 2 features in Zone V (Figs 2.7, 3.5–3.6)

Ring-gullies G1a–c could represent successive redefinitions of the same building. The southwestern terminus of ditch F748 was flush with the southeastern part of building G1c, suggesting they were contemporary. Ditch F748 could have been continued to the southwest by ditch F1055 (Zone X, below) which was offset from the former, but followed the same approximate alignment.

This zone contained the largest surviving concentration of Phase 2 activity, comprising two partly complete ring-gullies (G1c, G2, Fig. 2.7) and fragments of a further seven ring-gullies (G1a–b, and G3–7, Fig. 3.5). In the north of the zone were five inter-cutting curvilinear ring-gullies (G1a–c, G2–G3, Figs 2.7, 3.5, and 3.6.S.1– 11). Fragmentary lengths of two intercutting ringgullies, both terminating in rounded butt-ends were probably the earliest structures recorded (F832–F833, G1a–b, Fig. 3.6.S.1). Gully G1a was cut by gully G1b. These gullies measured an average of 0.06m in depth and 0.2m in width. Gully G1a was cut by a posthole (F834) at its western terminus. Ring-gully G1a may have been associated with four postholes (F824–F827), positioned at an average separation of 4m, forming an arc in the eastern side of the structure. The postholes measured an average of 0.3m in diameter, and 0.25m in depth.

A group of four incomplete structures, defined by mainly curvilinear ring-gullies (G4–G7, Fig. 3.6.S.7– 11) were recorded to the southeast of the former group. The features recorded at excavation probably comprise the deeper-cut sections of ring-gullies. Ring-gullies G5–G7 (Fig. 3.6.S.8–9 and S.11), were curvilinear in plan, and may have defined circular buildings ranging from 10–15m in diameter. The features were backfilled with grey and orange-brown clay-silt; the backfill of structure G7 was also packed with pebble and flint fragments. Ring-gully G7 was associated with a posthole (F732, Fig. 3.6.S.10). The positioning of ringgullies G4, G6 and G7 suggests that these structures were unlikely to have been contemporary.

Ring-gully G1b was in turn truncated by broad ringgully G1c, which measured 12m internally in diameter. Lengths of the re-cut northern (F830/ F837, Fig. 3.6.S.2) and southern (F811, Fig. 3.6.S.3–4) sides of ring-gully G1c were recorded. The northern gully measured an average of 0.6m in width, and 0.12m in depth; the southern gully an average of 0.4m in width, and 0.26m in depth. An entry-gap 7m wide may have been sited in the east of the structure, defined by roundended terminals. The western side of the structure was dug-away by Phase 3 Enclosure FE1 (see below). An oval pit (F828) in the southwest of the structure may have been associated. A southwest–northeast aligned gully (F748, Fig. 2.7, Fig. 3.6.S.5–6), was also recorded to the east of the building.

Ring-gully G7 (F746.02) contained Middle Iron Age pottery. Ring-gully G4 (F724.01) contained Middle– Late Iron Age pottery. Description and interpretation of Phase 2 features in Zone X (Figs 3.6–3.7) Phase 2 activity was represented by a curving, mainly southwest–northeast aligned ditch (F1055) and a ringgully (G8), both cut into the gravel subsoil (2501). The southern end of the ditch was enlarged, possibly forming a terminal, located adjoining the eastern side of the band of alluvium (mapped on Fig. 2.6). An entrygap measuring 2m wide was recorded towards the north of feature F1055. The ditch was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.3m in depth, and 0.8m in width.

Two further fragmentary ring-gullies were located to the south (G2) and north (G3) of Structure G1c. The northern side of ring-gully G2 was defined by a curvilinear gully (F800, Fig. 3.6.S.3–4), cutting ringgully G1c (F811). Part of the southeastern side of building G2 was defined by a roughly north–south aligned gully (F820). The eastern entry-gap measured 3.5m in width. The G2 gully backfills contained a quantity of burnt clay. The southern and western sides of the building had been cut-away by Phase 3 Enclosure FE1 (see below). Curvilinear ring-gully G3 (F827), cut into the northern side of Structure G1c and pit F831 (Fig. 3.6.S.2), was represented by a mainly northeast– southwest aligned gully, recorded for a length of 11m. A posthole (F829) was recorded within the interior of

This ditch was cut by a circular gully (F1045, G8, Fig. 3.6.S.12). It measured 9m internally in diameter. Its eastern side - where by analogy with the arrangement of other Phase 2 ring-gullies - an entry-gap may have existed, had presumably been removed by truncation. A single posthole (F1098) may have formed part of an entrance arrangement. Gully G8 was U-shaped in profile, and measured an average of 0.6m in width, and 0.2m in depth. None of the Phase 2 features in this zone contained Middle Iron Age pottery, although residual pottery of this date was recorded within Phase 3 contexts (see below).

63

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.7 Area E/F, Zone X, simplified plan of Phase 2–5 features

64

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) Description and interpretation of Phase 2 features in Zone Y (Zone Ya and Zone Yb: Figs 3.6 and 3.8–3.10)

gully (F642) to the south, cut on the same alignment terminated to the west in a post-pit (F642A), defining a possible gate-post. Further to the south was a gully (F625, F627, Fig. 3.6.S.20–21), dug in sections, with changes of angle, forming an inverted U-shape in plan, cut by a roughly east–west aligned gully (F645). This group of Middle Iron Age features were backfilled with grey sand-silt, the product of the prolonged weathering of the ditch sides.

Phase 2 activity was represented by circular ringgullies, and by smaller ditches, some apparently clustered. The Phase 2 features were cut into the gravel subsoil, and in some cases were heavily truncated by Phase 3 activity (see below). A total of four wellpreserved circular ring-gullies was recorded (G11, G13, G15, G16), together with the fragmentary remains of at least four further possible ring-gullies (G9–G10, G12, G14, G17).

A further focus of Middle Iron Age activity was recorded in the extreme east of the area investigated (Zone Yb, Fig. 3.6.S.22, Fig. 3.10). The eastern side of a roughly circular ring-gully (G16) was recorded within the area excavated. The feature measured approximately 10–12m in diameter, and was cut to a U-shape profile, measuring an average of 0.45m in width, and 0.25m in depth. It was backfilled with brown sand-silt-clay, flecked with charcoal.

The ring-gullies were concentrated towards the west of Zone Ya. Ring-gully G11 (Fig. 3.6.S13), measured 9m internally in diameter, and was dug in sections with slight changes of angle. The eastern side of the feature had not survived later truncation. The ringgully was cut to a V-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.24m in width, and 0.1m in depth. A recut (F1160, not illustrated) was recorded along part of its circumference. Ring-gully G11 was truncated by a fragmentary ring-gully (G12). Ring-gully G13 (Figs 3.6.S.14, Fig. 3.9) to the north was oval in plan, measuring a maximum of 7.5m internally in diameter. No trace of an entry-gap was visible, possibly because of truncation by Phase 3 activity (see below). It was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.6m in width, and 0.12m in depth. Two irregularly-shaped hearths (F1182; F1183, Fig. 3.6.S.15) were located within the interior of this structure. The hearth backfills comprised brown-grey clay-silt, containing fragments of burnt clay, flecked with charcoal.

Middle Iron Age pottery was recovered from ringgullies G10 (F650) and G16 (F645.01), hearth F1006 and from ditches F641.01 and F643. Pottery of Middle– Late Iron Age date was recovered from ditch F620, and from later contexts. No Phase 2 features were found within Zone W. Comparative evidence for the Phase 2 ring-gullies Structure 1 in Area B, measuring 16m internally in diameter, was the largest ring-gully identified at Little Paxton. Adjoining ring-gully Structure 2a/b, measuring 8m internally in diameter was the smallest such feature found at the site. Structure 1 was dug in segments, with changes in angle, as were, for example, ring-gullies 17 and 19 at Cat’s Water (Pryor 1984, figs 44–45). A total of 38 ring-gullies was recorded at Cat’s Water, Fengate, ranging between 12m and 7m in diameter. A total of 20 ring-gullies, all attributed to the Middle Iron Age was recorded at Little Paxton, with a range between 16m and 11m in internal diameter. At Cat’s Water Pryor (1984, 125) noted that the larger buildings were stratigraphically the earliest. If the same were true at Little Paxton, Structure 1 (Area B) and Structure G1a–c (Area E/F) could have been the earliest of this feature group. Structure 1 was part of the Area B Phase 2 settlement, noted by Hancocks (this chapter) to have pre-dated the Area E/F settlement. A total of 35 ringgullies was recorded at Hurst Lane, Ely (Evans et al 2007, 50), ranging between 5m and 15m in internal diameter. Within this range, clusters measuring 5–8m, 8–12m and 12–15m were apparent. At Wavendon Gate, Buckinghamshire (Williams et al 1996, fig. 5), a total of five ring-gullies, measuring between 10–12m in internal diameter were recorded. The circular form of ring-gully permitted thrust from the roof to be dissipated evenly around the structure (Pryor 1984, 218).

A further fragmentary ring-gully was recorded to the east (G14, Fig. 3.6.S.16). Another incomplete ringgully (G15), measuring approximately 11m in diameter, was recorded to the north. Gully G15 was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.25m in depth, and 0.50m in width. A posthole (F984) just on the eastern side of the structure was probably part of an entrance arrangement. Two fragmentary gullies (F1044; G17, S.17) were also recorded to the east of the structure. Further to the south was a second, heavily truncated focus of Middle Iron Age activity, mainly comprising shallow ditches, but also including fragmentary lengths of two probable ring-gullies (G9; G10, Fig. 3.5.S.18), measuring an average of 0.2m in width. The other main Middle Iron Age features were a slightly sinuous, mainly east–west aligned ditch (F615, S.19), and a sinuous, roughly parallel gully to the south (F641), with an entry-gap further defined by a narrow palisade (F621), measuring 12m in length. The ditch was cut to a V-shaped profile, and measured a maximum of 1.7m in width, and 0.65m in depth. A further ditch (F624) adjoining the eastern terminal of feature F615 may have formed part of an entrance arrangement. A narrow

65

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.8 Area E/F, Zone Ya, simplified plan of Phase 2–5 features

66

Figure 3.9 Area E/F, Zone Ya, southeastern area, detailed plan

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

67

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 A large proportion of the ring-gullies, or possible ringgullies recorded at Little Paxton were incomplete. It is highly unlikely that these features formed part of complete buildings, D-shaped in plan, in particular because these would be structurally unsound, and too small for meaningful use. It is more likely that these surviving incomplete ring-gully lengths represent the deeper-cut segments of complete ring-gullies, where the more shallowly-cut parts of the circumference have been wholly scoured-out by plough truncation, as also suggested at Cat’s Water (Pryor 1984, 44, fig. 36), where the surviving depths of the Structure 10 ring-gullies were cut to different depths. Other incomplete ringgullies at Cat’s Water, generally forming around one third of the circumference of a circle, but having welldefined butt-ends were interpreted by the excavator as open-sided animal shelters (ibid, 126), an interpretation which may be considered for some of the ring-gullies in Zones V and Y at Little Paxton. At Hurst Lane, Ely the excavator interpreted ‘half-arc’ ring-gullies as representing sheds, ancillary to the circular buildings (Evans et al 2007, 52). At Cat’s Water Pryor (1984, 126) suggested that ring-gullies with two opposing entrances could have been intended to create a draught suitable for winnowing grain, an interpretation which should be considered for Structure 1 in Area B at Little Paxton. An alternative interpretation (and phasing) of some at least of the incomplete ring-gullies is that they functioned as animal shelters, associated with the Late Iron Age enclosures. Summary of the Phase 2 finds and faunal evidence The pottery from Middle Iron Age features was dated 400/300–100 BC, and mostly comprised shell (35%) - and quartz-tempered pottery (34%), all hand-made. Among the surface finishes scoring was the most popular, with burnishing also recorded. A minimum number of 43 vessels was recorded from this phase, with globular, ovoid and round-shouldered profiles the most common forms. The pottery suggests that the Middle Iron Age inhabitants were a low status rural population mostly utilising the local resources, including clay for pottery production. The Phase 2 assemblage of animal bone comprised more cattle (60%) than sheep, in contrast to the later Iron Age groups, although the quantity of Phase 2 animal bone was relatively small as to make statistical conclusions invalid. Possible loomweight fragments were recovered from Area B (F354, 1746), and Area D (F560). Fragments of wattle and daub were also recovered from Area B. Summary of the Phase 2 environmental evidence The Phase 2 charred plant remains included the grains and chaff of cereals, including six-row barley, emmer, bread wheat and possibly two-row barley. The samples from Area B had a generally higher percentage of

Figure 3.10 Area E/F, Zone Yb, simplified plan of Phase 2–5 features

68

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.11 Simplified plan of Late Iron Age features within areas excavated

69

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 barley grains than those from Area E/F. The weed seeds were typical of anthropic and disturbed environments. Notable was the presence of cleaver, which suggests autumn sown crops.

southeast aligned ditch (F373), which cut the northern terminal of Phase 2 ditch F371. During Phase 3 a curvilinear ditch (F441/F424, Fig. 3.3, Fig. 3.2.S.14–15, S.22) was cut across the backfilled Phase 2 Structure 2a/b. Ditch F441 was cut by north–south ditch F330 (Fig. 3.2.S.22) and by ditch F408 (S.15). An adjoining curvilinear ditch (F411) may also have been contemporary. Full details of the arrangement of these north–south aligned ditches was obscured by modern disturbance.

Phase 3, Late Iron Age (Areas B and E/F; Colour Fig. A) Area B (Figs 2.2 and 3.2–3.3 and 3.11) Description and interpretation of Phase 3 features The main Late Iron Age feature was an enclosure (BE2), only partly recorded within the excavated area, together with other ditches whose overall arrangement was difficult to identify.

The Phase 3 Enclosure BE3 was located to the north of the abandoned Middle Iron Age focus of activity. The function of this enclosure is not known.The overall layout and function of the other Late Iron Age features is unclear, although they clearly represent activity extending to the east of the ditched enclosure.

Enclosure BE2 measured 18m internally north–south. Its three excavated sides (F470, Fig. 2.2 and Fig. 3.2.S.20–21), were slightly curvilinear in plan. The enlarged eastern terminal of the northern side defined one side of an entry-gap. This terminal was cut through the backfilled Phase 2 ditch F433, and into the subsoil. This ditch terminal was in turn cut by a large circular pit (F383). The alignment of the presumed continuation of the northern side of Enclosure BE2 to the west of the entry-gap was obscured by recent disturbance. The enclosure ditch was cut to a V-shaped profile, and measured an average of 1.5m in width and 1.0m in depth. The sequence of fills suggested that the ditch was originally complimented on its eastern side by an inner bank which later weathered into the ditch. There was no trace of any contemporary features within this enclosure. To the northeast of the enclosure was the short length of a curvilinear, mainly northwest-

Area E/F (Zones V, X–Y, Fig. 2.6, Colour Fig. A, Plate 3.10) Phase 3 features were cut through backfilled Phase 1–2 features, and into the gravel subsoil (2501). Description of Phase 3 features in Zone V (Figs 3.5 and 3.12–3.13) Zone V comprised a cluster of Late Iron Age enclosures located in the northeast of Area E/F. The main features of this phase were a group of intercutting ditched enclosures (FE1–FE7a/b). Often, later enclosures were cut along the line of earlier ditches which had been partly backfilled, but whose line had remained visible, perhaps as a shallow hollow. The enclosures and their

Plate 3.10 Area E/F, overhead view of Zone V, Phase 3 enclosures 70

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.12 Area E/F, Zone V, Phase 3 sections (S.23–S.33) 71

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.13 Area E/F, Zone V, Phase 3 sections (S.34–S.42)

72

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) entrances were laid out respecting the predominant northwest–southeast alignment, defined by ditch F1290–F1291, which formed the southeastern limit of this zone. This ditched boundary was maintained throughout the Phase 3 sequence, and beyond. No contemporary internal features could be recorded, probably because of plough truncation.

Enclosure FE2 (Fig. 3.6.S.5, Fig. 3.12.S.24–29), probably the largest enclosure of the group, measured a maximum of 38m internally. It was located to the north of Enclosure FE3. The extreme northwestern corner of the enclosure lay outside the excavated area. The Enclosure FE2 ditch was cut through the backfilled Phase 2 structures, and into the natural subsoil. It was hexagonal in plan, defined by ditches cut with changes of angle. Most of the sides were straight; two were curvilinear. The southwestern and southeastern sides of the enclosure ditch had been dug away by re-cutting (Enclosures FE4–FE5, see below). Although most of the Enclosure FE2 ditch circuit was exposed no trace of an entry-gap could be located with certainty. The location of a possible entrance along the southeastern side of the enclosure may be suggested by the distinctive stepped profile of the enclosure ditch here (Fig. 3.6.S.25), as well as by the general preference for entrances on the eastern side of enclosures (see below). The Enclosure FE2 ditches were generally V-shaped in profile, and measured an average of 2m in width and 1.5m in depth, becoming more flat-based and U-shaped in profile along the western side of the enclosure, which was less deeply-cut (eg Fig. 3.6.S.29). The enclosure ditch generally became broader towards the changes in angle, as may be expected as a result of re-cutting. A pit (F850, Fig. 3.12.S.26), was recorded outside the southeastern angle of the enclosure.

Early enclosure group

The earliest Late Iron Age enclosures were FE3 and FE2 (Fig. 3.5, Fig. 3.12.S.23–29), which may have been contemporary. Enclosure FE3 was probably roughly rectangular in shape, with its long axis aligned northwest–southeast, respecting the approximate alignment of a major ditched boundary (F1290–F1291, see below), to the south. Only the southeastern side of the enclosure had survived re-cutting by later Phase 3 Enclosure FE1 (see below). Enclosure FE3 (Plate 3.11) probably measured 15m internally (southwest– northeast) by 22m (northwest–southeast). An entrancegap measuring 2m in width was recorded along its southeastern side. The Enclosure FE3 ditches was U-shaped in profile (Fig. 3.12.S.23), and measured an average of 0.8m in width, and 0.5m in depth. They became markedly shallower towards the ditch terminals. The Enclosure FE3 ditch backfills mainly comprised banded deposits of gravel-silt, probably accumulated during prolonged weathering of the feature, and which were sealed by a charcoal-rich silt, infilling the remaining hollow of the ditch. No associated internal or external features could be identified.



The basal ditch fills comprised sands and silts, accumulated as a result of prolonged weathering of the ditch sides. The remainder of the ditches were backfilled with horizontally-banded deposits of sand and silt, indicating that they had remained open for a considerable period.

Plate 3.11 Area E/F, Zone V, northeastern ditch of Enclosure FE3 and southwestern ditch of Enclosure FE4 73

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 The Enclosure FE1 ditches (Fig. 3.12.S.23, S.30–33) were cut through the backfilled Enclosure FE3 ditches, and into the subsoil (2501). Enclosure FE1 was a re-cut along the northwestern, northeastern and southwestern sides of Enclosure FE3, and was also extended further to the southeast (Fig. 3.6.S.33). Parts of the northeastern and southwestern sides of Enclosure FE1 were cut away by later enclosures (FE4, FE7a, see below). Enclosure FE1 measured a maximum of 32m by 14m internally. The sequence recorded at the junction between the southwestern side of Enclosure FE1 and the southwestern angle of Enclosure FE3 suggests that the former enclosure ditch had been at least partially backfilled at the time of re-cutting, although its line was respected by the later enclosure ditch (Fig. 3.12.S.23). The southeastern side of Enclosure FE1 (Plate 3.12) was interrupted by an entry-gap measuring 1.3m in width. The northwestern side of the enclosure was defined by a ditch cut to a regular, U-shaped profile (Fig. 3.12.S.30), measuring a maximum of 1.5m in width, and 0.7m in depth. The southwestern ditch (Fig. 3.12.S.23) was stepped in profile, with a pronounced basal cleaning-slot. The ditch became smaller towards the entry-gap, particularly to the south of the entrance (Fig. 3.12.S.33). The northeastern enclosure ditch was cut by two pits (F717–F718), and a further pit (F710) was cut into the northern entrance terminal. No features associated with Enclosure FE1 could be identified within its interior.

Plate 3.12 Area E/F, Zone V, southeastern ditch of Enclosure FE1

The lower ditch backfills comprised silt-sands, accumulated during weathering of the ditch sides. The base of the northeastern ditch (Fig. 3.12.S.30) may have been deliberately backfilled with redeposited subsoil preparatory to the excavation of the Enclosure FE4 ditch. The uppermost backfills were brown siltsand, flecked with charcoal.

Entry-gaps were recorded along the northwestern and southeastern sides of the enclosure. The former may have been a re-definition of a possible southeastern entrance of Enclosure FE2. The northwestern and southeastern entry-gaps measured 1.2m and 2.4m respectively in width. The enclosure ditch measured a maximum of 2.1m in width, and had been widened by re-cutting at the changes of angle. The enclosure ditch profile varied.

Enclosure FE4 (Fig. 3.12.S.25–27, S.30, Fig. 3.13.S.34–36, Plate 3.11), was hexagonal in plan, similar to Enclosure FE2 (see above). It was cut between enclosures FE2 and FE3. Enclosure FE4 measured a maximum of 30m internally north–south, and 24m east–west. Most of the ditch segments were straight-sided. The southwestern enclosure ditch (Fig. 3.12.S.30), was cut into the backfilled northeastern ditch of Enclosure FE2, and the northwestern side of the enclosure was cut into the backfilled southeastern side of Enclosure FE2 (Fig. 3.12.S.25), and a backfilled pit (F850, Fig. 3.12.S.26). In both cases the preceding enclosure ditch had been at least partially backfilled by the time that the Enclosure FE4 ditches had been cut. The re-cut along Enclosure FE2 followed the line of the former enclosure ditch, while the re-cut of the Enclosure FE3 ditch was slightly to the southwest of the backfilled primary ditch, although following its alignment. The eastern, northeastern and part of the extreme southeastern side of Enclosure FE4 were cut into the natural subsoil (2501).

Northeast–southwest aligned ditch F745 (Fig. 3.13.36), was recorded for a length of 21m within the southeastern corner of Enclosure FE4. Since this feature did not extend outside the enclosure, it may be assumed to be associated with its early layout, being subsequently truncated by the cleaning-out or re-cutting of the enclosure ditch (Fig. 3.13.S.35). Ditch F745 was cut to a V-shaped profile, and measured an average of 2.1m in width, and 1.1m in depth. This ditch was cut by two adjoining post-pits (F715 and F744, Fig. 3.13.S.36). Ditch F745 was backfilled with orange-brown sand-silt. No other associated internal features were recorded. No other contemporary features could be identified within the enclosure interior. The Enclosure FE4 ditch fills comprised orange-brown sand-silt deposits, derived from weathering of the ditch sides, while the terminals were backfilled with organic deposits. 74

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Plate 3.13 Area E/F, Zone V, northwestern ditch of Enclosure FE6 Enclosure FE5 (Fig. 3.12.S.28 and S.32) was cut to the south of Enclosure FE2, and to the west of Enclosure FE4. Enclosure FE5 was irregular in plan. The enclosure measured 9m internally north–south, and 10m east–west. The northern ditch of Enclosure FE5 was cut into the partly backfilled southern ditch of Enclosure FE2 (Fig. 3.12.S.28), and the other sides of the enclosure were cut into the subsoil. The southeastern angle of Enclosure FE5 was presumably cut through the northwestern angle of Enclosure FE1 and into the Enclosure FE3 ditch. The northeastern side of the enclosure was heavily truncated by later Enclosure FE6 (see below).

northern ditch of Enclosure FE5 (Fig. 3.12.S.28), and the remainder of the Enclosure FE6 ditch circuit was cut into the natural subsoil. The southwestern angle of the enclosure was dug away by Enclosure FE7a/b (see below). Enclosure FE6 was the most irregularlyshaped enclosure of the group, measuring a maximum of 30m internally. Enclosure FE6 had two entry-gaps. One, measuring 2.4m in width, and defined by two ditch terminals forming a right-angle, was located at its northeastern corner. The second, at its southwestern angle measured 4.3m in width and was complex in arrangement. Two post-pits (F948, F965), framed the entrance, and may have been associated with a slightly curvilinear palisade (F949), measuring 0.5m in width, and 0.3m in depth, cut across the entrance. Pit F948 was later truncated by a re-cut of the ditch terminal, while pit F965 was cut into the opposing ditch terminal.

An east–west aligned palisade trench (F785), may have ‘closed’ a possible entrance, measuring 2.2m in width, in the southeastern angle of the enclosure. A second entrance, measuring 1m in width may be suggested at the northwestern angle of the enclosure, although its presumed northern terminal was dug away by re-cutting (Enclosure FE6, see below). The Enclosure FE5 ditches were mostly cut to V-shaped profiles, which became U-shaped towards the entry-gaps, possibly as a result of re-cutting. The eastern ditch was notably broader than the other sides of the enclosure The Enclosure FE5 ditches were backfilled with brown silt-sand, with traces of charcoal in the ditch terminals. No associated internal features could be identified.

Traces of re-cutting were recorded along the southwestern side of the enclosure, where the defining ditch was shallower. The Phase 3 backfills of the Enclosure FE6 ditches comprised orange-brown siltsand, accumulated as a result of gradual weathering. Part of the northeastern ditch may have been deliberately backfilled after only limited weathering of the ditch sides. There was no evidence for the gateposts in features F948 and F965 having rotted in-situ. They may have been dug-out for re-use.

Enclosure FE6 (Fig. 3.1.12.S.28, Fig. 3.13.S.37–38, Plate 3.13), was laid out in the area of the abandoned Enclosure FE5, and was also extended to the northwest and southwest of the former enclosure. The northeastern side of Enclosure FE6 was cut into the backfilled

Ditch boundary group (Colour Fig. A, Fig. 3.5, Fig. 3.13.S.39–41)

The southwestern limit of the Zone V enclosure cluster was defined by a northwest–southeast aligned boundary ditch, recorded for a length of 140m, which

75

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Finds and dating evidence from Phase 3 features in Zone V

continued to be re-defined in Phases 4–5 (see below). The ditch comprised two sections, separated by a change in alignment, close to a substantial thickening of the ditch. To the south of the change in alignment the boundary was defined by two Phase 3 ditches (F1290– F1291, Fig. 3.13.S.39), whose inter-relationship could not be established because of a Phase 5 re-cut (F1294, see below). The northeasternmost of the Phase 3 ditches (F1291, Fig. 3.13.S.39), of which more survived recutting was dug with a flat base and gently-sloping sides. It measured a maximum of 2m in width of 2m, and 0.8m in depth.

The Enclosure FE2 and FE3 ditches contained Late Iron Age, and Middle–Late Iron Age pottery. The Enclosure FE1 ditches contained Late Iron Age pottery. The lower backfills of the Enclosure FE4 ditches contained Late Iron Age pottery. The ditches belonging to Enclosures FE5–FE6 contained Late Iron Age pottery. Finally, the Enclosure FE7a/b ditches contained Late Iron Age, and Middle–Late Iron Age pottery. The backfills of the Phase 3 ditch boundary group contained Late Iron Age pottery, and some intrusive Late Iron Age–Transitional pottery.

To the north of the change in alignment only a single Phase 3 ditch was recorded (F1292, Fig. 3.13.S.40–41). Further to the north, the Phase 3 boundary was entirely cut-away by a Phase 4 re-cut (F1293, see below). The Phase 3 boundary ditch backfills comprised banded silt-sand deposits, accumulated during extensive weathering of the open ditches.

Interpretation of Phase 3 features in Zone V Most of the Phase 3 features comprised ditches, which despite re-cutting can be resolved into a minimum of seven enclosures (FE1–FE7a/b), spanning the period from the Late Iron Age into the Late Iron Age/ Transitional period (Phase 4). The enclosures occupied a cluster extending over an area measuring approximately 80m by 110m, roughly 0.9ha in total. Enclosures FE1–FE5 were in use and also backfilled in the Late Iron Age. Enclosure FE6 was partly backfilled in the Late Iron Age/Transitional period, and Enclosure FE7a/b was largely backfilled in the Late Iron Age/ Transitional period. Morphologically, two groups of enclosures are apparent, the one comprising the larger enclosures (FE1–FE4 and FE7a/b), the other comprising the smaller and more irregularly-shaped enclosures (FE5–FE6).

Later enclosure group

Enclosure FE7a/b (Fig. 3.12.S.31–32, Fig. 3.13.S.37, S.40 and S.42) was cut to the south of Enclosures FE5– FE6 in late Phase 3, or early in Phase 4. Enclosure FE7 was triangular in shape (the only enclosure of this shape recorded), each side approximately measuring 20m in length. Its southwestern side followed the alignment of ditch F1292 (Fig. 3.13.S.40). This side of the enclosure was later cut by a Phase 4 boundary ditch (F1293, see below). The southeastern side of Enclosure FE7a/b (Fig. 3.12.S.31) was cut through the backfilled northwestern ditch of Enclosure FE3, and into the earlier backfilled ditch of Enclosure FE1, again following the line of the earlier enclosures. Finally, the curvilinear northeastern side of the enclosure was cut through the backfilled southern ditch of Enclosure FE5, and into the subsoil. An entry-gap measuring 2m in width was recorded along the eastern side of Enclosure FE7a/b. A re-cut (Enclosure FE7b, Fig. 3.13.S.37 and S.42) was recorded along part of the length of the primary enclosure ditch (FE7a). Two re-cuts were recognised along part of the northwestern side of the enclosure (Fig. 3.13.S.42). Both entry-gap terminals were rounded. The Enclosure FE7 ditch was mainly V-shaped in profile, with a slightly rounded profile towards the base. The ditch measured an average of 2.1m in width, and 1.1m in depth.

A unifying characteristic of the first group of enclosures is that they shared at least one side with an earlier or later enclosure. This characteristic is most clearly exemplified by Enclosure FE4, which was cut into the northeastern side of Enclosure FE3, and the southeastern side of Enclosure FE2. Although in some cases the ditches overlapped (eg Enclosures FE3 and FE4), in most cases the earlier and later enclosure ditches coincided along at least part of their length (eg Enclosures FE1 and FE3; Enclosures FE2 and FE4). Enclosure FE7a/b was also cut into preceding enclosures, as well as the boundary ditches. In each case, before the later enclosure ditch was cut the ditch of the earlier enclosure had been partially backfilled, although it will presumably have been continued to be marked by a shallow hollow.

The lower Phase 3 or 4 backfills along the northwestern side of the enclosure (Fig. 3.13.S.37 and S.42), comprised black, organic silts. The remainder of the Phase 3–4 ditch fills comprised orange-brown siltsand, which had accumulated in the ditch as a result of prolonged weathering.

This re-cutting may not have been accidental, particularly given the lengths of enclosure ditches which were exactly coincident. One possibility is that the earlier ditches were re-cut because it was easier to re-excavate the softer ditch fills than the surrounding gravel. Taken literally, this explanation would have meant that the earliest enclosure ditches were repeatedly re-cut, without any change in enclosure ground plans. This is not the case and this explanation

76

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) Description of Phase 3 features in Zone X (Fig. 2.6, Colour Fig. A)

can be excluded from further consideration. It is possible that the limits of this enclosure complex were constrained by the ditched boundary to the southwest which was maintained throughout Phase 3 (and Phase 4, see below), and which caused the ‘organic’ growth of this cluster, as contained by the ditched boundary. Alternatively, it is possible to speculate that this partial re-cutting of earlier enclosures was a symbolic process, intended to emphasise continuity during repeated seasonal occupations of this area. This interpretation is considered further in the discussion.

Phase 3 activity within Zone X (Figs 3.7 and 3.14) was represented by the cutting of a total of ten ditched enclosures within an area defined on its northern side by ditch F1292 (see Zone V above). The southeastern limit of the zone was defined by a sinuous, mainly southwest–northeast aligned Phase 3 ditch, almost entirely scoured-out by Phase 4–5 recutting (see below). This ditch defined the approximate southeastern limit of Phase 3 enclosures in this zone. The southeastern side of this zone was defined by the suggested southwestern side of Enclosure FE8 (see below). This zone of activity measured approximately 80m square, an area of roughly 0.7ha. The northwestern limit of Phase 3 activity was mostly formed by a band of alluvium. This was deposited by a north–south aligned stream, its course marked by an existing field boundary (Fig. 2.6). The western edges of Enclosures FE9 and FE11 were cut into the extreme eastern edge of the alluvium.

The arrangement of the enclosure cluster, in particular Enclosures FE3 and FE1, and the two entrances within Enclosures FE4 and FE5 emphasise the predominant northwest–southeast alignment of the landscape, most clearly represented by the ditch boundary group (F1290–F1293). The morphology and size of Enclosures FE5–FE6 set them part from the other enclosures within this Phase 3 enclosure cluster. Enclosure FE5 had two entrances, at its southeastern and northwestern angles, possibly intended for herding livestock. The northwestern entrance of Enclosure FE6, with two post-pits (not contemporary), and a palisade may suggest a similar function.

The earliest group of Late Iron Age enclosures in this zone may have comprised Enclosure FE8 in the south and Enclosures FE9–FE11 in the northwest. In the south of the zone was a roughly rectangular enclosure (FE8, Fig. 3.14.S.43–44, Plate 3.14). It measured 22m internally northwest–southeast, and 14m north–south. Only the northeastern side of the enclosure survived re-cutting; the other three sides had presumably been dug-away in Phases 4–5 (see below). A change in alignment in an adjoining later, Phase 4

Zone W (Fig. 2.6) No Phase 3 features were found within this zone, although small quantities of residual Late Iron Age pottery were recovered from the backfills of Phase 4 enclosures in this zone.

Plate 3.14 Area E/F, Zone X, northern ditch of Enclosure FE8

77

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.14 Area E/F, Zone X, Phase 3 sections (S.43–S.55)

78

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) ditch (F912–F913, see below) could have respected the southeastern side of the Phase 3 enclosure. An entrygap along the northeastern side of the Phase 3 enclosure was further defined by three post-pits (F1078, F1079 and F1080, Fig. 3.14.S.43), of which F1079 and F1080 were cut by the ditch terminal, and F1078 was cut into the backfilled terminal. The northwestern terminal of a further entry-gap, located at the eastern end of the northeastern side of the enclosure, was also recorded. The Enclosure FE8 ditches were mainly cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.8m in width, and 0.5m in depth. No associated features could be identified within the enclosure interior.

Enclosure FE11 (Fig. 3.14.S.47–48), lay to the north of Enclosures FE9–FE10. The curving northern side of Enclosure FE11 formed a continuation of the eastern side of contemporary Enclosure FE10. Its western limit could not be discerned. Enclosure FE11 measured a maximum of 10m internally north–south, and 16m east–west. The enclosure ditch terminated to the west in a round-ended terminal, possibly forming the southeastern side of an entry-gap measuring 5.7m in width, its southern side presumably defined by the northwestern angle of Enclosure FE9. The Enclosure FE11 ditch measured an average of 2m in width and 0.9m in depth, and was backfilled with light grey claysand-silt alluvium.

D-shaped Enclosure FE9, the northwesternmost of this enclosure group, was positioned at the interface between the natural gravel and the alluvium to the west. Its enclosure ditches were cut through the backfilled Phase 2 features, and into the alluvium and gravel subsoil. The enclosure measured a maximum of 18m internally. Its ditches were mainly cut to a U-shaped profile. The enclosure ditches measured an average of 0.8m in width, and 0.4m in depth. No entry-gaps could be identified. The only associated internal features comprised a pit (F1043) and a posthole (F1042). The northeastern ditch was backfilled with grey gravel-silt, while the other enclosure ditches also included tips of organic, charcoal-rich silt.

Enclosure FE12 (Fig. 3.14.S.49–50), triangular in plan, was positioned to the southeast of Enclosure FE10, and to the northeast of Enclosure FE8. Its curving, northeastern side (re-cut in Phase 4, see below), was formed by a southeastwards continuation of the southwestern side of Enclosure FE9. Enclosure FE12 measured a maximum of 15m internally north–south, and 9m east–west. The Enclosure FE12 ditches were cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.6m in width, and 0.2m in depth. An entry-gap was recorded at its southeastern corner. Two elongated postholes (F1057, F1058) were the only internal features recognised. The Phase 3 backfills of the enclosure comprised grey-brown clay-sand-silt, accumulated as a result of natural weathering.

Enclosure FE10 (Fig. 3.14.S.45–46), to the southeast of the former was triangular in plan. It measured a maximum of 32m internally north-south, and 17m east-west. Its northwestern side was formed by the southeastern side of Enclosure FE9, which was continued beyond the northeastern corner of that enclosure. Similarly, the southwestern side of Enclosure FE10 was formed by a southeastwards continuation of the southwestern side of Enclosure FE9. The northeastern side of Enclosure FE10 was sinuous in plan, and varied considerably in width, possibly as a result of the repeated cleaning-out, or re-cutting of the ditch. The Enclosure FE10 ditches varied between 0.5m and 1m in width, and 0.3m and 0.6m in depth, but were mostly cut to a U-shaped profile. The northwestern angle of the enclosure was formed by a possible palisade trench.

A group of five probably contemporary, irregularlyshaped enclosures (FE35–FE39) were located in the northeastern angle of Zone X. The layout of this enclosure cluster suggests that they were associated, although the enclosure ditches were not cut exactly parallel, even within the same enclosure. Nor were they aligned on the adjoining contemporary boundary ditches. The southernmost of this group (Enclosure FE36, Fig. 3.14.S.51) was roughly rectangular in plan, and measured 17m internally northwest–southeast, and 4m northeast–southwest. Its southwestern side was probably mainly scoured-out by the Phase 4 northeastern ditch of Enclosure FE34a (see below). Its northwestern side was formed by part of the southeastern side of Enclosure FE10. The northeastern side of Enclosure FE36 was formed by two ditches, separated by an entry-gap, further defined on its northwestern terminal by an outturned ditch, terminating in a post-pit (F1076B). The Enclosure FE36 ditches were cut to U-shaped profiles, and measured an average of 0.3m in width, and 0.1m in depth. A funnel-shaped entrance was recorded in the southeastern angle of the enclosure, defined by two adjoining, curvilinear gullies. The only other internal feature was a southwest-northeast aligned ditch (F1142), which also extended slightly outside the enclosure. The Enclosure FE36 ditches were backfilled with grey silt-sand.

An entry-gap, measuring 1m in width, framed between two enlarged, round-ended ditch terminals, was recorded along the northeastern side of the enclosure. A second, possible entry-gap was located at the southeastern corner of the enclosure, although its layout could not be discerned because of Phase 4 activity here (see below). The enclosure interior contained two pits (F1149, F1181). The Enclosure FE10 ditches were backfilled with orange-grey silt-sand, derived from weathering of the ditch sides, sealed by dark brown sand, flecked with charcoal.

79

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Interpretation of Phase 3 features in Zone X

Enclosure FE37 (Fig. 3.14.S.52–54), lay to the northeast of Enclosure FE36, and followed the same alignment. Enclosure FE37 measured 24m internally northwest–southeast, and 6.8m southwest–northeast. Two ditches cut on a similar alignment, separated by a possible entry-gap measuring 4.5m in width, formed its northeastern side (Fig. 3.14.S.52). The southeastern side of this entry-gap was further defined by a post-pit (F1077, Fig. 3.14.S.53). A second entry-gap was located at the northeastern angle of the enclosure. Entrances leading into adjoining Enclosures FE10 and FE38 may also be suggested. The Enclosure FE37 ditches were cut to U-shaped profiles, and measured an average of 0.5m in width, and 0.22m in depth. The only feature within the enclosure interior was a ditch (F1083), joining the northeastern ditch of the enclosure at a right-angle. The ditches of this enclosure were backfilled with a stony, grey-brown sand-silt.

The enclosures within Zone X were ‘confined’ by boundary ditches, which continued to be re-defined by re-cutting. The northeastern boundary of Zone X (F1292) also formed the southwestern boundary of the Zone V enclosure cluster - perhaps more significantly there was no evidence of ditched features within one zone ‘crossing’ into the other, which indicates the careful maintenance of this ‘planned’ layout. The Phase 3 enclosures in Zone X extended up to a southwest–northeast aligned ditch, re-cut in Phase 4 (see below), but probably first defined in Phase 3. The Zone X enclosures also extended into the alluvial band to the northwest of the zone. In contrast to the Zone V arrangement, the enclosures in Zone X showed little evidence of Phase 3 re-cutting. They may have been laid out as one event, although morphologically, two groups of enclosures may be suggested. The first, located in the northeast of the zone was represented by Enclosures FE35–FE39, the second by the remaining Phase 3 enclosures in this zone. The enclosures in Zone X were also more irregular in shape and more varied in size than their Zone V counterparts. The alignment of the Phase 3 enclosures in this zone, in particular of Enclosures FE35–FE39 did not respect ditch F1292 to the northeast.

Enclosure FE39 (Fig. 3.14.S.52 and S.53) lay to the northeast of Enclosure FE37, and to the southwest of ditch F1292. The enclosure measured 30m internally northwest–southeast, and 10m southwest–northeast. Only part of its western side (F1116A) could be defined. Entry-gaps were recorded along the southeastern side of the enclosure. The enclosure interior contained two pits (F1062–F1063), and a posthole (F1067); pit F1062 was also re-cut (F1061, not illustrated).

Some of the Phase 3 enclosures in Zone X were notable for their entrance arrangements. Several post-pits were cut adjoining the northwestern terminal of the entrygap to Enclosure FE8 (Fig. 3.14.S.43), and a localised enlargement along the northwestern side of Enclosure FE10 ditch suggests the position of a further entry-gap. Most notable were the entrance arrangements within Enclosures FE35–FE39. Two ‘funnel-shaped’ entrances were recorded, in the southwest of Enclosure FE35, and adjoining the southeastern entrance to Enclosure FE36. A possible ‘funnel-type’ entrance was also recorded along the northeastern side of the latter enclosure. These entrance arrangements and the comparative lack of finds from this enclosure group suggests that they functioned as livestock pens. If this interpretation was correct, the ditches, which would not have on their own been able to contain livestock, would have been supplemented by hedge or palisade structures, which have left no surviving trace at excavation. Other enclosures provided no evidence of entry-gaps (eg Enclosure FE9) in which case the enclosure may have been bridged by a temporary structure leaving no trace at excavation.

Enclosure FE38 (Fig. 3.14.S.54–55), to the southeast of Enclosures FE37–FE38 was triangular in shape, and measured a maximum of 15m internally along its longest, north–south axis. No associated features could be identified within its interior. Enclosure FE35 was rectangular in plan, measuring 14m (southwest–northeast) by 10m (southeastnorthwest) internally. Two ‘funnel’ type entrances were located in the southwestern and southeastern corners of the enclosure. The latter was ‘closed’ by a palisade trench (F1054A), cut tangential to the entrance. No contemporary internal features could be identified. Finds and dating evidence from Phase 3 features in Zone X The Enclosure FE8 ditches were backfilled with Middle–Late and Late Iron Age pottery. Enclosures FE9–FE11 were backfilled with Late Iron Age pottery, with quantities of Middle–Late Iron pottery being recovered from Enclosure FE11. The primary cuts of Enclosures FE12 contained Late Iron Age pottery. The dating evidence from Enclosures FE35–FE39 was sparse. The northwestern ditch of Enclosure FE37 and the ditch dividing Enclosures FE35 and FE38 contained Late Iron Age pottery. Other Phase 3 enclosures contained no datable material from their Phase 3 backfills.

The quantities of internally and externally sooted pottery, in particular jars from Enclosure FE8 may suggest that this was a focus of occupation, although no traces of domestic, or other buildings have survived, as elsewhere at Little Paxton, because of modern truncation.

80

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) Description of Phase 3 features in Zone Y (Colour Fig. A, Figs 3.8–3.9, and 3.15)

enclosure ditch terminals were inturned, suggesting a ‘funnel-type’ arrangement for sorting livestock. The southwestern terminal of the palisade trench was cut into the southwestern terminal of the enclosure ditch (Fig. 3.15.S.59). Traces of re-cutting (Fig. 3.15.S.58) were recorded along part of the northwestern side of the enclosure. This re-cut may have been L-shaped in plan, and was divided into two at its southeastern terminal. The only internal feature associated with the enclosure was a re-cut pit (F1001, F1018, Fig. 3.15.S.61) located adjoining the western side of the enclosure.

The earliest Phase 3 feature in this zone was a northeast– southwest aligned ditch (F990, Fig. 3.15.S.56; F985), recorded for a length of 37m, and interrupted by a possible entry-gap, measuring 4m in width. The ditch measured an average of 0.4m in width, and 0.18m in depth. The northern end of a parallel ditch (F911) to the east could have been associated. The main Phase 3 feature in Zone Y was a large, irregular, roughly D-shaped enclosure (Enclosure FE16/FE13/ FE17, Fig. 3.15.S.57–60, Plate 3.15) which was cut into the backfilled ditches F990 and F985. Measuring a maximum of 60m north–south, and 40m east–west, this was the largest single Late Iron Age enclosure excavated at Little Paxton. The inturned western side of the enclosure was cut into a band of alluvium deposited by a north–south aligned stream running along the northwestern edge of the excavated area (Fig. 1.4). The remainder of the enclosure ditch (Fig. 3.15.S.57–60) was cut into the natural orange gravel subsoil. Most of the northeastern and southeastern sides of the enclosure were dug-away by later re-cuts (see below).

The enclosure was defined by a ditch cut to a U-shaped profile, measuring 2.4m in width, and 1.20m in depth. The southeastern side of the enclosure was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured a maximum of 1.5m in width and 0.54m in depth. The backfills of the northeastern side of the enclosure comprised banded redeposited layers of natural gravel, with dished deposits of organic silts towards the top, also backfilling the ditch along the southeastern side of the enclosure. The northwestern enclosure ditch was backfilled with orange-green silt towards its northern end, while the remainder was backfilled with orange-brown sand-silt. A later re-arrangement of the enclosure saw its reduction in size, and a ‘retreat’ from the alluvial zone in the extreme northwest of the former enclosure, as well as the disuse of the former southeastern entranceway. The western ditch of the smaller, later Phase 3 Enclosure (FE13a) cut the northern side of Enclosure FE13 (Plate 3.16), FE16/ FE17 (Fig. 3.15.S.57), after the former

Traces of an entry-gap (Fig. 3.15.S.59) located along the slightly inturned southeastern side of the enclosure could be discerned, despite intense disturbance in Phase 4 (see below). A palisade trench (F616) measuring 1m in width was recorded for a distance of 10m extending across the entrance. The adjoining

Plate 3.15 Area E/F, Zone Y, western ditch of Enclosure FE16

81

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.15 Area E/F, Zone Y, Phase 3 sections (S.56–S.66)

82

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Plate 3.16 Area E/F, Zone Y, northeastern angle of Enclosure FE13 Finds and dating evidence from Phase 3 features in Zone Y

had been entirely backfilled. The course of this western side (Fig. 3.15.S.62–64) of the smaller enclosure was notably sinuous in plan, possibly as a result of being at least partly cut along the line of an earlier streamcourse, although this cannot be proven.

The Phase 3 backfills of Enclosure FE13 contained Late Iron Age pottery, and a small quantity of residual Middle–Late Iron Age pottery, probably derived from the adjoining cluster of Middle Iron Age features. The Phase 3 backfills of the Enclosure FE16 and FE17 ditches contained Late Iron Age pottery. The pottery from the earlier and later Phase 3 enclosure arrangements could not be chronologically distinguished.

The southwestern terminal of this later Phase 3 ditch (Fig. 3.15.S.65) returned to the south, and may have been contemporary with an adjoining ditch terminal (Fig. 3.15.S.65). Phase 3 re-cuts were recorded along the northwestern side of the reduced enclosure (Fig. 3.15.S.63–64). The original Phase 3 layout within the entranceway of the reduced enclosure (Fig. 3.15.S.65) may have comprised two parallel palisade trenches, later replaced by a single feature. Although the later Phase 3 arrangement is difficult to reconstruct in detail because of Phase 4 disturbance (see below), these ditches may have formed a ‘funnel’ shaped entrance, suitable for the herding of livestock. Also part of the late Phase 3 re-arrangement of the enclosure was a northwestsoutheast aligned ditch (Fig. 3.15.S.66), which may have been associated with this entrance arrangement. The northeastern and southeastern sides of the reduced Phase 3 enclosure may have been formed by re-cutting along the line of the same sides of the earlier Phase 3 enclosure – although this cannot be proven, because of later re-cutting.

Interpretation of Phase 3 features in Zone Y The earliest Phase 3 feature was a ditch (F985, F990), possibly cut to provide drainage along the eastern edge of the alluvial zone. The main Phase 3 feature was a roughly D-shaped enclosure (FE13/FE16/ FE17). This was cut into the edge of an alluvial zone, bordering a stream further to the northwest. The form of the southeastern entrance, including inturned ditch terminals, and the narrow palisade trench suggests use for herding animals. There was no surviving structural evidence or quantities of artefactual evidence to suggest extended occupation of the enclosure. Later in Phase 3 the northwestern side of the enclosure was re-defined to the southeast of its original line, perhaps representing an increase in water level. The sinuous shape of this re-cut may merely represent the re-cutting of a natural palaeochannel, or it could have been intended to slow the flow of water along this ditch. The form of the entrance to this later Phase 3 enclosure

This western ditch of the revised enclosure was cut to a variety of profiles, suggesting repeated re-cutting. There were no Phase 3 features in Zone Yb.

83

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 suggests an association with livestock. At the junction (Fig. 3.15.S.57) between the earlier and later Phase 3 enclosures, the earlier enclosure was at least partly backfilled before re-cutting, which could suggest an intervening period of abandonment. The southwestern ditch backfills were backfilled with alluvium, deposited during the flooding of the stream located further to the southwest (Fig. 1.4).

working performance. There was some slight evidence for wild animals, including red deer from Area B, and roe deer from Area E/F. The most interesting faunal assemblage was from Area E/F, Zone X, Enclosure FE8 (F922), which comprised four almost complete sheep, and selected cattle bones which probably represent a single midwinter feast. The absence of the forelimbs suggests that these could have been separated to be preserved for ritual purposes, or have formed the socalled chief or hero’s portion.

The eastern side of the D-shaped enclosure formed a southward continuation of the sinuous roughly southwest–northeast aligned ditch that formed the eastern boundary of Zone X. Activity within Zone Y formed the third cluster within the planned Late Iron Age landscape, also including the Zone V and X clusters.

Summary of the Phase 3 environmental evidence The Phase 3 charred plant remains comprised the species identified in Phase 2 deposits with the addition of spelt, and naked barley, possibly used as animal fodder. The higher number of cereal grains in some samples could suggest that cereals were either stored or processed in the surrounding areas. The chaff and charred weeds assemblages, and the wild species include those typical of grassland environments, often found in fodder. The cereal weeds include cleaver, often an indicator of autumn sown crops. The charred plant remains also provide evidence of wet environments, and poorlydrained fields, notably including plants typical of salty environments. Evidence was also found of species typical of waste and rough ground, suggesting the surrounding area was disturbed as a result of human habitation and animal husbandry.

Summary of the finds and faunal evidence from Phase 3 The pottery from Phase 3 features suggests a range of 100 BC to AD 43. The pottery, all handmade and utilitarian in function, was typical of a low status rural population mostly reliant on local resources. A greater range of fabrics was recorded in this phase, compared to Phase 2, and the Phase 3 vessels were also larger overall. Other differences over Phase 2 include a greater percentage of burnished vessels, which was a more labour-intensive finishing technique, suggesting greater wealth and the increased importance of status. Within the pottery assemblage grog-tempered and shell-tempered wares in globular and ovoid jars predominate, particularly from Zone V within Area E/F. The absence of organic tempers indicates a later Late Iron Age date for the assemblage. Another notable feature of the Phase 3 pottery is a marked increase in the number of vessels with internal or external sooting, notably from Enclosures FE6–FE8 which produced a number of globular and ovoid rim forms suggesting a domestic function associated with cooking.

Area A Although no features of Iron Age date were recovered from Area A (Chapter 4 below), some Middle–Late Iron Age pottery sherds were recovered from Phase 6 Enclosure F305 ditch sections (see Chapter 4), which may be assumed to be residual. Phase 4, Late Iron Age/Transitional (1st century BC– AD 60, Colour Fig. B)

A bone weaving comb (F1156.02, 3839), a chalk spindlewhorl (Zone Y, F1006, 4029), and a bone needle (F711, 2565) suggest small-scale textile making. Food processing is indicated by quern fragments (F951, 3401; F1189, 3957; F711, 2580). A total of four beehive quern fragments, a possible quern fragment and two other quern fragments were recovered from feature F1104 (3664).

There were no features or finds of Phase 4 date within Area A, and Areas C–D. Description and interpretation of Phase 4 feature in Area B (Fig. 2.2) A hearth (F369) backfilled with burnt clay was cut into backfilled Phase 3 ditch F470. No associated features could be identified within the area excavated.

Within the faunal assemblage, sheep were present in slightly larger numbers than cattle (marking a change from the preceding phase), followed by horse and then pig. The cattle probably served as multi-function beasts, a pattern typical of beef and milk rearing. Caprovids were slaughtered for their meat when young, while later gradual culling of adults indicates slaughter when the quality of their wool, milk and young had declined. Horses were slaughtered before a decline in their

Area E/F Description, interpretation and finds evidence from Phase 4 features in Zone V (Fig. 3.5 and Fig. 3.16) In the north of Zone V was a single Phase 4 building (Structure FE1), located within abandoned Phase 3 ditched Enclosure FE1 whose ditches had mostly

84

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.16 Area E/F, Zones V and W, Phase 4 sections (S.67–S.76) 85

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 been backfilled by the end of that phase. The building measured 3m square, and comprised four postholes (F801–F804, Fig. 3.5), the only Iron Age building of this type identified at Little Paxton. The postholes measured an average of 0.4m in diameter, and 0.25m in depth. This building may be interpreted as a granary.

Phase 4 ditches here had in turn been truncated by Phase 5 re-cuts (see Chapter 4, this volume). Structure EF1 postholes F802–F803 contained Late Iron Age–Transitional pottery. The other features containing Phase 4 pottery are those described as finally being backfilled in this phase.

As noted above, Enclosure FE7 was cut in late Phase 3, or in early Phase 4. Other Phase 4 activity was mostly limited to the partial backfilling of the remaining Phase 3 enclosure ditches. Lengths of the Enclosure FE3, FE4 (and its dividing ditch F745) and FE6 ditches were also finally backfilled in this phase. The re-cut of late Phase 3–early Phase 4 Enclosure FE7 was finally backfilled in this phase, including both terminals of the eastern entrance.

The granary building suggests that the area continued in use. The Phase 3 ditches were finally backfilled in this phase. Only the northeastern end of the Phase 3 boundary was re-cut in this phase. It is possible that Phase 4 re-cutting along the remainder of the ditch was obscured by Phase 5 re-cutting. Description of Phase 4 features in Zone W (Colour Figs B–C, Figs 3.16–17)

The southeastern part of the northwest–southeast aligned Phase 3 ditched boundary may have fallen out of use and been gradually infilled as a result of weathering during Phase 4 (Fig. 3.13.S.39). To the north of its original change in alignment, the presumed northward continuation of the Phase 3 ditch (F1292, Fig. 3.13.S.41) had been mostly dug-away by re-cuts. Two Phase 4 re-cuts were recorded along this ditch (Fig. 3.13.S.41, F1293 and F1295, Fig. 3.17.S.67, F1295); the northeasternmost probably being the earlier of the two. A shallow palisade trench (F975, Fig. 3.16.S.67) was also recorded to the northeast of this ditch. The

The earliest prehistoric activity in this zone was dated to the Late Iron Age/ Transitional phase. The northeastern limit of Zone W was defined by the Phase 3 boundary (F1290–F1291) which may have continued to be respected. The northwestern boundary of the zone was defined by a southwest–northeast aligned ditch (F912–F913). Phase 4 activity within Zone W was represented by the cutting of small ditched enclosures, interpreted as animal pens, following different alignments. Some of the enclosures were misaligned with the Phase 3 northwest–southeast alignment, most

Figure 3.17 Area E/F, Zone W, Phase 4 sections (S.77–S.84)

86

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) clearly represented by ditch F1291–F1292 (Colour Fig. C).

4, this volume). The northwestern terminal of the Phase 4 enclosure respected the line of an adjoining droveway ditch to the northwest (see below), and was slightly out-turned. An entry-gap measuring 3m in width was retained between the two ditch terminals. No contemporary features could be identified in the enclosure interior. The Enclosure FE29a ditches were cut to U-shaped profiles, and measured an average of 1.2m in width and 1m in depth. The ditch backfills comprised grey-brown silt.

The fragmentary ditches of two enclosures (Enclosures FE22–FE23, Fig. 3.16.S.68–69), laid out following an approximate north–south axis were probably the earliest features in this zone. The southeastern angle of Enclosure FE23 (Fig. 3.16.S.69, and the nearby southwestern angle of Enclosure FE22 were both L-shaped in plan, in each case cut at a 110 degree angle of separation. A possible droveway measuring approximately 8m in width may have separated the two enclosures, which were also cut on slightly different alignments. Posthole F741 may have been associated with Enclosure FE22. A further ditch, including a slight change in alignment (F792A), may have continued the line of the southwestern side of this enclosure. The Enclosure FE22–FE23 ditches were cut to U-shaped profiles, and measured an average of 0.25m in depth, and 0.4m in width.

The northwestern side of Zone W was defined by the western ditch, F912–F913, Fig. 3.16.S.74–76, Plate 3.18) of a pair of mainly northeast–southwest aligned droveway ditches, mostly sinuous in plan, contemporary with Enclosure FE29a.The southeastern side of the droveway was formed by a ditch (F904) which extended to the north of Enclosure FE29a, but not within its interior, or to the south of the enclosure. A gap averaging 5m in width was retained between the two droveway ditches, and also between the droveway and the enclosure. The droveway was recorded for a maximum length of approximately 60m. The full profile of the northwestern ditch (F912, F972) was not recoverable because of later re-cutting (F913, F974), but it survived to an average width of 1.7m and depth of 0.8m, and was cut to a mostly V-shaped profile. Ditch F913 was backfilled with orange-grey sand-silt. To the north of Enclosure FE29a further re-cutting of the western droveway ditch was recorded (Fig. 3.16.S.76).

Probably the largest Phase 4 enclosure in this zone was Enclosure FE29a (Fig. 3.16.S.70–73, Plate 3.17), which was roughly D-shaped in plan, measuring a maximum of 24m east–west internally, and 20m north–south. The northern, eastern, and southern ditches of the enclosure were curvilinear in plan, and cut through the backfilled Enclosure FE23 ditch and into the natural subsoil. Parts of the Enclosure FE29a ditch circuit were dug away by a Phase 5A re-cut (Enclosure FE29b, Chapter

Plate 3.17 Area E/F, Zone W, southwestern angle of Enclosure FE29a/b

87

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Plate 3.18 Area E/F, Zone W, boundary ditches F912, F913, view north

Plate 3.19 Area E/F, Zone W, Enclosure FE26a/b ditch terminal, view south

88

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) measuring 1.5m in width, with an enlarged southern terminal. The Enclosure FE20 ditches were cut to a flat-based, U-shaped profile, and measured an average of a maximum of 1m in width, and 0.4m in depth.

Following the abandonment and backfilling of the Enclosure FE22–FE23 and FE29a ditches, two successive enclosures (Enclosures FE26a–b, Fig. 3.17.S.77–79, Plate 3.19) were laid out, cutting the backfilled ditches of Enclosures FE23 and FE29a. Enclosures FE26a–b were aligned north–south, and were roughly rectangular in plan. The earlier of the two, Enclosure FE26a, measured 10m by 21m. Only the southern half of the enclosure was fully defined; the northeastern side was probably dug-away by re-cutting. The Enclosure FE26a (Fig. 3.17.S.77 ditch was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.4m in depth, and between 0.4m and 0.8m in width. The southern end of its eastern side, and the southern side of Enclosure FE26b (Fig. 3.16.S.71, Fig. 3.17.S.77–S.79, was formed by re-cutting along the same sides of the primary enclosure (FE26a). The northwestern side of the later enclosure diverged from the line of the earlier enclosure. An entry-gap measuring 6m in width was recorded between the misaligned ditches forming the eastern side of Enclosure FE26b.

Enclosure FE21 adjoined the northwestern side of Enclosure FE20. Enclosure FE21 (Fig. 3.17.S.82–S.84), measured 8.5m northwest–southeast, and 7m southwest–northeast. The northwestern angle of the enclosure adjoined a substantial thickening, and change in alignment of northwest–southeast aligned ditch F1290–F1291. The southwestern side of the enclosure was slightly inturned, and adjoined an entry-gap measuring 3.7m in width, positioned at the southeastern corner of the enclosure. This entrance was further defined by a gully measuring 5m in length (F854) cut diagonally across the entrance, and a gate-post (F855, Fig. 3.17.S.84), measuring 1.1m in diameter, positioned flush with the northwestern terminal of the entrance and the northwestern terminal of gully F854. The Enclosure FE21 ditches were cut to U-shaped profiles, and measured an average of 0.4m in width, and 0.1m in depth, except towards the entrygap, where the ditch was enlarged by re-cutting (Fig. 3.17.S.83).

The Enclosure FE26b ditches were cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.7m in width, and 3m in depth. Traces of further re-cutting were recorded along the northern and southern sides of enclosure FE26b. There were no surviving internal features associated with either the original enclosure (FE26a), or its re-cut (FE26b), with the exception of a posthole (F847A).

No features were identified within the interiors of Enclosures FE19–FE21, although a number of possibly associated pits and postholes were recorded immediately outside. Three pits (F842–F844) measuring an average of 1.5m in diameter were dug to the northwest of Enclosure FE21. A further pit (F805), and two adjoining postholes (F797–F798) were dug close to the southwestern side of Enclosure FE20.

The southwestern side of Enclosure FE26b was continued to the northwest of its northwestern corner (Fig. 3.16.S.79), terminating flush with the northwestern side of the droveway (F912–F913), and cutting across the northwestern ditch of Enclosure FE29a, further marking its abandonment. A north–south ditch cut within the interior of abandoned Enclosure FE29a, terminating adjoining the eastern side of the droveway probably formed the western side of this extension to Enclosure FE26b. The southeastern side of this extension was probably dug-away by a later re-cut of the southeastern ditch of Enclosure FE29a (Phase 5A, Chapter 4, this volume).

Summary of Phase 4 finds and dating evidence from Zone W Overall the quantity of finds recovered from the Phase 4 features in Zone W was small, with the exception of material from the contemporary droveway ditches. Enclosures FE26a/b were backfilled with Late Iron Age/ Transitional pottery and a small quantity of residual Late Iron Age pottery. Phase 4 or 5a Enclosure FE19–FE20 ditch backfills contained Late Iron Age/Transitional pottery. Enclosures FE20 and FE21 contained similarly dated pottery, together with a few intrusive sherds of early Roman pottery. Enclosures FE29a/b contained Late Iron Age/Transitional pottery, together with a few sherds of intrusive Early Roman pottery, and residual Late Iron Age pottery. The Phase 4 backfills of ditch F912 contained Late Iron Age/Transitional pottery, and residual Late Iron Age material, and intrusive early Roman pottery. The Phase 4 backfills of boundary ditch F913 contained Transitional pottery, and Late Iron Age/ Transitional pottery, together with some intrusive Early Roman material. The only pottery recovered from the Phase 4 backfills of the eastern droveway ditch (F939) was Late Iron Age in date, and probably residual in

Other ditched enclosures (FE19–FE21, Fig. 3.17.S.80– 84) could have been cut in late Phase 4, and lengths of these enclosure ditches were cut, or re-cut in Phase 5 (Chapter 4, below). These enclosures were laid out to the southwest of ditch boundary F1290–F1291, apparently respecting backfilled Phase 3 ditch F1290 (Fig. 3.13.S.39), which may have been continued to be marked in some form during Phase 4. Conjoined Enclosures FE19 and FE20 measured 14.5m in width (Fig. 3.17.S.80–81). Rectangular Enclosure FE20 measured 18m in length, but the full length of Enclosure FE19 could not be ascertained. The western side of Enclosure FE20 was interrupted by an entry-gap

89

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 nature. Boundary ditch F757 contained Late Iron Age/ Transitional pottery.

suggests that the zone was used for the coralling of livestock.

Interpretation of Phase 4 features in Zone W

Description and interpretation of Phase 4 features in Zone X (Colour Fig. B, Figs 3.7, 3.14 and 3.18)

This zone is notable for the absence of Middle Iron Age and Late Iron Age features. During Phases 2–3 it could have been used for pasture. No residual Middle Iron Age pottery and only a few sherds of Late Iron Age pottery were found here. Phase 4 ditches F912–F913 represented a southward continuation of the alignment of the Phase 3 northwestern ditch of Enclosure FE7 (Fig. 3.5, Zone V), but no other evidence for the prePhase 4 origin of these ditches could be identified at excavation. It is possible that this zone formed open fields or pasture during the Middle–Late Iron Age. This phase is marked by the introduction of the rectilinear form of enclosure (eg Enclosures FE19–F21, and FE24–FE25 (Colour Fig. C).

The Phase 3 enclosure ditches had mostly gone out of use and been backfilled by the end of that phase. An exception was the northeastern entry-gap of Phase 3 Enclosure FE10 which was deliberately backfilled with gravel (F1100), creating a causeway. This causeway was associated with the re-cutting of the sinuous northeastern side of Phase 3 Enclosure FE10 (Enclosure FE40, Fig. 3.14.S.46). An entry-gap, defined by two enlarged, round-ended terminals was retained along the northeastern side of the Phase 4 enclosure. This re-cut was continued to the junction with the northeastern side of Phase 3 Enclosure FE12 (Fig. 3.14.S.50, F1091.02) which was also at least partially re-cut in this phase; the southwestern side of the Phase 3 enclosure may also have been re-cut.

As defined by its northeastern and southwestern boundaries, the concentration of Phase 4 features measured approximately 60m square. No trace of a possible contemporary southeastern boundary could be identified at excavation. The Phase 4 ditched enclosures followed a number of orientations, representing successive layouts. Stratigraphically, the earliest features were contemporary Enclosures FE22–FE23, which were misaligned with the boundary ditches to the northeast and southwest. Enclosure FE29a was probably laid out next, probably contemporary with, or later than, the northwestern ditch of the northwestern droveway. Subsequently, Enclosure FE26a/b was laid out over abandoned Enclosures FE22–FE23 and FE29a. Enclosure FE26a/b was laid out with an alignment closer to that of the northeastern and southwestern boundaries. The northwestern extension of Enclosure FE26a suggests that the southwestern end of the droveway continued in use after Enclosure FE29a was abandoned. Finally, Enclosures FE19–FE21 were laid out along the southwestern side of the southeast– northwest aligned boundary ditch, first defined in Phase 3.

The eastern side of Enclosure FE40 also formed the southwestern side of Enclosure FE34 (Fig. 3.14.S.51, Fig. 3.18.S.85). The northeastern side of FE34 was formed by a re-cut of the southwestern side of Phase 3 Enclosure FE36, and its southeastern side may have been defined by ditched boundary F912–F913 (Zone W, see above). Phase 4 Enclosure FE34 was rectangular in plan, measuring 21.5m by 12m internally. Parts of the northeastern and southwestern ditches were dug away by Phase 5A re-cuts (Chapter 4, this volume). The surviving Enclosure FE34 ditches were cut to flatbased, U-shaped profile, measuring a maximum of 1.5m in width, and 0.4m in depth, and was backfilled with grey sand-silt. Three large circular pits (F1102, F1128, F1129, Fig. 3.17.S.86) were dug within the enclosure interior. Adjoining Enclosures FE32–FE33 (Fig. 3.17.S.87) were cut towards the eastern edge of the alluvial zone towards the southwestern side of the area excavated. An entry-gap measuring 2m in width was recorded between the northeastern terminal of Enclosure FE33 and the possible southwestern continuation of Phase 4 Enclosure FE40. This entry-gap was further defined by a curving re-cut palisade trench (F1103, Fig. 3.17.S.87), which truncated the northeastern terminal of Enclosure FE33. Two pits (F1189, F1190) cut to the northwest of this enclosure may have been contemporary. The northeastern side of Enclosure FE32 may have been formed by re-cut ditch F1150–F1151 (Fig. 3.17.S.88). This ditch respected the alignment of Phase 3 ditch F985 and F990 (Zone Y, Fig, 3.8), but there was no surviving evidence within Zone X to suggest that it originated in the Late Iron Age. The overall arrangement of Enclosures FE32–FE33 is not clear. It is possible that they defined the southwestern side of a rectangular enclosure whose northeastern and southeastern limits

The Phase 4 alignments in Zone W, in particular that of Enclosure FE26a/b, were similar to the Phase 3 and 4 alignments recorded in the adjoining Zone X (Colour Figs A and B), which may suggest that they were both part of the same general arrangement. The overall enclosure layouts recorded in Zone X were more irregular, which might be explained by their apparently earlier date. No parallel can be suggested in Area E/F for the alignment of Enclosures FE22–FE23. The Phase 4 remains in Zone W were largely confined to shallow ditched enclosures, although a few scattered pits were also recorded. The absence of domestic features and evidence of domestic finds, and in particular the layout of the Phase 4 ditched enclosures

90

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.18 Area E/F, Zone X, Phase 4 sections (S.85–S.90) were formed by the southwestern ditch of Enclosure FE34, and by ditch F912–F913, respectively. The Phase 4 ditches of Enclosures FE32–FE33 were backfilled with yellow-brown silt-clay alluvium.

their replacement with three large enclosures (FE40, FE34 and FE32–FE33) which were part of the same overall arrangement. This re-arrangement incorporated elements of the Phase 3 layout, although the Phase 3 enclosures to the northeast of Phase 4 Enclosure FE34 had gone out of use. Entrances defined by palisade trenches were retained in the Phase 4 arrangement of Enclosures FE40 and FE33, suggesting an association with livestock.

It is possible that the southwestern boundary of Enclosures FE32–FE33 were formed by northwestsoutheast aligned ditch F980 (Fig. 3.18.S.89–90), which may have been a re-cut of the Phase 3 northeastern ditch of Enclosure FE13/FE16/FE17 (Zone Y, Fig. 3.8).

Finds evidence from Phase 4 features in Zone X

The transition from Phase 3 to Phase 4 in Zone X was represented by the abandonment of the Phase 3 layout of small enclosures and animal pens, and

The Enclosure FE32–FE33 ditches were backfilled with late Iron Age–early Transitional pottery, including

91

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Description of Phase 4 features in Zone Y (Colour Fig. B, Fig. 3.8, 3.15 and 3.19)

residual Late Iron Age pottery. Ditches F1150–F1151 were backfilled with Late Iron Age–Transitional pottery. The Phase 4 ditches of Enclosure FE34 contained Late Iron Age and Late Iron Age–Transitional pottery, as did the Phase 4 re-cuts of the Phase 3 Enclosure FE12 and FE10 ditches.

Possibly the earliest Phase 4 activity in this zone was located to the southwest of abandoned Phase 3 Enclosure FE13/16/17. A roughly circular enclosure

Figure 3.19 Area E/F, Zone Y, Phase 4 sections (S.91–S.98)

92

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Plate 3.20 Area E/F, Zone Y, Enclosure FE18 ditch, view west formed of four curvilinear sides, with changes in angle was excavated in Phase 4 (Enclosure FE14, Fig. 3.19.S.91). The maximum internal diameter of the enclosure was 20m. Its northern side was open. A possible entry-gap at its southwestern corner was suggested by the inturned southeastern ditch terminal recorded, although the opposing ditch terminal could not be identified because of later Phase 4 activity. The Enclosure FE14 ditch was cut to a V-shaped profile, and measured a maximum of 1.6m in width, and 0.9m in depth. No associated internal features could be identified. The enclosure ditches were backfilled with organic dark grey-black sand-clay silt, sealed by brown-grey clay-silt-sand which had weathered into the remaining hollow of the ditch over a prolonged period.

into the backfilled ditches of Phase 3–4 enclosure FE13/16/17. A narrow palisade trench (F631, Fig. 3.19.S.94), measuring 1m in width, and 0.6m in depth was cut diagonally across the northern part of the interior of the Phase 4 enclosure. Full details of the Phase 4 enclosure could not be recovered because of later, Roman ditch re-cutting (Chapter 4, this volume). No associated internal features could be identified. The Enclosure FE15 backfills comprised a waterlogged, organic basal fill, sealed by material derived from the collapse of the presumed internal bank, and was overlain by redeposited sands and gravels derived from prolonged weathering of the remaining ditch hollow. Other Phase 4 features comprise two roughly east–west aligned ditches (F1168, F942), the former returning to the south when it was cut by a Phase 5 ditch. This cut a mainly northwest–southeast aligned ditch (F656– F657), which may have respected, and formed part of the same layout as Enclosure FE14 (earlier ditch), and Enclosure FE15 (later ditch).

The layout of Enclosure FE14 could have been associated with limited re-cutting of the ditches of Phase 3 Enclosure FE13/16/17. This re-cutting was recorded along the southeastern (Fig. 3.19.S.92), northeastern (Fig. 3.15.S.56), and western sides of the Phase 3 enclosure (Fig. 3.15.S.63 and S.65). Phase 4 re-cutting was continuous along the western side of the former enclosure (eg Fig. 3.15.S.62); gaps may have been retained for access. The Phase 4 re-cut may have been extended across the former southwestern entrance of the Phase 3 enclosure (eg Fig. 3.15.S.60).

A second, smaller focus of Phase 4 activity was recorded within Zone Yb (Fig. 3.10), in the extreme southeast of the area excavated. Only the extreme western side of Enclosure FE18 (Fig. 3.19.S.95–96, Plate 3.20), was identified within the area excavated. It comprised a curvilinear ditch, cutting a post-pit positioned on the northern side of an entry-gap, measuring 3.5m in width. To the south of the entry-gap, was a ditch, L-shaped in plan, ending in a rounded terminal. The enclosure ditches were cut to V-shaped profiles, and measured an average of 3m in maximum width and 0.8m in maximum depth, to the north of the entry-gap, and 2.1m in maximum width and 0.92m maximum

Later Phase 4 activity comprised the cutting of a further enclosure (Enclosure FE13, Fig. 3.19.S.94), which was dug to an inverted U-shape in plan, with its long axis aligned roughly north–south. As so defined, it measured a maximum of 31m internally north–south, and a maximum of 18m east–west. The northeastern and northwestern sides of Enclosure FE15 were cut

93

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 depth to the south of the entry-gap. An irregular gully (F613, Fig. 3.19.S.97) was the only associated feature recognised within the small excavated part of the enclosure interior. The lower enclosure ditch backfills comprised organic silt, sealed by grey-brown sand-siltclay. A single posthole (F609, Fig. 3.19.S.98), to the southwest of the enclosure may have been associated.

settlement. The increase in horse bone could suggest the same conclusion. Overall, the pattern of animals playing a part in a broadly-based economy, including cereal production, continued in this phase. In terms of the faunal remains, as well as other evidence, Phase 4 saw an intensification in agricultural production. Beehive quern fragments were recovered from ditch F913 (x2), Enclosure FE33 (x1) and from the Phase 4 backfills of Enclosure FE1 (x2). A Hod Hill type brooch was found in Enclosure FE29 (F896.01), and a small fragment from a Hod Hill type brooch was found in Enclosure FE26b (F848.03).

Phase 4 finds and environmental evidence from Zone Y Phase 4 Enclosure FE13/16/17 was backfilled with Late Iron Age–Transitional, or Early Transitional pottery, pottery, and earlier, residual Iron Age material. Phase 4 Enclosure FE14 was backfilled with Late Iron Age– Transitional pottery. The backfills of Phase 4 Enclosure FE18 in Zone Yb contained Late Iron Age/ Transitional pottery, and earlier, residual material.

Summary of the Phase 4 environmental evidence The Phase 4 plant assemblage contains species also recorded in the two earlier Iron Age phases. This phase is distinguished from the preceding phase by the increased number of barley grains, included germinated grains, possibly used for fodder or beer-making. The culm bases found in Zone Y could also represent fodder. For the first time in Phase 4 plant assemblages include non-native species, such as radishes, and cockspur. Wild species, eg hazelnut and prunus, may have formed an important supplement of the diet in this phase. Also important, is the ecological evidence for seawater expansion from the Fenland. Of the three Iron Age phases, the remains from Phase 4 are the most distinct because of the evidence for the introduction of non-native species, (and the exploitation of natural resources).

Interpretation of Phase 4 features in Zone Y Possibly the earliest Phase 4 activity, represented by the cutting of roughly circular Enclosure FE14, was located to the south of the abandoned Phase 3 Enclosure FE13/16/17. The next event may have been the recutting of the smaller later Phase 3 Enclosure FE13 (as Enclosure FE13a), which like its immediate Phase 3 predecessor avoided the area bordering a stream located further to the west. The relationship between Enclosure FE15 and Enclosure FE14 is not clear. On the one hand, the southeastern terminal of the former enclosure appeared to respect the latter, suggesting that it remained open. On the other, the southwestern ditch of Enclosure FE15 appeared to cut the same side of Enclosure FE14, suggesting that it had gone out of use. Perhaps the most notable feature of Enclosure FE14/15 was the palisade trench, located at its northwestern angle, approximately respecting the size and position of the palisade trench to Phase 3 Enclosure FE13/16/17. This suggests that the Phase 4 enclosure, like its Phase 3 predecessor, was associated with livestock farming.

FINDS This section of the report integrates the finds from Phase 2, 3 and 4 contexts. Small finds (Fig. 3.20) Lynne Bevan with a contribution by Rob Ixer Iron Age small finds comprised two, or possibly three brooches (Nos 1–3), seven worked bone items (Fig. 3.20.3–9), a chalk spindlewhorl (Fig. 3.20.10), a rubbing stone (No. 2, not illustrated) and a number of complete and fragmentary quernstones (Nos 3–16, not illustrated).

Summary of the finds and faunal evidence from Phase 4 In contrast with the earlier Iron Age assemblages, the Phase 4 pottery was predominantly wheelmade, and grog-tempered. The Phase 4 forms included necked jars and S-shaped bowls, as well as ovoid and globular forms recorded in the Phase 2–3 assemblages. Decoration in this phase comprised corrugation, grooved and incised motifs, and cabling. During this phase wheelmade pottery was in use alongside some handmade forms. Within the faunal assemblages, the greatest changes were those recorded between the Phase 3 and Phase 4 assemblages. The main trends comprised a decline in the number of caprovids, and an increased number of pigs. Caprovid husbandry was for the first time geared more intensively towards meat production, which suggests higher status for the

Copper alloy brooches Two of the brooches recovered (Fig. 3.20.2, and No. 3, not illustrated) are early forms, dating to the Late Iron Age/ Transitional period (Phase 4). No. 1 (unstratified), could belong to an Iron Age or Roman context. Catalogue 1

94

Penannular brooch, Type C, 1st century BC/AD, very similar to an example from Lincolnshire in the Hattatt collection (Hattatt 2000, fig. 199.651,

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.20 Small finds (Nos 1–10) 340). Diameter: 33mm, width: 2mm, thickness: 1.5mm. SF 12, Area E/F, Fig. 3.20.2. 2

thickness: 1–3mm. 3158, F896.01, Enclosure FE29, Zone W, Phase 4. Fig. 3.20.2.

Brooch of Hod Hill type with a horizontallyridged bow, very similar to an unprovenanced brooch from the Hattatt collection (Hattatt 2000, fig. 180.63, 321). Length: 51mm, width: 16mm,

3

95

Small fragment with ridged decoration, possibly from a 1st-century AD Hod Hill Type brooch since the surviving bar and bow are similar to an example from Norfolk in the Hattatt collection

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 (Hattatt 2000, fig. 181.314, 322). Length: 14mm, width: 11mm, thickness: 1.5mm. 3093, F848.03, Enclosure E26b, Zone W, Area E/F, Phase 4. Not illustrated.

sawn. Length: 44mm, width: 27mm, thickness: 5mm. 3834, F1137.01, Enclosure FE10, Zone X, Area E/F, Phase 3. Fig. 3.20.9. Worked stone objects Lynne Bevan and Rob Ixer

Worked bone

In addition to the chalk spindlewhorl (Fig. 3.20.10) which might have been used in conjunction with the bone textile equipment, there was considerable evidence for food processing activities during the Iron Age in the form of a rubbing stone and the remains of at least six beehive querns and nine rotary querns. Although the dating of beehive querns is uncertain, this form of quern is believed to have been first introduced during the Early Iron Age and to have continued into the Roman period (May 1976, 137). At Fisherwick, Ancaster (May 1976, 136) and Salmonsbury, beehive querns appear to have been used contemporaneously with saddle querns. This also appears to have been the case at Little Paxton during the Iron Age occupation of the site.

The worked bone assemblage was particularly well preserved. It included an implement handle with ringdot decoration (Fig. 3.20.3), a weaving comb (Fig. 3.20.4), a possible pin-beater (Fig. 3.20.5), a broken pin (Fig. 3.20.6), two needles (Fig. 3.20.7–8) and a rectangular plate (Fig. 3.20.9). These items attest to a range of craft activities, including textile crafts, being carried out on site. Catalogue 1

Curved perforated handle with a drilled perforation near the end and three rows of ringdot decoration. The surface is polished with wear and there is some damage to the end where the item has been chamfered and perforated to fit an implement, possibly an awl, based upon the small size of the aperture. Length: 80mm, diameter: 18mm, thickness: 20mm. 3611, F1099, Enclosure FE10, Zone X, Area E/F, Phase 3. Fig. 3.20.3.

2

Weaving comb. The teeth were carved at different levels and only the bases of two have survived. The remains of four more teeth are visible. The surface is polished and the basal end has been sawn. Length: 55mm, width: 27mm, thickness: 5mm. 3839, F1156.02, Enclosure FE12, Zone X, Area E/F, Phase 3. Fig. 3.20.4.

3

Implement, possibly a pin beater, with flat upper surfaces and rounded edges and a single ringdot decoration. Length: 88mm, width: 7mm, thickness: 5mm. 4017, F955.02, Enclosure FE13, Zone Y, Area E/F, Phase 4. Fig. 3.20.5.

4

Pin, the top of which is broken. Length: 66mm, width: 1.5–6mm, thickness: 2mm. 2329, ditch F632.03, Zone Y, Area E/F, Phase 4. Fig. 3.20.6.

5

Bone needle, broken near the end. Length: 53mm, width: 5mm, thickness: 1.5mm. 2565, F711.01, Enclosure FE3, Zone V, Area E/F, Phase 3. Fig. 3.20.7.

6

Bone needle, broken below the eye. Length: 50mm, width: 5mm, thickness: 3mm. F724.01, 2611, Enclosure FE4, Zone V, Area E/F, Phase 3. Fig. 3.20.8.

7

The querns from Little Paxton exhibit different lithologies. They mostly comprise medium to coarsegrained sandstones in common with most Iron Age querns from the East Midlands. The majority of the Iron Age querns were made from friable, medium-grained, (fossiliferous) Mesozoic sandstones. Some were manufactured from feldspathic Carboniferous (Millstone Grit and Coal Measures) sandstones. The predominance of soft, Mesozoic sandstone rather than the more indurated Millstone Grit (for example as seen at Crick) is a feature of the Little Paxton assemblage. The friable nature of the Mesozoic sandstones would make them less suitable as grinding stones than those made from more indurated lithics. The local bedrock geology to Little Paxton is Jurassic Oxford Clay (see Chapter 1, this volume). This is overlain to the east by successively younger Jurassic clays and limestones and then by sandstones, clays and the chalk of the Cretaceous. Similar, but older, Jurassic clays and limestones lie to the west. Palaeozoic rocks including Carboniferous rocks lie at some distance to the northwest of Little Paxton. Local/ regional outcrops of Jurassic sandstones may have provided the Mesozoic sandstone for some of the querns, but it should be noted that natural outcrops of the Jurassic in the East Midlands/ East Anglia are uncommon and that sandstones do not comprise much of the Jurassic-Cretaceous sequence in this area. The safest interpretation is that the Mesozoic querns have a regional source rather than a local one. All other querns are non-local and include Millstone Grit querns sourced from the Pennines; the nearest major Millstone Grit outcrops are approximately 10km north of Derby but they then extend northwards on either side of the central Pennine Hills until the Scottish

Rectangular plate with two central perforations, made from a rib bone. Both ends have been

96

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) border. Closer, but more minor, Millstone Grit outcrops occur to the west of Breedon on the Hill, Leicestershire, but even these are over 100km from Little Paxton. The nearest Cretaceous chalk crops out at a distance of more than 40km to the east of Little Paxton, and so the spindlewhorl could be regional in origin. The rubbing stone (No. 2) may well be an erratic, but, if not, the closest suitable outcrops are the Precambrian lavas found in the Charnwood Forest and Nuneaton areas, both more than 100km away. Catalogue (Nos 2–16 are not illustrated) 1

Chalk spindlewhorl. Diameter: 45mm, width: 20mm. SF13, 4029, F1006, Enclosure FE13, Zone Y, Area E/F, Phase 3. Fig. 3.20.10.

2

Rubbing stone with one flat, rubbed surface, rectangular in shape. Dark grey-green crystal lithic tuff, possible East Midlands or Lake District origin or an erratic. 2156, F560, pit, Area D, Phase 2.

3

Half of an upper quernstone with a groove for a handle and wear traces on the upper, inner surface. The outer surface is pecked. Patchy iron staining on lower surface. Pale-coloured feldspathic sandstone, possibly Millstone Grit from the Central Pennines. Diameter: 325mm, height: 115mm. SF6, 3401, F951, Enclosure FE6, Zone V, Area E/F, Phase 3.

4

5

6

7

Lower quern fragment comprising approximately 25% of a rotary quernstone. Pale-coloured, medium-grained sandstone. Diameter: 300mm, height: 93mm. 2720, pit F718, Enclosure FE1, Zone V, Area E/F, Phase 4.

8

Quern fragment, comprising 40% of a quernstone. Pale-coloured, medium-grained Mesozoic sandstone. Diameter: 230mm, height: 130mm. 2580, F711.02, Enclosure FE3, Zone V, Area E/F, Phase 3.

9

Quern fragment comprising approximately 25% of a rotary quernstone. Pale-coloured, mediumgrained Mesozoic sandstone. Diameter: 300mm, height: 93mm. 2720, pit F718, Enclosure FE1, Zone V, Area E/F, Phase 4.

10

Beehive quern fragment comprising 20% of quern. Possibly upper quernstone but fragment is too small and irregular for identification. Poorly-bedded, fossiliferous, pale-coloured friable Mesozoic sandstone. Diameter: 240mm, height: 115mm. SF 21, 3664, F1104, Enclosure FE16, Zone Y, Area E/F, Phase 3.

11 Beehive quern fragment comprising 15% of quern. Poorly-bedded, fossiliferous, pale-coloured friable Mesozoic sandstone. Dimensions: 105mm x 100mm. SF 15, 3664, F1104, Enclosure FE16, Zone Y, Area E/F, Phase 3.

Upper beehive quern, broken horizontally through the handle channel. The entire upper rim of the quern has survived. Pecked outer surfaces. Shows signs of ridges and grooves on lower surface, suggestive of re-use after breakage. Pale-coloured medium-grained micaceous sandstone. Diameter 295mm, thickness: 90mm, diameter of internal central hole: 85mm. 3486, boundary ditch F913, Zone W/X, Area E/F, Phase 4.

12 Two joining beehive quern fragments comprising 40% of upper quern. Poorly-bedded, fossiliferous, pale-coloured friable Mesozoic sandstone. Diameter: 220mm, height: 110mm. SF 17, 3664, F1104, Enclosure FE16, Zone Y, Area E/F, Phase 3. 13

Small fragment from No. 4, above, fits lower breakage zone. Pale yellow medium-grained micaceous sandstone, suggesting a different post-depositional environmental history than the larger fragment above. Dimensions: 125mm x 140mm x 45mm. 3737, F1129, Enclosure FE34, Zone X, Area E/F, Phase 4.

Base fragment from a quern with concentric grooving. Poorly-bedded, fossiliferous, palecoloured friable Mesozoic sandstone. 3664, F1104, Enclosure FE16, Zone Y, Area E/F, Phase 3.

14 Upper beehive quern fragment, comprising 30% of quern, very abraded, with iron-staining on base. Pecked outer surface. Poorly-bedded, fossiliferous, pale-coloured friable Mesozoic sandstone. Diameter: 220mm, height: 110mm. 3664, F1104, Enclosure FE16, Zone Y, Area E/F, Phase 3.

Lower quern fragment comprising approximately 40% of the quernstone. Pale, fine-grained arkosic sandstone with smooth upper surface and crude, striated edges. Diameter: 260mm, thickness: 50mm. 3957, pit F1189, Enclosure FE33, Zone X, Area E/F, Phase 3.

15

97

Lower quernstone comprising 70% of the original stone. The rock has been cut perpendicular to the bedding grain. Coal Measures sandstone. Diameter: 350mm, height: 120mm. SF 18, 3664,

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 F1104, Enclosure FE16, Zone Y, Area E/F, Phase 3. 16

Introduction The material selected for detailed study amounted to 3,835 sherds of Iron Age and Iron Age/Transitional pottery, amounting to 43.8% of the total assemblage. It derived from 152 stratified deposits dating from the Middle Iron Age to the Late Iron Age/Transitional period, terminating in the early Roman period (from c 300 BC to c AD 60). The ceramics weighed 37.58kg, and had an average sherd weight (avsw) of 9.7g. Full quantification of the ceramics studied by fabric type, appears in Table 3.1. An additional 383 sherds (2.23kg) from non-key group deposits provided enhanced diagnostic and dateable material, which was representative of the key groups as a whole. This additional material is not included in Table 3.1, but is noted below, where relevant. The proportions of fabrics within the material studied in detail are shown in Figs 3.21–3.24, and a selection of the pottery is illustrated (Figs 3.25–3.35).

Possible quernstone. Large, irregular-shaped stone with pecking on outer surface. A possible machine-cut central perforation surrounded by perfectly concentric wear traces suggests reuse during the post-Roman period. Possible Coal Measures sandstone. SF 16, 3664, F1104, Enclosure FE16, Zone Y, Area E/F, Phase 3.

Iron Age pottery Annette Hancocks with a contribution by David Williams Summary

A total of 3,835 sherds of Iron Age and Iron Age/ Transitional pottery was analysed in detail. The smaller Area B and C/D assemblages were studied in full, while key groups were selected for detailed study from the larger Area E/F assemblage. Within the material studied three distinct ceramic phases (Phases 2–4) Methodology were observed, ranging in date from 300 BC to AD 60. Willis (2000) had previously assessed the material. The For Area E/F the site director selected a set of key range of material recovered enabled distinct ceramic groups for analysis (listed in archive). These were phases to be recognised and adds considerably to our considered to constitute those stratified pottery groups Tables last updated 26/05/11 understanding of the overall ceramic corpus of pottery most informative for site dating, for establishing the recovered from the region to date. site sequence, and for assisting in its characterisation. TABLE 3.1 IRON AGE POTTERY, FABRICS AND QUANTITIES IN ASSEMBLAGE Fabric name

Wt

% Qty

Wt (g) % Wt (g)

FSCM 4 GRCC 161 GRCC/ ROMC 7 GRCF 156 GRCM 62 GRCM/ SHRM 449 GRMM 402 GRRM 300 GRVV 10 O16 24 OW 1 QUCF 174 QUCF/ GRCM 197 QUCM 465 QUCM/ FLRV 79 QUCM/ SHCF 49 R081 2 R012 2 ROMV 14 SHCF 202 SHCF/ GRCF 332 SHCF/ GRMF 20 SHCF/ GRMF/ IRRC 23 SHCM 321 SHCV 258 SHRC/ GRCC 55 SHVV/ IORV 5 W07 61 OVERALL TOTAL 3835 Note: phased key group pottery only

0.10 4.20 0.18 4.07 1.62 11.71 10.48 7.82 0.26 0.63 0.03 4.54 5.14 12.13 2.06 1.28 0.05 0.05 0.37 5.27 8.66 0.52 0.60 8.37 6.73 1.43 0.13 1.59 100

13 1858 147 1481 483 2016 4155 2439 57 87 6 987 1681 3148 916 347 13 15 164 2551 3005 295 267 3482 6367 685 145 541 37351

0.03 4.97 0.39 3.97 1.29 5.40 11.12 6.53 0.15 0.23 0.02 2.64 4.50 8.43 2.45 0.93 0.03 0.04 0.44 6.83 8.04 0.79 0.71 9.32 17.05 1.83 0.39 1.45 100

Rim EVE

Rim EVE %

0.5 1.96 0.37 1.47 3 2.31 0.25 1.15 1.03 2.59 1.07 0.14 0.07 1.55 2.86 0.26 0.22 1.49 2.01 0.26 0.25 0.41 25

2 7.84 1.48 5.88 12 9.24 1 4.6 4.12 10.36 4.28 0.56 0.28 6.2 11.44 1.04 0.88 5.96 8.04 1.04 1 1.64 100

Table 3.1 Iron Age pottery, fabrics and quantities in assemblage 98

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.21 Iron age pottery, percentage of fabrics within Phase 2

Figure 3.22 Iron Age pottery, Phase 3

percentage of fabrics within

Figure 3.23 Iron Age pottery, Phase 4

percentage of fabrics within

99

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.24 Iron Age pottery, percentage of fabrics

The groups include not only the different settlement foci within that area, but also material from a representative selection of feature types. All of the smaller groups of Iron Age pottery from Area B and Area D have been fully analysed and reported on. No pottery was found in Area C.

Chronology One of the key research aims was to establish the site chronology. Three distinct Iron Age ceramic phases (Phases 2–4) were identified (Jones, this chapter). The prehistoric phasing is as follows: Phase 1: Pre-Iron Age (for the pottery see Woodward, Chapter 2, this volume) Phase 2: Middle Iron Age Phase 3: Late Iron Age (handmade) Phase 4: Late Iron Age/Transitional (up to AD 60, including early wheelmade Transitional wares)

The remaining 56.2% of the pottery was not fully analysed, but was rapidly scanned in order to enhance the dating evidence identified in the selected key groups. The material was recorded using the standard BUFAU pottery recording system (Hancocks 1997) and was analysed using Access database software. The assemblage was quantified in full by sherd count, weight (g), and estimated vessel equivalent (EVE). Only rim equivalents (EVEs) are published, but percentages for bases are recorded in archive. The level of abrasion was recorded for individual sherds. The Little Paxton Iron Age pottery is coded according to a system devised by David Knight (1998) in conjunction with the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group guidelines for the analysis and publication of later prehistoric pottery (PCRG 1997). The fabrics are listed and described in Appendix 3.1. Other characteristics noted included decoration, evidence for manufacture (wasters) and, if present, repairs (rivets and rivet holes). The illustrated catalogue is presented by fabric group within each Tables last updated 26/05/11 phase. For simplicity, much of the pottery data is tabulated by phase (Appendices 3.2–4).

Phase 2, Middle Iron Age (MIA) The Middle Iron Age (400 BC to 100 BC) material from Phase 2 is characterised by handmade globular, ovoid and round shouldered jars (Figs 3.25.1, 4 and 8). Their diameters range from 70–400mm. This material derives principally from Area B and Area D and is associated with shell- (SHCM, 22% and SHCV, 17%) and quartz(QUCM, 22%) tempered pottery (Fig. 3.21). Decorative techniques include finger-tipping on rims with linear vertical and diagonal motifs. Three distinct surface treatments were recognised: comprising burnishing (9%), scoring (10%) and smoothed surfaces (81%). Within this phase most of the pottery derived from ditches, gullies and ring-gullies (Table 3.2), similar to the pattern shown by the whole assemblage studied.

TABLE 3.2 IRON AGE POTTERY, PHASE 2, DISTRIBUTION BY FEATURE TYPE Phase 2 Key group (Phase 2) Wider key group assemblage

Ditches 65% 10%

Gullies 10% 1.5%

Ring gullies 7.2% 1%

Other 17.8% -

Table 3.2 Iron Age pottery , Phase 2, distribution feature type TABLE 3.3 IRON AGE POTTERY, PHASE 3, DISTRIBUTION BY FEATUREbyTYPE Phase 3 Key group (Phase 3) Wider key group assemblage

Ditches 71% 23%

Ditch terminals 17% - 100

Gullies 0.59%

Pits 2.63%

Other 12% -

TABLE 3.4 IRON AGE POTTERY, PHASE 4, DISTRIBUTION BY FEATURE TYPE Phase 4

Ditches

Ditch terminals

Small

Pits

Other

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.25 Iron Age pottery, Phase 2 (Nos 1–16)

101

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.26 Iron Age pottery, Phase 2–3 (Nos 17–31)

102

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.27 Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 32–44)

103

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.28 Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 45–60)

104

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.29 Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 61–76)

105

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.30 Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 77–92)

106

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.31 Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 93–107)

107

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.32 Iron Age pottery, Phase 3 (Nos 108–119)

108

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Figure 3.33 Iron Age pottery, Phase 4 (Nos 120–130)

109

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Figure 3.34 Iron Age pottery, Phase 4 (Nos 131–136)

Figure 3.35 Iron Age pottery, Phase 5 (Nos 137–140) 110

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) Phase 3, Late Iron Age (LIA, handmade) Within the Late Iron Age (100 BC to AD 43; Phase 3) the ceramic assemblage is characterised by handmade wares in a greater range and variety of fabrics. Grog(GRCM/SHRM, 26%) and shell-tempered wares SHCF/GRCF (10%) dominate the phase (Fig. 3.22). Forms observed include globular and ovoid jars that are predominately from Zone V in Area E/F (Fig. 3.27.36–38). The percentage of smoothing on internal and external surfaces shows a marked increase from 81% (in Phase 2), to 92% (by count). Both internal and external sooting occurs on vessels in these phases (Figs 3.27.38, 43 and 3.28.51). A total of 88% of the Phase 3 pottery is derived from ditches and ditch terminals (Table 3.3), which were the most common feature types recorded. It is possible that ditches were only filled gradually, while pits were filled soon after they were first cut. Depositional processes have affected the low average sherd weight, and might explain the high level of fragmentation within the assemblage.

finish remained constant from Phase 3 at 91%. Sooting has been observed on various Phase 4 vessels. In Phase 4 (Table 3.4), a greater percentage of the pottery was recovered from pits and small ditches, increasingly common feature types in this phase. However, overall 58% of the material was found in ditches (Table 3.4). During this phase there was a distinct increase in the quantity of grog-tempered pottery. It is difficult to determine the exact significance of the changing fabric proportions within different feature types. These changing proportions may reflect chronological or spatial changes in the settlement pattern, and in the types of features in use, and is considered further below. Taphonomy Table 3.5 shows the occurrence of the pottery studied by feature type.

Tables last updated 26/05/11 last updated Phase 4,Tables Late Iron Age/Transitional (100 BC to 60 AD) Tables last updated 26/05/11 26/05/11

Most of the pottery derives from ditches, ditch terminals and pits (8%). A total of 87% of the key group assemblage was unabraded, with only 5% abrasion (including early wheelmade Transitional wares) recorded. BY Levels of abrasion TABLE 3.2 IRON AGE POTTERY, PHASE 2, DISTRIBUTION FEATURE TYPE were not recorded on the material from Wardy Hill and Haddenham, which Phase 4 is characterised by grog-tempered (GRMM, TABLE 3.2 IRON AGE POTTERY, PHASE 2, DISTRIBUTION BY FEATURE TYPE TABLE 3.215%) IRONPhase AGE2POTTERY, PHASE DISTRIBUTION BY FEATURE TYPE were rapidly scanned 22% and GRRM, wheelmade pottery from 2, Area Ditches Gullies Ring gullies by OtherHill. In the comparative assemblages studied abrasion E/F (Fig. 3.23). FormsKey identified include globular, group (Phase 2) 65% 10% 7.2% 17.8% Phase 2 Ditches Gullies Ring gullies Other does not appear to have Phase In 2 addition, Ditches Gullies Ring gullies therefore Other Wider key group assemblage 10% 1.5% 1% been quantified. been impossible to necked and ovoid jar forms. a small, but Key group (Phase 2) 65% 10% 7.2% It has -17.8% Key group (Phase 2) 65% 10% 7.2% 17.8% provide diagnostically significant number of assemblage S-sided bowls Wider key group 10% 1.5% any 1%meaningful- comparative interpretation Wider key group assemblage 10% 1.5% 1% using the Little Paxton data. have been observed (Fig. 3.30.82 and Fig. 3.30.92). The TABLE 3.3 IRON AGE POTTERY, PHASE 3, DISTRIBUTION BY FEATURE TYPE amount of internal and external smoothing as a surface TABLE 3.3 IRON AGE POTTERY, PHASE 3, DISTRIBUTION BY FEATURE TYPE TABLE 3.3Phase IRON3 AGE POTTERY, PHASE 3, DISTRIBUTION BY FEATURE Ditches Ditch terminals GulliesTYPE Pits Key group (Phase 3) 71% 17% -Pits Phase 3 Ditches Ditch terminals Gullies Phase key 3 group assemblage Ditches -Ditch terminals 0.59% Gullies Pits Wider 23% 2.63% Key group (Phase 3) 71% 17% Key group (Phase 3) 71% 17% Wider key group assemblage 23% 0.59% 2.63% Wider key group assemblage 23% 0.59% 2.63%

Other 12% Other Other -12% 12% -

TABLE 3.4 IRON AGE POTTERY, PHASE 4, DISTRIBUTION BY FEATURE TYPE Table 3.3 IronPHASE Age pottery , Phase 3, distribution by feature type TABLE 3.4 IRON AGE POTTERY, 4, DISTRIBUTION BY FEATURE TYPE TABLE Phase 4 3.4 IRON AGE POTTERY, PHASE Ditches4, DISTRIBUTION Ditch terminalsBY FEATURE Small TYPE Pits

Other

Phase 4 Phase 4 (Phase 4) Key group Wider key Key group group (Phaseassemblage 4) Key group (Phase 4) Wider key group assemblage Wider key group assemblage

Other Other 18% -18% 18% -

Ditches Ditches 58% 28% 58% 58% 28% 28%

Ditch terminals -Ditch terminals 7% 7% 7%

ditches Small Small 14% ditches ditches 7% 14% 14% 7% 7%

Pits Pits 10% 5% 10% 10% 5% 5%

TABLE 3.5 IRON AGE OF4,KEY GROUPby MATERIAL BY FEATURE TablePOTTERY, 3.4 Iron AOCCURRENCE ge pottery, Phase distribution feature type TYPE TABLE 3.5 IRON AGE POTTERY, OCCURRENCE OF KEY GROUP MATERIAL BY FEATURE TABLE 3.5 IRON AGE POTTERY, OCCURRENCE OF KEY GROUP MATERIAL BY FEATURE TYPE TYPE Feature type % NOSH % Wt (g) Av. sherd wt % Min no rims % RE Animal 0.30 % Wt (g) 1.03 Av. sherd 96 0.41 % RE 0.07 Featurepen type % NOSH wt % Min no rims Feature type % NOSH % Wt71.76 (g) Av. sherd wt % Min no rims % RE 66.48 Ditch 64.39 10.18 68.88 Animal pen 0.30 1.03 96 0.41 0.07 Animal pen 0.30 1.03 96 0.41 0.07 Ditch 14.24 13.39 8.56 12.86 16.24 Ditch terminal 64.39 71.76 10.18 68.88 66.48 Ditch ditch 64.39 71.76 10.18 68.88 66.48 Small 5.64 2.50 5.8 7.05 6.39 Ditch terminal 14.24 13.39 8.56 12.86 16.24 Ditch terminal 14.24 13.39 8.56 12.86 16.24 Small 1.78 0.41 6.57 0.83 0.22 Small ditch ditch terminal 5.64 2.50 5.8 7.05 6.39 Small ditch 5.64 2.50 5.8 7.05 6.39 Hearth 0.59 0.46 11.03 0.83 0.22 Small ditch terminal 1.78 0.41 6.57 0.83 0.22 Small ditch terminal 1.78 0.41 6.57 0.83 0.22 Pit 8.01 4.84 9.18 4.56 6.09 Hearth 0.59 0.46 11.03 0.83 0.22 Hearth 0.59 0.46 11.03 0.83 0.22 Posthole 1.48 1.56 5.92 0.83 0.96 Pit 8.01 4.84 9.18 4.56 6.09 Pit 8.01 4.84 9.18 4.56 6.09 Ring-gully 1.78 2.34 16.70 2.07 1.22 Posthole 1.48 1.56 5.92 0.83 0.96 Posthole 1.48 1.56 5.92 0.83 0.96 Unassigned 0.59 1.40 9.84 0.83 1.33 Ring-gully 1.78 2.34 16.70 2.07 1.22 Ring-gully 1.78 2.34 16.70 2.07 1.22 Well 1.19 0.31 5.91 0.83 0.78 Unassigned 0.59 1.40 9.84 0.83 1.33 Unassigned 0.59 1.40 9.84 0.83 1.33 Well 1.19 0.31 5.91 0.83 0.78 WellTable 3.5 Iron Age pottery 1.19 , occurrence 0.31 0.83 of key5.91 group material by feature type 0.78

TABLE 3.6 IRON AGE POTTERY, COMPARISON OF RELATIVE PERCENTAGES OF FABRICS FROM PAXTON AND OTHER CAMBRIDGESHIRE SITESPERCENTAGES OF FABRICS TABLELITTLE 3.6 IRON AGE POTTERY, COMPARISON OF RELATIVE TABLE 3.6 IRON AGE POTTERY, COMPARISON OF RELATIVE PERCENTAGES OF FABRICS FROM LITTLE PAXTON AND OTHER CAMBRIDGESHIRE SITES FROM LITTLE PAXTONShell AND OTHER CAMBRIDGESHIRE SITESGrog 111 Site Shell with Vegetable Quartz Other (including glauconite) Site Site Haddenham V (by weight) Hinchingbrooke Park Haddenham V (by weight) Haddenham weight) Little PaxtonV (by Hinchingbrooke Park Hinchingbrooke Park

Shell Shell 54% 52% 54% 54% 32% 52% 52%

Quartz Shell with (organic) Vegetable Shell with Vegetable

100

14

1 2

x

3

7

10

4

x

x

x

x

x

x

2

x

1

23

5

1

4

8

35

3

3 3

6

7

2

1

x mod?

1

8

1

7

2

xx

x

x

x

x

2

9

1

x

x

x

x

17

x

x x

4

11

2

1 1

1

x

x

x

x

6

x

3 3

5

17

1

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Cereal weeds found in the assemblage include cleaver (Galium aparine L.), field madder (Sherardia arvensis L.) and soft/ brome grass (Bromus hordeaceus/ secalinus). Cleaver, an autumn germinating weed, is generally thought to have been associated with autumnsown crops (Jones 1981), often found in prehistoric plant assemblages from southeast England (eg Murphy 1991 and 1995). Hillman (1981, 145–148) suggests that some crops might have been, in fact, traditionally sown in autumn in temperate Europe.

Table 3.28 Charred plant remains, Phase 3, list of the remains identified

x

s s s s s

Euphrasia/ Odontites Carduus/ Cirsium Sonchus asper L. Carex sp. flat Carex sp. trigonous Other Equisetum sp. Daphnia sp. - ephippia Bud Thorn Tubers

Key f = forklet; g = grain; glb = glume basis; ri = rachis internode; s = seed; sh = shell; st = stone; wl = waterlogged; x = 1–10; xx = 11–20; xxx = 21-30; xxxx = 31–40

x

x

s Veronica hederifolia L.

bd

x x

x

x x

s s s

Japanese lantern Deadnettle Deadnettle family Ivy-leaved speedwell Eybright/ bartsias Thistles Prickly sow-thistle Sedges Sedges

Physalis alkekengi L. Lamium sp. Lamiaceae

x x

xx

x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x mod?

x

x x

x

In the samples from features F953 (3371) and F1006 (4029) associated with Enclosure FE16, chaff and charred weeds are particularly abundant (Figs 3.63 and 3.64). Interestingly, one of these two features (F1006) is a hearth, which would suggest that crop waste might have been used as tinder or fuel. The wild species present in these two samples include a large number of vetch seeds (Vicia/ Lathyrus), some of which were identified as hairy vetch (Vicia hirsuta L.) as well as species typical of grassland environments, such as timothy grass (Phleum pratensis L.), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.) and meadow grasses (Poa sp). These are all species that are often found in fodder, an interpretation that would support the possibility of stables or barns in this part of the site.

Species typical of wet environments are also present in the assemblage, including blink (Montia fontana L.), in the group of the Polygonaceae (sedges, Carex sp.) and common scurvygrass (Cochlearia officinalis L.). Although some of the species are not found in cornfields today they are thought to have been common cereal weeds in the past (Jones 1981), particularly in poorly drained fields. The common scurvygrass is quite an interesting presence amongst the weeds, as it tends to grow in salt marshes (Stace 1997). Given the vicinity of the site to the fenlands, this seems to be an important environmental indicator and could suggest an expansion of seawater towards the more internal areas of southeast England. It is worth remarking the presence of numerous charred fragments of onion couch culms (Arrhenatherum elatius var. bulbosum) in found in ditch F411.01 (Area B, 1878). The roasted culms of onion couch are said to be edible, and it is clear that their presence on prehistoric sites is mainly associated with cremations, particularly of Bronze Age date (Robinson 1988). Onion couch ‘bulbs’ have been found also in sites in the southeast, at North Shoebury, in a Bronze Age cremation and in Late Iron Age deposits (Murphy 1995), and at Norwich Southern Bypass, in Bronze Age cremation deposits (Murphy 2000). The presence of onion couch ‘bulbs’ is interpreted as evidence of an offering of uprooted grasses used as kindling for the cremation pyre (Robinson 1988) though it is likely that they could have also represented ritual food offerings.

164

5 0

F86 2/3 117

F8 62/ 3074

F1175 /39 07

F427 .1/1 933

Fig. 3.61: Charred plant remains, percentages of cereal grains and chaff, Phase 2

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

100%

80%

60% Weeds wl 40%

Weeds c h

Iron Age figs last updated 29/04/11

Fruit s

20%

Chaff Grains

0%

2991 updated 3579 3551 337129/04/11 2217 4029 4026 Iron Age2547 figs4052 last 45 40

3615 2630 2521 3375 3544 3725 1878

Figure 3.62 Charred plant remains, general percentages, Phase 3

Fig. 3.62: Charred plant remains, general percentages, Phase 3 35

30 45 25 40

barley

20 35

wheat

15 30

emmer

10 25

barley

5 20 0 15

wheat 2547 4052 2991 3579 3551 3371 2217 4029 4026 3615 2630 2521

3375 3544

3725 1878

emmer

10 5

Fig.0 3.63: Charred plant remains, percentages of cereal grains, Phase 3 2547 4052 2991 3579 3551 3371 2217 4029 4026 3615 2630 2521

3375 3544

3725 1878

Figure 3.63 Charred plant remains, percentages of cereal grains, Phase 3

Fig. 3.63: Charred plant remains, percentages of cereal grains, Phase 3

60

culm 50

barley 60 40

culm wheat 50 30

barley spelt 20 40

wheat emmer/ spelt

10 30

spelt emmer 0 20 2547 4052 2991 3579 3551 3371 2217 4029 4026 3615 2630 2521 3375 3544 3725 1878 10

Figure 3.64 Charred plant remains, percentages of chaff, Phase 3

Fig.0 3.64: Charred plant remains, percentages of chaff, Phase 3 2547 4052 2991 3579 3551 3371 2217 4029 4026 3615 2630 2521 3375 3544 3725 1878

165

Fig. 3.64: Charred plant remains, percentages of chaff, Phase 3

emmer/ spelt emmer

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Waterlogged seeds are present in all of the samples, but the two samples from Zone V Enclosure FE1 (F709.6, 2547 and F703.06, 2991), had a prevalence of waterlogged plant remains (Fig. 3.64). The two waterlogged samples include mostly species typical of waste and rough grounds, such as common fumatory (Fumaria cf. officinalis), common nettle (Urtica dioica L.), chickweed (Stellaria media Villars), lesser stitchwort (Stellaria graminea L.), common mallow (Malva sylvestris L.), elder (Sambucus nigra L.), henbane (Hyscyamus niger L.) and ivy-leaved speedwell (Veronica hederifolia L.). Most of these species are also present in the samples with a predominance of charred remains. The prevalence of species of waste and rough ground suggests that the surrounding area was heavily disturbed, possibly as a consequence of human occupation or animal husbandry.

evidence for the introduction of several new species into England during the Iron Age (Dark 2000, 38). The presence of wild species such as hazelnut, Prunus sp.- type and numerous culms resembling those of Cyperaceae, suggests that wild plants might have represented an important supplement in the diet of the occupiers of Little Paxton during this phase. Waterlogged plant remains were found in all the samples of Phase 4, and in the case of four samples (Zone W, Enclosure FE20, F855, 3094; Zone V, Enclosure FE4, F815, 2957; Zone Y, Enclosure FE18, F613.02, 2231; and Zone Y, Enclosure FE13, F620, 2267), they constituted the bulk of the material (Fig. 3.65). A large part of the species present in these samples are typical of waste and disturbed grounds, as was also the case for the waterlogged samples from Phase 2 and 3. There are, however, also some new species, such as curled dock (Rumex cf. crispus) –an indicator of wet and muddy soils -, bur parsley (Anthriscus caucalis M. Bieb.), deadnettle (Lamium cf. album) – often found along riverbanks - and bristly oxtongue (Picris echioiedes L.) – another species introduced in England. Some species are clear indicators that water was present in the ditches, particular in the sample from Enclosure FE 4 ditch F815 (2957), as is suggested by the presence of aquatic species like lesser spearwort (Ranunculus aquatilis L.) and duckweeds (Lemna sp.) and by the ephippia of the Cladocera Daphnia sp. Other plants are instead usually found in the vicinity of water, as in the case of gypsywort (Lycopus europaeus L.) – typical also of fens - or alder (Alnus sp.). This last species, in particular, is present as cones, which indicates that trees were near to the ditch, suggesting that an alder carr might have been present nearby. At Wisbech, there is evidence of an expansion of fen carr woodland before the marine inundation of the Late Iron Age (Alderton and Waller 1994 a and b).

The presence of Daphnia sp.’s ephippia in the sample from Zone X Enclosure FE10 (F1075.03, 3725) indicates that the ditch must have been filled with water. Phase 4 (Late Iron Age/Transitional, to AD 60) Also in Phase 4 there is the same range of cereals found in the plant assemblage from the previous two phases (Table 3.29 and Fig. 3.65) and, here too, there is a clear predominance of barley grains in most of the samples (Fig. 3.66). In the sample from Zone Y Enclosure FE15 (F955.02, 3455), in particular, barley grains are very abundant and include some which have germinated. The germinated grains could indicate that they had been damaged while stored in wet conditions and were therefore discarded or used as fodder. Alternatively, they might have been malted to make beer. The samples from ditch boundary F1300 (F913.02, 3179, and F913.01, 3232) and Zone Y Enclosure FE15 (F955.02, 3455) contain large quantities of cereal culm bases (Fig. 3.67). Culm bases are the underground part of the cereal culms and their presence is a good indication that cereals were gathered by uprooting. Culm bases are generally discarded in the early stages of the crop process and they can be used, together with weeds and straw, as fodder for animals (Hillman 1981). In support of the interpretation that this plant assemblage could represent fodder, there are also other species present in the sample from feature F955.02 (3455), for example the wood-rushes (Luzula sp.), timothy grass (Phleum pratensis L.) and oats (Avena sp.), which are also typical of grassland environments.

The sample from feature F815 (2957) contains some species typical of cornfields, such as opium poppy (Papaver somniferum L.) - a plant cultivated also for its seeds and medicinal properties - and field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.). Their presence suggests either the presence of fields in the vicinity of the ditch or that crop processing took place nearby. Discussion The plant assemblage from the three phases presents many similarities in the range of cultivated plants as well as of the wild species. Emmer, spelt, barley and bread wheat are present in the three phases, although barley grains tend to predominate in the samples from all the three phases. The mixed composition of cereal grains, chaff and weeds suggests that crop processing was probably carried out on site during all three phases. The prevalence of chaff and weeds in some of

The charred weeds from Phase 4 deserve a special attention as, they not only include species already present in the assemblages of the previous phases, but also non-native species, such as radishes (Raphanus sp.) and cockspur (Echinocloa crus-galli Beauv.). This is particularly relevant in the light of the growing

166

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) Area

F F913.2/ 3179

F F753.3/ 2779

Vol. flot (ml)

50

100

Mesh used (mm)

0.4

0.6

Feature/ Context

F F F750.2/ F885/3 2721 094

0.6

Type of feature

Ditch

Ditch

Ditch

F1300

FE7

FE7

Spelt Wheat

Enclosure Cereals Triticum dicoccum Schübl Triticum cf. dicoccum Triticum cf. spelta Triticum sp. Hordeum vulgare L. indet. Hordeum vulgare hulled twisted Hordeum vulgare hulled twisted tail Hordeum vulgare hulled straight Hordeum vulgare hulled Hordeum vulgare cf. naked Cereals Cereals – germinated embryo Chaff Triticum dicoccum Schübl Triticum dicoccum Schübl Triticum dicoccum/ spelta Triticum dicoccum/ spelta Triticum spelta L. Triticum sp.

Tetraploid wheat

Triticum sp. tetraploid

ri

Barley

Hordeum vulgare L. rachis internode Culm nodes Culm internode Culm bases Bulbils

ri

Emmer ?Emmer ?Spelt Wheat Barley Barley Barley Barley Barley ?Naked barley Cereals Cereals/ large grasses Emmer Emmer Emmer/ spelt Emmer/ spelt

Hazelnut Wild/ dwarf cherry Meadow/ creeping buttercup Goosefoots/ oraches Goosefoot family Blinks Common chickweed Lesser stitchwort ?White campion Pale persicaria/ water pepper Knotweeds/ knotgrasses Sheep’s sorrel Docks Knotweed family Common mallow Radishes

Fruits and garden plants Corylus avellana L. Prunus avium/ cerasus Weeds - charred Ranunculus acris/ repens/ bulbosus Chenopodium/ Atriplex Chenopodiaceae Montia fontana sbsp fontana Stellaria media Villars Stellaria graminea L. Silene cf. latifolia Persicaria laphatifolium/ hydropiper

g

F F913.1/ 3232

F F F955.2/ F815/ 3455 2957

0.6

E F613.0 2/2231 800 (100 sorted) N/A

20

30

30

NA

0.6 Gatepost FE20

0.6

N/A

Ditch F1300

N/A

Ditch

Ditch

Ditch

Ditch

FE15

FE4

FE18

FE13

6

g

6

2 1 6

1 2

1

5

12

2 1

5

1

2

102

5

g

1

1

g

1

g

5

g

1

1 25

10

20

11

67

g

143

2

7 6

f

2

1

1

2

13

2 7

f

1

4

glb ri

3

6 6

1

8

1

3

glb

5

2

1

8

1

46

5

1

1

2

30 1

sh st

4

8

g

glb

10

1

g g g

g

E F620/ 2267

1 16

1

3 (2 joint)

2

1ch 1wl

15

1

2 wl

s

1

s s

2

s

2

s s s

2 11

4

1

s

7 wl?

4 wl?

1

3 5

1

Persicaria/ Polygonum.

s

1

2

Rumex acetosella L. Rumex sp. Polygonaceae Malva sylvestris L. Raphanus sp.

s s s s s

1 1

3 6

1

1 11 10

5 1

4

6

167

3 80 1

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Vetch/ vetchling/ tare Fabaceae clover – type Hemlock Hedge-parsleys Carrot family celerytype Carrot family Deadnettle Ribwort plantain Ivy-leaved speedwell Eyebright/ artsias b Field madder ?Lady’s bedstraw Cleavers ?Narrow-fruited cornsalad Thistles Mayweeds Wood-rushes Bristle club-rush Sedges Sedges Meadow-grasses Oats Oats Timothy grass Soft/ rye brome Cockspurs Small grasses Medium grasses Meadow/ creeping buttercup Common watercrowfoot Opium poppy common nettle Alders Alders Fat hen’goosefoot Stinking/ nettleleaved goosefoot Common orache Oraches Blink Common chickweeds ?White campion Pale persicaria/ water pepper Knotgrasses Knotgrass Black bindweed ?Curled dock Common mallow Violets ?Turnip Field pennycress Elder Brambles Bur parsley Hemlock Henbane Nightshades ?Deadnettle ?Downy hemp-nettle

Vicia/ Lathyrus

s

6

2

16

26

s

3

8

12

60

Medicago/ Melilotus/ Trifolium Conium maculatum L. Torilis sp.

s s

Apiaceae (Apium-type)

s

Apiaceae Lamium sp. Plantago lanceolata L. Veronica hederifolia L. Euphrasia/ Odontites Sherardia arvensis L. Galium cf. verum Galium aparine L.

s s s s s s s s

Valerianella cf. dentata

s

Carduus/ Cirsium Tripleurospermum sp. Luzula sp. Isolepis setacea R. Br. Carex sp. oval Carex sp. trigonous Poa sp. Avena sp. Avena sp. Phleum pratensis L. Bromus hordeaceus/ secalinus Echinocloa crus-galli Beauv. Poaceae small Poaceae medium Weeds - Waterlogged Ranunculus acris/ repens/ bulbosus

s s s s s s s awn s s

4 1

5 3

3 1

7

s

18

9

s

x

Ranunculus aquatilis L.

s

x

Papaver somniferum L. Urtica dioica L. Alnus p. s Alnus sp. – female inflorescence Chenopodium album L. Chenopodium vulvaria/ murale Atriplex patula L. Atriplex sp. Montia fontana cf. sbsp. fontana Stellaria media Villars Silene cf. latifolia Persicaria laphatifolium/ hydropiper Polygonum/ Persicaria Polygonum aviculare L. Fallopia convolvulus A. Love Rumex cf. crispus Malva sylvestris L. Viola sp. Brassica cf. rapa Thlaspi arvense L. Sambucus nigra L. Rubus sp. Anthriscus caucalis M. Bieb. Conium maculatum L. Hyoscyamus niger L. Solanum sp. Lamium cf. album Galeopsis cf. segetum

s s bd

1 1 1

5 1

2

3 1

3

1 1 2

1

1

1

1 1 1 1 2

1

7

s s s

3

7

2

1

4 17 16 8

1

6

20

9

15

1

3 1

1 2

5

x > 100 x

> 1000

x s

xxxx

x

xxxxx

x

> 100

s s s

xxxxx

x

2 x

x

x

x

x

x

s s s

x

x

s

xxx

x

xx

xx

xx

x

x

x x

xx x

x

s s

>100

x

s

>50

x

s s s s s s s

>100 x

x

x

xx x

x x x

s

x

s s s s s

x xxx x xxxxx x

x

168

x

x

x x x x

x x

>100 x

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4) Gypsywort Ivy-leaved speedwell Mulleins Field madder Thistles Bristly oxtongue Prickly sow-thistle Duckweeds Sedges Sedges Meadow-grasses Thymothy grass

Lycopus europaeus L. Veronica hederifolia L. Verbascum sp. Sherardia arvensis L. Carduus/ Cirsium Picris echioides L. Sonchus asper L. Lemna sp. Carex sp. oval Carex sp. trigonous Poa sp. Phleum pratensis L. Other Daphnia sp. eggs Tubers (similar to Cyperacese) Flower (Compositae type) Bud Bread?

s s s s s s s

x

x x

x x x

x xxxxx

xxx

x

s s s s

x x

x x

x x xx x

1

31 ch. 1

1 ch 3

1

Key f = forklet; g = grain; glb = glume basis; ri = rachis internode; s = seed; sh = shell; st = stone; wl = waterlogged; x= 1–10; xx = 11–20; xxx = 21–30; xxxx 31–40;figs xxxxx =last 41–50updated 29/04/11 Iron= Age

Iron AgeTfigs last updated 29/04/11 able 3.29 Charred plant remains, Phase 4, list of the remains identified 100% 100%

80% 80%

W eeds wl W eeds wl W eeds ch W eeds ch Fruit Fruit Chaff Chaff Cereals Cereals

60% 60%

40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0%

3179 3179

2779 2779

2721 2721

3094 3094

3232 3232

3455 3455

2957 2957

2231 2231

2267 2267

Figure 3.65 Charred plant remains, general percentages, Phase 4

20 20 18 18 16 16 14 14 12 12

barley barley spelt spelt emmer emmer

10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0

3179 3179

2779 2779

2721 2721

3094 3094

3232 3232

3455 3455

2957 2957

2231 2231

2267 2267

Figure 3.66 Charred plant remains, percentages of cereal grains, Phase 4

169

Excavations Iron at Little axton last Quarry , Cambridgeshire , 1992–1998 AgePfigs updated 29/04/11

35

30

25

culms

20

barley 15

wheat

10

emmer/ spelt emmer

5

0 3179

2779

2721

3094

3232

3455

2957

2231

2267

Fig. 3.67: Charred remains, percentages of chaff, Phase Figure 3.67plant Charred plant remains , percentages of chaff , Phase4 4

the samples seems to indicate that the by-products of the crop processing were also utilised, for example as fodder and tinder.

It also coincides with the evidence of the seawater expansion in the fenland area in the Late Iron Age. Welldocumented environmental evidence from stratigraphic sequences in the area shows that, beginning in the Iron Age, there was an extension of the marine influence (Shennan 1986, Waller 1994a, Dawson 2000c) in the region. This has also been recorded in the stratigraphic sequence at Murrow (Waller 1994b) and by the data on alluviation at Little Paxton itself (Roseff 2000), although Little Paxton is upstream of Earith, where the river widens into a fen landscape

The presence of cleaver amongst the weeds suggests that some of the cereals might have been sown during the autumn and the abundance of species typical of damp/ wet soils indicates that the cornfields were probably poorly drained. This picture fits well with the proximity of the site to the River Great Ouse. There are, however, also indications that large areas of disturbed ground were present in the immediate surroundings of the settlement. This would suggest either an intensive anthropic occupation of the site or that animal pens occupied large areas of the site. The possibility that animals were present on site is also suggested by some of the fodder-like assemblages. An increase in the presence of arable weeds in the waterlogged assemblage from Phase 4 could indicate that arable fields were located closer to the settlement in this phase.

Seeds and pollen from feature F1085 (3594) James Greig A single sample was analysed for both pollen and seeds. The results are listed in Tables 3.30–3.31. Results The seed and pollen flora is somewhat similar to those from the Roman samples on the site. Cereal pollen is fairly abundant, and a number of possible cornfield weeds such as seeds of Papaver cf. argemone (possible prickly-headed poppy), Rumex acetosella (sheep’s sorrel) and pollen of Spergula (spurrey) show that light, sandy soils were being cultivated. Seed records of the weeds Hyoscyamus niger (henbane) and Onopordum acanthium (cotton thistle) would be more usual in a Roman site, although both were present in Iron Age parts of Farmoor (Lambrick and Robinson 1979). Other weeds such as Urtica dioica (nettle) show signs of neglect or abandonment of the land. Trichuris parasite ova show that the ditch was fouled by sewage.

The presence of various tubers and ‘bulbs’ of onion couch, together with that of other wild species suggests that the inhabitants of Little Paxton were used to integrating their diet with food collected from the wild. The only elements that seems to contradict the homogeneity of the plant assemblage from the three phases is the increase in the number of non-native plants present in the assemblage of Phase 4 and the presence of some ecological indicators of salty water. This evidence seems to be consistent with the indication that, during the Late Iron Age period, there is an increase in the number of new species introduced in the English flora.

170

Tables

last updated 26/05/11

TABLE 3.30 PLANT MACROFOSSILS, AREA E/F, LIST

Chapter 3: Iron Age Settlements (Phases 2–4)

Tables last updated 1085 26/05/11 Insects David Smith Feature Context 3594 Sample:

Only one of the insect faunas examined is Iron Age in TABLE 3.30 PLANT MACROFOSSILS, AREA E/F, LIST date. This is the single sample from the well (feature Ranunculus subg. Batrachium L. 10 crowfoot F338) which dates from Phase 2 (the Middle Iron Age), Papaver 41085 prickly poppy Feature cf. argemone L. is included in this chapter. Urtica dioica L. 14 nettle Context 3594 Montia fontana ssp. Sample:

Well F338, Area B (Phase 2, Tables 3.32–3.33) minor Hayw.subg. 1 blinks Ranunculus Rumex acetosella 110 sheep's sorrel Batrachium L. L. crowfoot The single fauna recovered from the well deposit Potentilla reptans L. L. 14 creeping cinquefoil Papaver cf. argemone prickly poppy F338 is of moderate size and dominated by a single Apiaceae 114 umbellifer family Urtica dioica L. nettle Hyoscyamus niger L. 1 henbane species. Eighty individuals of Othius melanocephalus Montia fontana ssp. Lamium sp. 41 dead nettle minor Hayw. blinks are present. This staphylinid ‘rove’ beetle is normally Sambucus nigra L. L. 11 elder Rumex acetosella sheep's sorrel associated with open grasslands and sometimes with Cirsium sp.reptans L. 31 spear thistle Potentilla creeping cinquefoil hay residues and other mouldering vegetation. It is Onopordum 41 cotton thistlefamily Apiaceae acanthium L. umbellifer difficult to explain its dominance in this deposit. There Leontodon sp. niger L. 11 hawkbit Hyoscyamus henbane is nothing particular to the ecology of species that would Juncus sp.sp. 24 rush Lamium dead nettle explain why so many individuals should find their way Poaceae nfi nigra L. 31 grasses Sambucus elder into the base of the well. Well deposits are notoriously charcoal +3 Cirsiumfragments sp. spear thistle difficult to interpret (Kenward 1978). They often act Names and order according Kent (1992). Onopordum acanthium L. to Stace 4 (1997),cotton thistle Remains aresp. waterlogged seeds unless marked * for charred ones as pit-fall traps that collect a large and diverse insect Leontodon 1 hawkbit Juncus sp. 2 rush fauna from a considerable area around archaeological Poaceae nfi 3 grasses site (eg Kenward 1978; Lambrick and Robinson 1979; Table 3.30 Charred Plant Remains, Area E/F, list charcoal fragments TABLE 3.31 POLLEN AND+SPORES, PARASITE OVA, AREA E/F, 2000). LIST This seems to be the case with most of Simpson Names and order according to Stace (1997), Kent (1992). the insect fauna from this sample. Remains are waterlogged seeds unless marked * for charred ones Feature F1085 Context 3594 Sometimes deposits from wells contain an insect fauna Sample

whichE/F, is clearly TABLE 3.31 POLLEN PARASITE OVA, AREA LIST derived from the dumping of a particular Pteridium 2 AND SPORES, Bracken type of rubbish or material (Kenward et al 1986; D N Polypodium 1 Polypody Smith 2000). The large numbers of Othius seen here Ranunculus-tp. 2F1085 Buttercup, crowfoot Feature could represent the inclusion of some form of deposited Quercus 13594 Oak Context material, perhaps rotting hay or straw. However, if this Corylus 1 Hazel Sample Chenopodiaceae 22 Goosefoot Pteridium Bracken were the case there should also be a range of species Caryophyllaceae 41 Stitchwort Polypodium Polypody family present which are also usually associated with this Spergula 12 Spurrey Ranunculus-tp. Buttercup, crowfoot material in the archaeological (Kenward and Tables last updated record 26/05/11 Rumex-tp. 51 Docks Quercus Oak and sorrels Hall 1997). It is therefore probable that some unknown Filipendula 11 Meadowsweet Corylus Hazel aspect of the immediate environment around the Plantago lanceolata 52 Ribwort plantain Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot wellhead particularly favoured this species of insect. Fraxinus 14 Ash Caryophyllaceae Stitchwort family TABLE 3.32: INSECTS, AREA B, ECOLOGICAL GROUPINGS Galium tp. 11 Bedstraws Spergula Spurrey Arctium tp 25 Burdocks Rumex-tp. Docks and sorrels Context number 1748 Cirsium tp. 31 Thistles Filipendula Meadowsweet Centaurea nigra 15 Knapweed Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain Feature number F338 Lactuceae 22 AAsh group of Fraxinus 1 Description Well composites Galium tp. 1 Bedstraws Weight kg. 4.7 Aster-tp 92 Daisies etc Arctium tp Burdocks Volume lt. 4 Anthemis-tp. 83 Mayweeds Cirsium tp. 3 Thistles etc. Cyperaceae 21 Sedges Centaurea nigra Knapweed Phase 2 Poaceae 96 Grasses Lactuceae 22 A group of Cerealia-tp. 17 Cereals composites Unidentified 39 Aster-tp Daisies etc Total number of individuals 126 Total pollen 259 Anthemis-tp. 83 Mayweeds etc. Parasite ova Number of species 24 Cyperaceae 2 Sedges Trichuris 196 Whipworm Poaceae Grasses % aquatic 0.0% Cerealia-tp. 17 Cereals % waterside 4.8% Unidentified 3 % dung / no. terrestrial 5.8% Total pollen 259 % grassland / no. of terrestrial 5.0% Parasite ova Trichuris 1 Whipworm % trees / no. of terrestrial 0.0% Table 3.31 Pollen and spores, parasite ova, Area E/F,

Table 3.32 Insect remains, Area B,

list

ecological groupings

171

Tables

last updated 26/05/11

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 TABLE 3.33 INSECTS FROM AREA B, LIST Species

ecology

Carabidae Trechus quadristriatus (Schrk.) A. spp. Hydrophilidae Megasternum boletophagum (Marsh.) Histeridae Onthophilus striatus (Forst.) Staphylindae Micropeplus staphylinoides( Marsh.) Omalium rivulare (Payk.) Lesteva longelytrata (Goeze) O. sculpturatus Grav. O. nitidulus Grav. O. tetracarinatus (Block) Platystethus arenarius (Fourcr.) P. cornutus (Grav.) Stenus spp. Othius melanocephalus (Grav.) Philonthus spp. Drusilla canaliculata (F.) Aleocharinae Gen. & spp. indet.

F338

Phytophage host plant (data taken from Koch 1989, 1992)

2 1 d

2

d

1 1 2 5 2 4 1 3 1 1 80 1 1 5

ws

d ws

Elateridae Agriotes spp.

g

1

at roots of various grasses

Nitidulidae Brachypterus glaber (Steph.)

g

3

Urtica dioica (stinging nettles)

Scarabaeidae Oxyomus silvestris (Scop.) A. fimetarius (L.)

d

1 1

Curculionidae A. spp. C. quadridens (Panz.) C. spp.

g g

5 1 1

HYMENOPTERA Formicoidea Family Genus and spp. indet.

Brassicaceae

++

Ecological groupings a aquatic species ws waterside species either from muddy banksides or from waterside vegetation df species associated with dung and foul matter d species associated with dung g species associated with grassland and pasture t species either associated with trees or with woodland in general for non Coleoptera the numbers present have been estimated using the following scale; + = >10 individuals ++ = xxxx

s

xx

Chenopodium glaucum L.

x

xxxx

10

x >xxxx xxxx x xxxx >200 >200 >200 x

xx

4

8

5

5

4

2

s s s s s s s x

20

2

6

Ranunculus sardous Crantz Ranunculus sbgn. Batrachium Papaver sp. Chelidonium majus L. Urtica dioica L. Urtica urens L. Chenopodium album L.

24

6 30

4 2 4

2

2

x

lf bd

s s s s s s s s s s

s

s

s s s s

s

Ranunculus acris/ repens/ bulbosus s

Wild species - Waterlogged Pteridium aquilinum L. Salix sp.

cf. Valerianella sp. Galium cf. verum Galium aparine L. Centaurea sp. Tripleurospermum inodorum Schultz-Bip. Asteraceae Eleocharis palustris Roemer and Spike-rush Schultze Sedges Carex sp. flat Sedges Carex sp. trigonous Bristle club-rush Isolepis setacea R.Br. Sedge family Cyperaceae Timothy grass cf. Phleum pratensis L. Soft/ rye brome Bromus hordeaceus/ secalinus Barren brome Anisantha (Bromus) sterilis Nevski Meadow grasses Poa sp. Small grasses Poaceae small Medium grasses Poaceae medium

Eyebright/ bartsias Cornsalads Lady’s bedstraw Cleavers Knapweeds Scentless mayweed Daisy family

x

x xxxx

xch x

2 18

36

2

8

4

6

2

2

8 4

24

12

2

8

50 65

15

7

3

5 5 20

280

Chapter 4: Romano-British Settlements (Phases 5–8)

Blink Thyme leaved sandwort Three-nerved sandwort Sandworts Common chickweeds Lesser stitchwort Bog stitchwort Mouse -ears Pale persicaria/ water pepper Knotgrasses Knotgrass Sheep’s sorrel Curled dock Broad-leaved dock Docks Common mallow Violets Cinquefoils Parsley pier Northern/ great yellowcress Shepherd’s purse Cabbages Field pennycress Ling Elder Brambles Bur parsley Fool’s parley Hemlock Hogweed Henbane Nightshades ? deadnettle

258 x

x

xx

x

x

x

s s s fl s s s s s s s s s

Capsella bursa-pastoris Medikus Brassica sp. Thlaspi arvense L. Calluna vulgaris L. Sambucus nigra L. Rubus sp. Anthriscus caucalis M. Bieb. Aethusia cynapium L. Conium maculatum L. Heracleum spondylium L. Hyoscyamus niger L. Solanum sp. Lamium cf. album x

s

x

>xxxx x x x

x x xx x

>xxxx x

x

x x

xxxx x

x

Rorippa islandica/ amphibia

xx

s s s s s

x

Rumex sp. Malva sylvestris L. Viola sp. Potentilla sp. Aphanes arvensis L.

x x

s+v

b

x

x x

>xxxx

Rumex obtusifolius L.

s s s

Stellaria graminea L. Stellaria uliginosa Murray Cerastium sp.

x

xx x xx >xxxx x x

s

Stellaria media Villars

x

s s s+v s+v

s

cf. Minuartia

x

x

Persicaria/ Polygonum Polygonum aviculare L. Rumex acetosella L. Rumex crispus L.

s

Moheringia trinervia L.

xx

xx

xx

s

Arenaria serpyllifolia L.

x

Persicaria laphatifolium/ hydropiper s

s

Montia fontana L.

xxxx

x xx xxxx

xx x

x

x

x

x

xxx

x

x

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

s s s s s s s s s s s s

Lycopus europaeus L. Prunella vulgaris L. Plantago major L. Odontites/ Euphrasia

Valerianella cf. locusta

Valerianella dentata Pollich

Valerianella sp. Valeriana officinalis L. Galium cf. verum Carduus/ Cirsium Onopordum acanthium L.

Sonchus arvensis L.

259 x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

xxx xxx

x

x

x x xxx x

Table 4.26 Plant remains, list of taxa identified

The waterlogged plant remains have been only partially quantified

Other Mosses Leaf Bud Daphnia sp. ephippia Fish vertebrae

s s s s s

s

s

Galeopsis tethrait aggr.

Lemna sp. Eleocharis palustris Roemer and Spike rush Schultze Bristle club-rush Isolepis setacea R.Br. Sedges Carex sp. oval Sedges Carex sp. trigonous Thymothy grass Phleum pratensis L. Poaceae small

Common hempnettle Gypsywort Selfheal Greater plantain Eyebrights Common cornsalad Narrow-fruited cornsalad Cornsalads Common valerian Lady’s bedstraw Thistles Cotton thistle Perennial sowthistle Duckweeds

xx x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x xx

x

x

x

Chapter 4: Romano-British Settlements (Phases 5–8)

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 hordeaceus/ secalinus). Cleavers (Galium aparine L.) are also present, together with common chickweed (Stellaria media Villars), corn spurrey (Spergularia arvensis L.), knapweed (Centaurea sp.) and scentless mayweed (Tripleurospermum inodorum Schultz Bip.). Species known to have been crop weeds in the past are blink (Montia fontana L.) and sheep’s sorrel (Rumex acetosella L.). Cleavers indicate the presence of autumnsown crops. They are present in two features which have a predominance of barley grains (F919, 3254; F629.03, 2297), suggesting that barley might have been the autumnsown crop (see Chapter 3, this volume). Corn spurrey and sheep’s sorrel, on the other hand, are typical of acid and sandy soils and parsley pier (Aphanes arvensis L.) is also typical of well-drained soils, suggesting that some of the fields were located on the sandy and gravelly terraces of the river valley surrounding the Little Paxton site. The presence of arable weeds and other species typical of wet soils, such as blink, chickweed and sedges (Carex sp.), however, indicates that some of the crops might have been grown on poorly drained soils. Wetland species, such as meadow/ creeping buttercup (Rancunculus acris/ repens/ bulbosus) and curled dock (Rumex cf. crispus), indicate the vicinity of wet environments to the sites. Finally, several seeds present in the charred assemblage are from grassland species, such as hairy tare, cover-type plants, ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.), lady’s bedstraw (Galium cf. verum), barren brome (Anisantha sterilis Nevski) and the Poaceae. They suggest that hay might have been present on site. The weed assemblage of the Romano-British period from Thetford (Murphy 1991) shows a similar composition to that from Little Paxton. The waterlogged assemblage bears many similarities with the charred one. It includes roughly the same weeds (field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) is a new species), plants typical of disturbed grounds, wetland plants, heathland heather (Calluna vulgaris L.) – cultivated plants – opium poppy (Papaverum somniferum L.) - as well as grassland species. The weeds present on site are roughly the same as those found in the charred assemblage, suggesting either that cornfields were present in the vicinity of the site or that crop processing was carried out on site. Grassland species are more abundant than in the charred assemblage. They include new species such as broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius L.), common mallow (Malva sylvestris L.), hogweed (Heracleum spondylium L.), gypsywort (Lycopus europaeus L.), selfheal (Prunella vulgaris L.), timothy grass (Phleum pratensis L.), greater plantain (Plantago major L.) and common valerian (Valeriana officinalis L.). The abundant presence of grassland species is a clear indication that hay was present on site or that meadows were present nearby. Amongst the grassland species there are some which grown in wet conditions – eg the buttercups (Ranunculus sp.), northern/ great yellowcress (Rorippa islandica/ amphibia), bristle clubrush and duckweed (Lemna sp.) - which indicates that this vegetation was perhaps growing along ditches, in poorly drained fields or in nearby wet meadows.

The presence of species that generally grow in warmer conditions - such as cotton thistle (Onopordum acanthium L.), hemlock (Conium maculatum L.) and Aethusa cynapum, suggest that the climate was warmer than previous periods. This has also been recorded from other excavations in the east of England (Dark 2000). Discussion The Phase 5A Romano-British plant assemblage from Area E/F provides some important evidence for the understanding of the use of the site as well as for the social and economic changes that occurred in England after the arrival of the Romans. This is particularly important since Little Paxton is a rural settlement and, as such, its function must have been involved in those changes. The cultivated species present in the Iron Age and RomanoBritish periods are roughly the same, with the only exception of naked barley, which disappears in the Romano-British assemblage. Three aspects are immediately evident when comparing the plant assemblage from the Iron Age and Romano-British periods: • • •

a general increase in the abundance of charred remains an increase in the presence of spelt the great abundance of chaff

This increase of spelt and spelt chaff has already been observed in many English sites of the same period (eg M Jones 1998 and van der Veen 1992, 57) and the southeast of England is no exception. The archaeobotanical evidence from sites such as Thetford (Murphy 1991), Snettisham (Murphy 2001) and Colchester (Murphy 1992) shows similar plant assemblages. In some instances, the abundance of charred cereal grains and chaff is clearly due to the presence of kilns and ovens, as in the case of Thetford and Colchester (Murphy 1991, 1992). In other cases the explanation is not so obvious, and it is necessary to consider that an increase in agricultural intensity may be reflected by an abundance of cereal grains and chaff. Whether this intensification of agriculture is related to cereal production for human consumption or an intensification of animal husbandry is unclear. Murphy (1991) observed that sites with large assemblages in the southeast of England tended to be located on the terraces of the River Lark and River Little Ouse, and that they had all been interpreted as farming settlements. The range of crops is very consistent and is similar to that found at Little Paxton. At Little Paxton grains and chaff are predominant in most of the samples, but there are samples where weeds are also abundant (Fig. 4.42). The abundance of barley, chaff (including culm bases and culm internodes) and the high frequency of grassland species suggest that the plant assemblage represents fodder. A similar case was also observed, for instance, at Colchester (Murphy 1992). The use of barley as fodder was a well-known practice recommended by Roman agronomists (White 1970, 214– 215). 260

Chapter 4: Romano-British Settlements (Phases 5–8) Feature F629.03 (2297) contains a particularly interesting plant assemblage, with a high concentration of barley and oat grains as well as chaff and numerous wetland and grassland species. Oats were considered an obnoxious weed by Roman agricultural writers and Cato (cit. in Findlay 1956, 190) mentions oats as impurities in cornfields, which reduced the yield. Virgil, on the other hand, refers to oats as often found in association with barley (cit. in Findlay 1956). Oats are thought to have been introduced into cultivation in the British Isles during the late Romano-British period (Jones 1989) and, therefore it is possible that those found at Little Paxton were cultivated rather than being just a weed. It is possible that barley and oats were cultivated together as a maslin. The term drage, in fact, is specifically refers to a mixture of barley and oats (1:1). The cultivation of two crops in the same field seems to be a common characteristic of Romano-British sites. This was, for instance, also the case at Melin y Plas, Anglesey, where assemblages containing oats and barley were convincingly interpreted as the charred remains of fodder (Ciaraldi in press).

seems to have been used for animal stocking in both periods. Crop-processing also seems to have occurred to some extent, highlighting the rural nature of the settlement. There is a clear increase in the number of non-native crops and wild plants starting from the Transitional period, and continuing into the Romano-British period. Opium poppy, flax, cabbages, horse beans and possibly hemp appear amongst the new crops. Warm climate wild plants such as hemlock, cotton thistle, henbane and hogweed also appear, strengthening the idea that the initial stages of the Romano-British period were accompanied by an increase in temperature (Dark 2000).

The large number of wetland and grassland plants, present as charred and waterlogged remains confirms the idea that fodder, perhaps gathered from wet meadows in the river valley, was brought onto the site. Some of the species identified were also present in the waterlogged hay from Farmoor, Oxfordshire (Robinson 1979). Evidence from the pollen and insect analysis is consistent with the presence of fodder and pastureland in the vicinity of Little Paxton (Greig, this chapter; Smith, this chapter).

Seeds were surprisingly well-preserved. The indications were of a typical Romano-British farming landscape, in which cereals, possible hemp and opium poppy were being grown as crops with associated weeds. There were also grass meadows and pastures, and local weeds were typical of Romano-British sites, perhaps growing in neglected areas. Parasite ova show that the ditches were contaminated by sewage.

Crop-processing waste (chaff and weeds) was present in most of the samples, and it is likely that these agricultural activities were taking place on site. However, it is difficult to be certain, since crop waste might simply have been used as a component of fodder. The presence of numerous weeds typical of sandy soils suggests that cornfields might have been located on the terraces of the River Ouse, near the site, as is also suggested by the pollen evidence (Greig, this chapter). It is possible that the wetter areas within the river valley were used as meadows and pastureland to sustain livestock, whilst the drier river terraces were cultivated. The presence of flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) and horse bean (Vicia faba L.) suggests that a crop rotation system was in place. Horse beans would have provided nitrogendepleted fields with fresh nutrients. The presence of opium poppy and cabbage seeds (the latter possibly cultivated) hints at a larger number of cultivated species. This picture is consistent with a large number of sites where these crops seem to appear during the Romano-British period (Dark 2000). Apart from an increase in the plant assemblages from the Iron Age to the Romano-British period, there are also many elements of continuity between the two periods. The range of crops, weeds and use of the site and surrounding environment does not seem to have changed. The site

Pollen and plant macrofossils (Area E/F) James Greig This report is arranged in two parts: firstly, the macrofossils from Phase 5A; secondly, the pollen from Phase 5A. A large number of features was sampled, and of these a small selection has been analysed. Plant macrofossils

The samples taken are listed in Table 4.27. Sample 86 88 143 177

Context 3359 3362 4150 3714

Feature F913.03 F944 F1007.01 F1125

Amount 100 ml 100 ml 100 ml 100 ml

Feature type Ditch Ditch Ditch Ditch

Table 4.27 Plant remains, Phase 5a samples taken Laboratory work The whole amount of organic material was sorted under a stereo microscope, and the identifiable plant material extracted and named. The results are given in a seed list Table 4.28. Results Crop plants There was a small amount of charred cereal remains in the sample from the ditch F1007, together with Papaver somniferum (opium poppy) and Brassica sp. (cabbage group) which could have been cultivated. Cereals were also present in pit F944. These probably represent the general background of crop plants being grown, stored or processed on the site, and the concentration in feature F1007 may suggest a concentration of these activities in that part of the site. 261

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Feature Context Sample: Pteridium frond Ranunculus subg. Batrachium L. Papaver somniferum L. Papaver sp. Urtica dioica L. Urtica urens L. Chenopodium ficifolium Smith Chenopodium album L. Chenopodium sp. Atriplex sp. Chenopodiaceae Moehringia trinervia (L.) Clairv Stellaria sp. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. S. uliginosa Murray Cerastium arvense L. /fontanum Baumg. Polygonum aviculare L. Rumex acetosella L. Rumex sp. Hypericum sp. cf. Malva sp. Salix sp. (seed capsule) Salix sp. (bud) Alliaria petiolata (M. Bieb.) Cavara & Grande Brassica sp. Prunus/Crataegus thorn Potentilla reptans L. Anthriscus caucaulis M. Bieb. Conium maculatum L. cf. Heracleum sphondylium L. Apiaceae Solanum nigrum L. Hyoscyamus niger L. Lamium sp. Sambucus nigra L. Galium sp. Arctium sp. Carduus sp. Cirsium sp. Lapsana communis L. Leontodon sp. Sonchus oleraceus L. S. asper (L.) Hill Anthemis cotula L. Tripleurospermum inodorum (L.) Schultze-Bip. Lemna sp. Eleocharis sp.

F913 3359 86 -

F944 3363 88 1

F1007 4158 143 -

F1125 3769 177 -

Bracken

67 ?

119 2

4 178 1

1 96 -

Crowfoot Opium poppy Poppy Nettle Small nettle

-

4 -

1 8 1 1

-

Fig-leaved goosefoot Fat-hen Goosefoot Orache Goosefoot family

2

-

1 -

-

Three nerved sandwort Chickweed

-

2 1

20 -

4 -

Chickweed Bog stitchwort

1 1 1

2 1 1 -

1 12+1* -

1 1 1 1,1* 1 1

Mouse-ear Knotgrass Sheep’s sorrel Docks St John’s-wort Mallow Willow Willow

-

-

1 1 1 2

-

Garlic mustard Cabbages, mustard Sloe/hawthorn Creeping cinquefoil

-

1 -

1 1

-

Rough chervil Hemlock

2 3 7 2 1 2 1 1 1 -

1 3 1 1 -

1 1 5 2 1 2 1 11 -

1 2 1 4 10 1 1*

Hogweed Umbellifer family Black nightshade Henbane Dead netle Elder Bedstraw Burdock Thistle Spear thistle Nipplewort Hawkbit Sow-thistle Sow-thistle Stinking mayweed

-

-

1* 1 -

1

Scentless mayweed Duckweed Spike-rush

262

Chapter 4: Romano-British Settlements (Phases 5–8) 1 Sedges Carex subg. Vignea 1 Sedges Carex subg. Carex Poaceae nfi 9 1, 1* 3 Grasses 2* Wheat Triticum sp. glume bases 1* Wheat grain Triticum sp. Cerealia 1 1* Cereals Charcoal fragments + + Wood + + Twigs + Names and order according to Stace (1997), Kent (1992). Remains are waterlogged seeds unless marked * for charred ones.

Table 4.28 Plant remains, Area E/F, list

Weeds

Grassland

The weeds can be divided into a number of groups. Probable cornfield weeds include charred Tripleurospermum inodorum (scentless mayweed) and a charred Rumex (dock), both in F1007. A charred Anthemis cotula (stinking mayweed) was also found, in feature F1125. The mayweeds are both rather specific cornfield weeds, and the fact that they have been charred suggests a connection with human activities, such as grain cleaning and processing. Secondly, some other more general annual weeds such as Urtica urens (small nettle), Chenopodium spp., (goosefoot) and Stellaria media (chickweed) indicate open, probably cultivated ground in the vicinity. Weeds such as these produce abundant seeds and disperse them widely, given suitable conditions, so their presence is no surprise.

Grassland plants include Cerastium arvense/ fontanum (mouse-ear), possible Heracleum sphondylium (hogweed), Leontodon sp. (hawkbit), together with the macrofossils of Poaceae (grasses). There are also many pollen records discussed separately. Some of this record could from come from grassy material brought to the site, such as hay or in dung.

Thirdly, there is also a flora of ‘typical Romano-British weeds and wayside plants’ such as Papaver somniferum (opium poppy), Anthriscus caucalis (rough chervil), Conium maculatum (hemlock) and Hyoscyamus niger (henbane). Many of these such as Anthriscus and Hyoscyamus really need warmer conditions than those of today, occurring rather rarely in Britain now, although they are more common on the continent of Europe, and as finds on Romano-British sites. It is possible that some features of Romano-British sites in particular, such as dry turf banks or walls, may have provided more suitable conditions for these plants than are generally found today. Finally, the overgrown nature of the site at the time of deposit formation is underlined by the vast numbers of Urtica dioica (nettle) seeds, and a large flora of other weeds, many of them biennial or perennial, such as Alliaria petiolata (hedge mustard), Conium maculatum (hemlock), Arctium sp. (burdock), and the Carduus sp. and Cirsium thistles. Similar floras have been found at a number of Romano-British sites, and may indicate that particular areas became overgrown when abandoned or neglected, perhaps only for a few years at a time, and the filling up of ditches and pits at the same time preserved the evidence.

Pteridium (bracken) were recorded as bracken frond in pit F944, as well as spores in a number of other samples. Woodland Trees and woodland are hardly in evidence; they are not well represented among macrofossils. Sambucus nigra (elder) seeds and a thorn of Prunus/ Crataegus (sloe or hawthorn), and some seed capsules and buds of Salix (willow) were in feature F913 (Area E/F) and other samples. The surroundings would appear to have been mainly treeless open farmland. This is what can be expected in an occupied site, where grazing prevents the growth of most trees, although elder grows up quickly where land enriched by former occupation is abandoned, and thorn bushes survive grazing, and were indeed often used as hedging. Wetland There was little sign of wetland and aquatic vegetation apart from the record of Ranunculus subg Batrachium (water crowfoot), and the single Lemna (duckweed) seed in feature F1007. The fact that waterlogged seeds were preserved at all suggests that there were wet ditches or waterholes, which could be expected to have held a small aquatic and wetland flora, and perhaps this is it. The beetle remains also show that some of the features were water filled (Smith, this chapter). Correlation with other sites There are a number of other Romano-British sites with waterlogged features which have been investigated for

263

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 their biota, such as Farmoor, near Oxford (Lambrick and Robinson 1979). The results from Little Paxton are broadly similar to the much more detailed ones from Farmoor. Pollen The pollen samples taken are listed in Table 4.29. Sample 86 87 88 177

Context 3359 3363 3362 3714

Feature F913.03 F944 F944 F1125

Feature type Ditch Pit Ditch Ditch

Table 4.29 Pollen, Area E/F, samples taken Feature Context Sample Pteridium Pinus Ranunculus-tp. Ulmus Cannabis-tp. Urtica Quercus Fagus Betula Alnus Corylus Chenopodiaceae Caryophyllaceae Persicaria bistorta-tp. Rumex-tp. Salix Brassicaceae Filipendula Prunus-tp. Trifolium repens-tp.Trifolium pratense Apiaceae Plantago lanceolata Plantago media/major Galium tp. Sambucus nigra Cirsium tp. Centaurea nigra Lactuceae Artemisia Anthemis-tp. Cyperaceae Poaceae Cerealia-tp. Unidentified Total pollen Parasite ova Trichuris

Methods Pollen samples were extracted from the bulk samples, and processed using the standard method; about 1cm3 subsamples were dispersed in dilute NaOH and filtered through a 70µm mesh to remove coarser material. The organic part of the sample was concentrated by swirl separating on a shallow dish. Fine material was removed by filtration on a 10µm mesh. The material was acetolysed to remove cellulose, stained with safranin and mounted on microscope slides in glycerol jelly. Counting was done with a Leitz Dialux microscope. Identification was using the writer’s own pollen reference collection, seen with a Leitz Lablux microscope. Standard reference works were used, notably Fægri and Iversen (1989) and Andrew

F913 3359 86 3 + + 1 4 + 1 1 + 1 7 4 + 1 4 + + 7 35 2 8 86 + 9 159

F944 3363 87 1 1 9 1 2 + 3 1 2 2 1 10 1 1 1 35 4 5 31 7 2 112

F1007 4158 88 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 7 1 4 1 3 1 11 1 2 2 53 9 4 87 2 2 203

-

+

1

F1125 3769 177 3 Bracken 1 Pine Buttercup, crowfoot - Elm - Hemp, hop - Nettle - Oak - Beech - Birch - Alder - Hazel - Goosefoot - Stitchwort family - Bistort etc. - Docks and sorrels - Willow - Brassicas - Meadowsweet - Sloe, plum etc. - Hite clover - Red clover 1 Umbellifers - Ribwort plantain - Greater plantain - Bedstraws 4 Elder - Thistles - Knapweed 25 A group of composites - Wormwood - Mayweeds etc. 1 Sedges 3 Grasses - Cereals 36 - Whipworm

Table 4.30 Pollen, spores and parasite ova, Phase 5A, list

264

Chapter 4: Romano-British Settlements (Phases 5–8) (1984). The pollen counts are moderate, to show the taxa present and with scans to include rarer taxa, but not as large as those needed for exact comparison of percentages. The results are given in Table 4.30.

type (amphibious bistort), Filipendula (meadowsweet) and Cyperaceae (sedges).

Results

Trichuris (whipworm) ova from an intestinal parasite, were present in F944, showing that the pit contained sewage.

Crop plants

Cerealia (mainly cereals) and Cannabis type (possible hemp) was present in feature F944. The cereal pollen supplements the information from cereal macrofossils, representing cereals, which were probably being stored, processed and used on the site rather than necessarily being grown there; all these activities liberate cereal pollen. Weeds

There are scattered records of Chenopodiaceae (goosefoot), Caryophyllaceae and Anthemis type (includes Anthemis cotula, stinking mayweed) in most samples. There was also Rumex (dock) in feature F944 and a large record of Artemisia (mugwort) in the Phase 5A backfill of boundary ditch F913.03 which could represent wayside type weed growth. The pollen records of weeds are not as abundant as the macrofossil records, and they are not so exactly identified, but they do seem to parallel the abundant macrofossil evidence. Grassland

A number of grassland plants were present, such as Trifolium repens (white clover) and T. pratense (red clover) (F944), Plantago lanceolata (ribwort plantain) in features F913.03 and F944, Lactuceae (a large group of composites which mainly grow in grassland), Centaurea nigra (knapweed) in feature F944, as well as Poaceae (grasses) which grow in a great range of habitats besides grassland. These records could represent grassy land around the site, or products such as hay which would have been present wherever domestic stock was kept. Pteridium (bracken) grows on open grassy land and woodland, and it could represent bracken collected for use, such as animal bedding. Woodland

All samples have very small records of a range of trees and shrubs, which show an open landscape with little woodland in the vicinity, as might be expected from farmland. Signs of scrub Sambucus nigra (elder) in feature F1125 could indicate scrub, and Prunus type (sloe) in the Phase 5A backfill of ditch F913.03 and feature F944 could either represent scrub or hedging.

Parasites

Discussion The pollen from these features is broadly similar to finds from other Romano-British ditches. It supplements the information from plant macrofossils and other biota such as beetles, to provide an impression of an open, grassy agricultural landscape similar to that interpreted from the results at Farmoor, Oxfordshire (Lambrick and Robinson 1979). The surroundings of the Little Paxton sites were probably mainly grassland, probably pasture. Some crops were detected in the small number of samples investigated. Results from more intensive work at other Romano-British sites has revealed a greater range of crops grown at the time such as grapevines, as at Elms Farm, Heybridge, Essex (Greig 2001). Insect remains (Area A and Area E/F) David Smith Introduction In total nine insect faunas have been identified from a range of Romano-British deposits excavated at Little Paxton. In Area E/F, the Phase 5A features sampled for insect remains consisted of two ditches, F913 (3359) and F1085 (3594) and a pit F994 (3362). These features are associated with stock enclosures and field systems dating to the mid/ late 1st–early 2nd century. The samples that contained insects were derived from the lower fills of a number of waterlogged ditches. In Area A the features sampled consisted of Phase 7B Enclosure AE5 ditch F138 (layers 1283, 1310, 1282) and Phase 7A Enclosure AE1a ditch F187 (1369). Two samples from also from Phase 6 pit F209 (1464 and 1470), interpreted as a possible animal drinking trough. It was hoped that the examination of the insect remains from this site would provide information on a number of the key research themes identified by Jones (1999 and Chapter 1, above). In particular, could the insect remains suggest the use and function of the various enclosures? It was also hoped that the wider natural landscape could be reconstructed, in particular details of the site abandonment, and possible rising water table.

Wetland

Methods and analysis

The signs of wetland are rather slight, and may simply represent plants growing in the ditches as they filled. They consist of a few records of Persicaria bistorta

The samples were processed using the standard method of paraffin flotation as outlined in Kenward et al (1980) and sorted and identified under a low power binocular 265

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Sample number Context number Feature number Description Weight kg. Volume lt.

1748 F338 Well 4.7 4

86 3359 F913 Ditch 10.5 10

88 3362 F944 Ditch 12 10

159 3594 F1085 Ditch 8.5 8

39 1283 F138 Ditch 13 8

45 1310 F138 Ditch 16.5 10

95 1369 F187 Gully 10 9

103 1282 F138 Ditch 10 10

144 1470 F209 Tank 14 10

145 1464 F209 Tank 15 9

Total number of individuals Number of species % aquatic % waterside % dung / no. terrestrial % grassland / no. of terrestrial % trees / no. of terrestrial

126 24 0.0% 4.8% 5.8% 5.0% 0.0%

95 52 9.5% 1.1% 22.4% 30.6% 1.2%

454 113 11.9% 9.0% 23.1% 20.6% 1.7%

69 47 17.4% 14.5% 25.5% 17.0% 0.0%

533 126 25.0% 13.5% 23.2% 6.7% 1.2%

230 86 16.5% 16.5% 24.7% 11.7% 0.6%

2 2 -

906 156 27.7% 12.3% 22.2% 11.6% 1.3%

209 92 19.6% 12.9% 12.8% 24.8% 2.8%

156 82 9.0% 19.9% 10.8% 21.6% 3.6%

Table 4.31 Insects, Area A and Area E/F, ecological groupings microscope. The context details, weight and volume of each sample are presented at the top of Table 4.31. Where achievable the insect remains were identified to species level by direct comparison to specimens in the Gorham and Girling insect collections housed at the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham. The taxa recovered are presented in Table 4.32. The nomenclature follows that of Lucht (1987). The majority of the taxa present are beetles (Coleoptera) although large numbers of ants (Formicoidea), bugs (Hemoptera) and ear wigs (Dermaptera) are present. The larval resting stages of the water flea (Daphnia spp.) and the head capsules and cases of both cased and caseless caddis flies (Tricoptera) also are present. Head capsules of the larvae of non-biting midges (Chironomidae) are also in some of the samples. Several samples contained the shells of a range of molluscs. These have been provisionally identified here. In order to aid interpretation, where possible, the taxa present have been assigned to ecological groupings following the scheme suggested by Robinson (1981, 1983). The affiliation of each species to a particular ecological grouping is coded in the second column of Table 4.32. The meaning of each ecological code is explained in the key at the base of this table. The occurrence of each of the ecological groupings is expressed as a percentage in Table 4.31 and in Figure 4.44. The pasture/ grassland, dung and woodland/ timber species are calculated as percentages of the number of terrestrial species, as opposed to the whole fauna. The final column in Table 4.32 indicates those species of beetle that are associated with specific plants. The ecology for this information was mainly derived from Koch (1989, 1992).

Results The late 1st-century to 2nd-century faunas (Area E/F) The three insect samples from the Phase 5A livestock enclosures in Area E/F are very similar in their overall nature. As a result of this they will be discussed together. The proportions of the ecological groups presented in Table 4.32 clearly indicate that the majority of the terrestrial fauna present is dominated by species associated either with animal dung or with plants typical of pasture or grassland. The presence of large herbivore dung in the area adjacent to the ditches and the pit examined is suggested by a number of taxa from the three faunas. Primarily this consists of the wide range and number of Scarabaeidae ‘dung beetles’ present, including Aphodius contaminatus, A. granarius and A. prodromus and the Geotrupes or ‘dor’ beetle. A number of species of Staphylinidae are also associated with animal dung. This includes Platystethus arenarius, which appears in some numbers in Phase 5 feature F994 (3362), and Philonthus splendens. Many of the Histerididae present can also be associated with animal dung. The relatively large fauna of phytophages indicates that grassland and/ or waste ground were present in the area. For example the Curculionidae weevils feed on a wide range of species of plants commonly found in meadowland. The presence of docks (Rumex) is clearly suggested by Apion violaceum and Platystethus arenarius. The presence of plantain (Plantago) is also suggested by number of the species recovered, noticeably the relatively large numbers of Gymnetron species and the related Mecinus pyraster. Clover (Trifolium) is also suggested by the presence of various species of Sitona and the large weevil Otiorhynchus ligustici. Small numbers of Elateridae ‘the click beetles’ also suggest the presence of grassland. Elateridae larvae, along with those of the ‘chaffer’ beetle Phyllopertha horticola, occur at the roots of grass in old meadows

266

1 1 2 1 2 -

Carabidae Carabus violaceus L. Carabus granulatus L. C. spp. Leistus spinibarbis (F.) Leistus ferrugineus (L.) Nebria brevicollis (F.) N. salina Fairm. Lab. Notiophilus biguttatus (F.) Loricera pilcornis (F.) Clivina fossor (L.) C. contracta (Fourc.) Dyschirius globosus (Hbst.) Trechus quadristriatus (Schrk.) Trechus obtusus Er. T. quadristriatus (Schrk.) or obtusus Er. Trechoblemus micros (Hbst.) Bembidion lampros (Hbst.) B. properans (Steph.) B. tetracolum Say. B. gilvipes Sturm B. doris (Panz.) B. obtusum Serv. B. biguttatum (F.) B. guttula (F.) Bembidion lunulatum (Fourcr.) B. spp. Asaphidion flavipes (L.) Anisodactylus binotatus ( F.) Harplus rupicola Sturm. Harplus rufibarbis (F.) H. rubripes (Duft.) H. tardus (Panz.) H. spp. Trichocellus placidus (Gyll.) Acupalpus spp. Poecilus versicolor (Sturm) Pterostichus strenuus (Panz.) P. diligens (Sturm)

267 ws

ws

ws

++

1 2 1 3 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 -

88

86

Ecology

Species HEMIPTERA Family, genus and spp. Indet. 1 1 1 1 1 -

-

159

1 1 2 1 4 2 5 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 -

-

39

1 1 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 1

-

45

-

-

95

1 1 1 2 1 4 1 9 2 1 1 1 5 8 5 1 2 6 1 1 -

+++

103

1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2

+

144

1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 -

+

145

Phytophage host plant (data taken from Koch 1989, 1992)

Chapter 4: Romano-British Settlements (Phases 5–8)

268 a a a a a a a a a

Dytiscidae Coelambus impressopunctatus (schall.) Hydroporus palustris (L.) H. spp. Agabus bipustulatus (L.) A. spp. Colymbetes fuscus (L.)

Gyrinidae Gyrinus sp.

Hydreanidae Hydraena britteni Joy

t t t

ws

ws

ws ws

ecology ws ws ws

Halipidae Haliplus spp.

Species P. anthracinus Ill. P. gracilis (Dej.) P. minor (Gyll.) P. melanarius (Ill.) P.madidus (F.) P. spp. Synuchus nivalis (Panz.) Calathus fuscipes (Goeze) C. melanocephalus (L.) Agonum ruficorne (Goeze) A. gracile (Gyll.) A. spp. Platynus dorsalis (Pont.) Amara plebeja (Gyll.) A. aenea (Geer) A. familiaris (Duft.) A. bifrons (Gyll.) A. spp. Badister bipustulatus (F.) Dromius longiceps Dej. D. linearis (Ol.) D. agilis (F.) D. meridionalis Dej. D. quadrisignatus Deg. Syntomus foveatus (Fourcr.)

-

1

1 3 -

-

86 1 1 2 1 -

-

-

2 1

-

88 1 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 -

-

-

1 1

-

159 1 1 -

-

-

11 2 1 -

1

39 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 -

1

-

1 -

1

45 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

-

-

-

-

95 1 -

-

-

1 3 5 1 4 1

-

103 1 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 9 1 1 1 -

-

-

1 1 1

-

144 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 -

-

-

1 -

-

145 1 1

Phytophage host plant (data taken from Koch 1989, 1992)

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

1 -

Liodidae Agathidium sp.

Scydmaenidae Scydmaenidae Gen. & spp. Indet.

Orthoperidae Sericoderus lateralis (Gyll.) Corylophus cassidoides (Marsh.) Orthoperus spp.

1 -

Scaphidiidae Scaphisoma agaricinum ( L.)

Staphylindae Micropeplus staphylinoides( Marsh.) Micropeplus porcatus (Payk.) Metopsia gallica (Koch) Megarthrus sp. Eusphalerum sp. Omalium caesum Grav. O. ?oxyacanthae Grav. O. spp. Xylodromus concinnus (Marsh.) Lathrimaeum unicolor (Marsh.) Lesteva longelytrata (Goeze) Trogophloeus bilineatus (Steph.) T. rivularis Motsch. T. corticinus Grav. T. elongatulus Er. ws ws ws ws ws ws

-

Ptiliidae Ptiliidae Gen. & spp. indet. Acrotrichus spp.

ws ws ws

1 2

-

269 6 20 5 -

-

2 -

-

-

-

88 1 4 -

86 -

ecology a a a

Species H. riparia Kug. H. spp. Ochthebius bicolon Germ. Catopidae Nargus velox (Spence) Choleva spp. Catops spp.

1 1 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

159 -

1 3 1 7 6 -

-

2 1

1 14 -

1

-

-

39 2 3

2 2 4 3 1 -

-

-

8 -

-

-

1 1

45 1 3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

95 -

1 3 1 2 2 17 7 1 2

-

2 -

1 27 1

-

-

2 1

103 3 3

2 3 13 1 -

-

-

1 -

-

-

-

144 1 -

1 1 1 6 1 -

1

1 1

1 -

-

-

1 -

145 1 -

Phytophage host plant (data taken from Koch 1989, 1992)

Chapter 4: Romano-British Settlements (Phases 5–8)

270

Lathridiidae Enicmus minutus (group) Corticaria or Corticarina spp.

ws -

1

Phalacridae Phalacrus caricis Sturm. Phalacrus spp. ws

1

1 -

Cryptophagidae Cryptophagus spp. Atomaria spp.

g g g

Nitidulidae Brachypterus glaber (Steph.) B. spp. Meligethes spp.

-

-

a

Heteroceridae Heterocerus spp.

-

Cucujidae Monotoma longicollis (Gyll.) M. spp.

a a

Dryopidae Dryops spp. Limnius volckmari (Panz.)

2

-

a

Helodidae Helodidae Gen. & spp. Indet (c.f. Cyphon spp.)

86 1 1 -

Rhizophagidae Rhizophagus spp.

g g g

ecology ws

Species T. spp. Aploderus caelatus (Grav.) Oxytelus sculptus Grav. Oxytelus rugosus (F.) Agriotes spp. Adelocera murina (L.) Athous haemorrhoidalis (F.)

10 2

-

5 8

1 -

-

8 25 1

-

-

-

88 5 1 6 8 1 -

1 -

1 -

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

159 1 -

4 6

-

2 15

1

-

1 -

-

1 -

1

39 16 7 1 -

7 3

1 1

7

-

-

1 -

-

1

-

45 3 2 1 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

95 -

8 4

-

3 16

-

-

3 -

1

1 -

-

103 12 12 1 2 -

3 5

1 -

2 1

-

-

2 -

-

-

1

144 6 2 3 1

1 1

-

1

-

1

2 -

-

-

1

145 6 1 1 1

Urtica dioica (stinging nettles)

at roots of various grasses at roots of various grasses at roots of various grasses

Phytophage host plant (data taken from Koch 1989, 1992)

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

1 1 1

Coccinellidae Coccidula rufa (Hbst.) Scymnus sp. Stethorus punctillum Weise Thea vigintiduopuncta (L.)

271 d d d d d d d d g

6 1 1

d d d

Scarabaeidae Geotrupes spp. Onthophagus vacca (L.) O. spp. Oxyomus silvestris (Scop.) Aphodius rufipes (L.) A. obliteratus Panz. A. contaminatus (Hbst.) A. prodromus (Brahm) A. prodromus or A. sphacelatus A. fimetarius (L.) A. ater (Geer) A. granarius (L.) Phyllopertha horticola (L.)

-

-

t

-

Tenebrionidae Tenbrio obscurus F.

Pythidae Rhinosimus planirostris (F.)

Ptinidae Ptinus fur (L.)

t

-

-

Endomychidae Mycetaea hirta (Marsh.)

Anobiidae Anobium punctatum (Geer)

-

Mycetophagidae Typhaea stercorea (L.)

g

-

-

1 4 2 7 1 14 -

-

1

4

4

-

-

-

88

86

ecology

Species Colydiidae Aglenus brunneus (Gyll.)

1 1 2 2 1 1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

159

1 1 9 1 10 5 2 15 -

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

39

3 3 1 6 -

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

-

45

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

95

1 1 17 2 3 12 4 5 18 -

1

-

1

5

-

-

-

-

103

2 3 1 2 2 4 -

1

-

1

1

-

1

-

1

144

1 1 1 -

-

-

1

1

1 -

-

-

-

145

Old grassland

Decaying timber

Phytophage host plant (data taken from Koch 1989, 1992)

Chapter 4: Romano-British Settlements (Phases 5–8)

272 l l

Scolytidae Scolytus rugulosus (Müll.) Leperisinus varius (F.)

Curculionidae Apion frumentarium (Payk.) A. ?rubens Steph. Apion violaceum Kirby A. aeneum (F.) A. radiolus (Marsh.) A. urticarium (Hbst.) A. hookeri Kirby A. cerdo Gerst. A. spp. Otiorhynchus ligustici (L.) Phyllobius spp. Polydrusus sp. Barypeithes sulcifrons (Boh.) Species Sitona hispidulus (F.) S. humeralis Steph. S. spp.

g

ecology g g g

g l g

g g g g g g g g

t

1 4 5 1 86 1

1 -

1 2 1 -

-

t g g g g g t

86

ecology

Chrysomelidae Chrysomela staphylea L. Gastroidea polygoni (L.) G. viridula (Geer) Phaedon armoraciae (L.) P. sp. Phyllodecta vitellinae (L.) P.spp. Phyllotreta spp. Longitarsus sp. Haltica spp. Chalcoides sp. Chaetocnema concinna (Marsh.) C. spp. Psylliodes sp. Cassida c.f. denticollis Suffr

Species Cerambycidae Leptura scutellata F.

1 5 9 88 4 1 6

-

1 3 1 1 -

-

88

3 159 1

-

1 3 -

-

159

1 3 4 1 39 1 3 1

-

1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 -

-

39

1 4 3 1 45 1 -

-

3 -

-

45

95 -

-

-

-

95

1 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 103 5 3

-

1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1

-

103

1 2 1 5 2 1 1 144 2 1

-

1 4 1 1 2 -

1

144

2 1 1 10 145 1 3

1

1 1 1 -

-

145

Trifolium species (clover) Phytophage host plant (data taken from Koch 1989, 1992) Trifolium species often T. pratense (clover) Trifolium species often T. pratense (clover)

Trifolium and Medicago species (clover and medicks) various trees

Rumex species (dock) Rumex species (dock) Rumex species (dock) Malva species (mallows) Malva species (mallows) Urtica dioica (stinging nettle) Tripleurospermum spp. (mayweeds) Vicia species (various vetches)

Various Rosaceae (scrubby trees) Fraxinus (ash)

Often Polygonaceae (the knotgrasses)

Salix species (willow)

Mentha and Plantago species (mints and plantains) Rumex species (dock) Rumex species (dock) Apiaecae spp.

Phytophage host plant (data taken from Koch 1989, 1992)

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

273 g

Mecinus pyraster (Hbst.)

+++

++

-

-

-

-

3

1

1

-

1 -

1

39 1 2 -

Formicoidea Family Genus and spp. indet.

HYMENOPTERA

Forficula auricularia L.

DERMAPTERA

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

3

-

-

1 -

-

159 1 2 -

Cyclorrhapha Family Genus and spp. Indet

++

+++

-

2

4

1

7

1

3

-

1 1 2

-

88 4 3

+++

4

-

6

1

2

-

-

-

1 -

-

86 -

Nematocera Family, Genus and spp. indet.

DIPTERA

Pisidium Lymnea planorbis Daphnia

g g

g

Gymnetron labile (Hbst.)

G. spp.

g

Cidnorhinus quadrimaculatus (L.)

G. pascuorum (Gyll.)

g

g

C. ?melanostictus (Marsh.) g

g g g g g

Hypera spp. Rhinoncus pericarpius (L.) R. gramineus (F.) Ceutorhynchus contractus (Marsh.) C. erysimi (F.)

C. spp.

g

Alophus triguttatus (F.)

C. pollinarius (Forst.)

ecology g ws ws ws

Species Cleonis piger (Scop.) Bagous spp. Tanysphyrus lemnae (Payk.) Notaris acridulus (L.)

+++

++

++++

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

1 2 -

-

45 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

95 -

++

+

++++

2

3

-

1

8

q

1

1

1 4 2 -

-

103 2 2 3

+

++

++ ++ ++++

-

1

6

-

1

-

1

-

2 3

-

144 -

+

++

-

3

1

1

3

1

-

-

1 1

-

145 9 1

Plantago species

Plantago species

Plantago species

Plantago species (plantains)

Urtica dioica (Stinging nettle)

Urtica dioica (Stinging nettle)

Lycopus europaeus and metha species (Gypsywort and mints)

Lemna spp. (duckweed) Glyceria species often G. maxima (Sweet grasses) Plantago (Plantain), Symphytum (comfreys), Eupatorium (Hemp agrimony) Mainly on Trifolium species (clover) Rumex spp. Rumex spp. Brassicaceae sometimes Papaveraceae (the poppies) Brassicaceae often Capsella bursa-pastoris (shepard’s purse)

Phytophage host plant (data taken from Koch 1989, 1992) Often on Cirsium and Carduus (thistles)

Chapter 4: Romano-British Settlements (Phases 5–8)

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

Phytophage host plant (data taken from Koch 1989, 1992)

and pastures. Species of plants associated with disturbed or cultivated ground such as the poppies and shepherds purse (the food plants of Ceutorhynchus contractus and C. erysimi) are also indicated by the fauna. There is evidence for the presence of a rich growth of stinging nettle. This is most clearly suggested by the large numbers of Brachypterus beetles present. Both the weevils Cidnorhinus quadrimaculatus and Ceutorhynchus pollinarius also feed on this plant.

for non Coleoptera the numbers present have been estimated using the following scale; + = >10 individuals ++ = 0.25–1mm). GRMM Moderate, medium, well sorted and angular grog (>0.25–1mm). GRCFV Common, very fine to fine, well sorted and angular grog (0.25–1mm). GRCM/SHRM Common, medium, well sorted, angular grog (>0.25–1mm) with rare, medium, ill sorted platy/ angular shell (>0.25-1mm). GRCC Very common, very coarse, well sorted, angular grog (>3mm). = E02 and E06. GRCC/ROMC Common, coarse, well sorted, angular grog (>1–3mm) with moderate, coarse, poorly sorted angular rock (>1-3mm).c.f. E23. GRVV Very common, very coarse, well sorted, angular grog (>3mm). O04 See Evans Chapter 4 for fabric description. O016 See Evans Chapter 4 for fabric description. P41 See Evans Chapter 4 for fabric description. QUCF Common, very fine to fine, well sorted and well rounded quartz (0.25–1mm). =P02. QUCM/FLRV Common, medium, well-sorted and rounded quartz (>0.25–1mm) with rare, very coarse, poorly sorted and angular flint (>3mm). QUCM/SHCF Common, medium, well sorted and rounded quartz (0.25–1mm) with common, very fine to fine, poorly sorted, angular and platy shell (1–3mm) with rare, coarse, poorly sorted, angular grog (>1–3mm). SHCF Common, very fine to fine, ill-sorted and angular shell (0.05mm. R33 A reduced fabric with a mid grey core, margins and surfaces, with abundant fine sand c 0.05mm and common fine silver mica up to 0.5mm. R34 A reduced fabric with a mid grey core, margins and surfaces, fairly ‘clean’ with some-common fine sand c 0.1mm. Cf R05. R35 London type ware. A reduced fabric with a dark grey core, pale grey margins, and darker grey surfaces, ‘clean’ and ‘soapy’. R36 A reduced fabric with a dark grey core, brown margins and dark grey surfaces, with some-common fine sand c 0.1mm. Cf R34 and R05. R37 A reduced fabric with a grey core, margins and surfaces, with common fine sand c 0.1mm and some rounded calcareous inclusions c 0.2–0.6mm. Cf R15. Grog R42 A reduced fabric with a dark grey core and grey margins and surfaces, with a slightly ‘soapy’ texture, with common sub-rounded grey grog inclusions c 0.2–1.5mm. Organics R51 A reduced fabric with a dark grey core, sometimes brown margins, and dark grey surfaces, with some sand c 0.2–0.3mm and occasional–some fine organics up to 0.5mm in length. Class S, Samian ware S10 S20 S21 S22 S30

South Gaulish, La Graufesenque ware Central Gaulish, Lezoux ware Central Gaulish, Les Martres-de-Veyre ware South Gaulish, Montans ware East Gaulish ware

Class W, Whitewares W01 A whiteware with a white core, margins and surfaces, with a ‘clean’ matrix, with some red ironstone c 0.2–0.5mm. W02 A whiteware with a buff-white core, margins and surfaces, with common fairly coarse sand c 0.3–0.4mm and some orange ironstone(?) up to 5mm. W03 A whiteware with a white core, margins and surfaces, with common translucent sand c 0.2–0.4mm. W04 Nene Valley Creamware(?) A whiteware with a white core, margins and surfaces, with some sand c 0.2– 0.3mm.

311

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 W05 Verulamium region whiteware. A whiteware with a white or pinkish core and white margins and surfaces, with abundant translucent sand c 0.3–0.5mm and very occasional red ironstone c0.3mm. W06 A whiteware with a pinkish-buff core, margins and surfaces, with common sand temper c 0.1–0.2mm. W07 A whiteware with a buff-orange core and cream‑white margins and surfaces, with a powdery texture, with occasional sand c 0.1–0.2mm. Probably a British copy of North French early imported flagons. W08 A whiteware with a dark grey core and white margins and surfaces, with abundant fine sand c 0.1–0.2mm.

312

Appendices APPENDIX 4.2 ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY, FORM OCCURRENCE BY PHASE Area E/F, Phase 5A Fabric

Forms

C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 E01 E02 E03

C11.1 (3362[12]) C12.4X2 (4031[58]) (4052[20]) C12.5X5 (3360[40]) (3127[6]) (3158[17]) (3251[62]) (4052[90]) C12.6 (3251[12]) C12.7X2 (3405[15]) (4052[10]) C12.8 (3687[12]) C12.11 (3465[8]) JAR (3707[2]) C13.3 (3218[4]) C13.4X2 (4052[71][9]) CONSTRICTED-NECK JAR (3158[20]) JAR (2907[67]) C15.1X2 (2877[13]) (3218[8]) C15.2 (3146[9]) C15.3 (3321[6]) C15.4 (3218[6]) C16.1 (3855[17]) C16.2 (3342[6]) C17.1 (2907[15]) C17.2 (3319[6]) JARX4 (2877[16][10]) (3465[5]) (2796[2]) E01.1 (2877[12]) E01.2 (3158[21]) E01.3 (3687[7]) E02.2 (3363[31]) E02.3 (3465[11]) E03.1 (3022[15]) E21 JARX4 (3465[11]) (4031[8]) (3466[4]) (3467[12]) E21.1 (3342[4]) E21.2X2 (3158[11]) (4031[5]) E21.3 (4031[14]) E21.4 (4031[3]) E21.5 (3465[10])

E23

E23.1 (4052[15])

F11

F11.1 (3251[6])

F31 M04 O01 P21 P41 R01 R05 R051

F31.1 (3362[20]) M04.1 (3810[38]) JAR (4030[6]) P21.1 (3342[6]) P41.1 (3360[4]) JAR (3687[8]) R01.9(3714[6]) R01.30 (3687[5]) R05.1 (3714[79]) JAR (3127[5]) R05.3X2 (3362[12]) (3405[9]) R05.4 (3363[13]) R05.7X2 (3687[6]) (3707[40] R051.1 (2907[14]) R051.2 (3127[10])

R08 R081

R08.1 (3251[28]) (3813[28]) JARX5 (3127[6]) (3218[2]) (3251{7][7]) (3360[10]) R08.2 (3142[10]) (3467[2]) R08.3X4 (3465[10]) (3688[18][2]) (3683[12]) R08.4 (3362[18] R08.5 (3769[43]) R08.6 (3251[7]) R08.7 (3251[4]) R081.1 (3764[14])

R082

R082.1 (4031[17])

R09

JAR (2796[15]) (3127[6]) R09.1 (3251[3])

R09

2X2 (2877[11]) (3127[7]) R09.3X2 (3636[11]) (4031[12]) R09.4 (4052[14]) R09.6 (3855[13]) R09.7 (3527[12]) R091 R091.1 (3146[20]) R11 JAR (3360[12]) R11.1 (3360[16]) R11.2 (3855[11]) R11.6 (2513[9] R11.10 (3146[17])

R14 R16

R14.1 (3142[16]) BEAKER (3158[15]) JAR (3297[4]) R16.1 (2796[38]) R16.2 (3760[16])

313

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 R17 R34 R35 R36 R37 S10 S30 W02 W05 W06

R17.1 (3003[30]) JAR (3142[6]) R35.1 (3146[8]) R36.1 (3360[33]) R37.1 (3769[22]) DR18 (3146[19]) DR18/18R (3465[3]) DISH (3253[3]) DR27 (4031[7]) W02.1X3 (3251[46][11]) (3764[25]) W05.1 (3251[6]) W05.2 (3251[18]) J1.1 (3251[33])

Area A, Phase 5B Fabric

Forms

C12 E02 M03 R01 R02 S20

JAR (1284[5]) C11.3 (1011[18]) C11.6 (1381[11]) E02.1 (1259[6]) M03.1 (1010[7] R01.18 (1259[8]) R01.29 (1259[18]) R02.4 (1009[7]) DR18/31/31 (1259[30])

Area A, Phase 5/6 Fabric

Forms

R081 R09

JAR (3194[15]) R09.3 (3194[8])

Area A, Phase 6 Fabric

Forms

C11 C12 C13 C13.5 F02 F03 F05 P11 P21 R01

C11.3 (1027[20]) (1353[7]) C11.7 (1463[14]) C11.10 (1257[12] C12.1 (1454[20]) C12.3 (1476[9]) C12.8 (1257[9]) STORAGE JAR (1286[4]) C13.1 (1048[7]) (1286[10]) F02.4 (1312[5]) F03.1 (1257[7]) F05.3 (1463[5]) P11.1 (1407[2]) P21.1 (1454[55]) JARX4 (1273[10]) (1296[4]) (1453[9]) (1476[9]) R01.2 (1023[30]) R01.4 (1312[12]) R01.7 (1464[7]) R01.17X2 (1376[12])(1476[19]) R01.20 (1304[7]) R01.23 (1484,Q2[10]) R01.24 (1023[10]) (1484,Q2[14][7]) R01.25 (1023[9] R02 JAR (1376[3]) R02.6 (1376[6]) R02.11 (1476[1]) R02.15 (1376[16]) BOWL (1049[1]) R02.18 (1041[7]) (1476[9] R04 R04.4X2 (1376[3]) (1453[2]) R04.5 (1463[6]) R04.8X2 (1376[10])(1454[6]) R04.10 (1274[16]) R07 R07.1 (1476[5]) R11 JAR (1453[2]) (1476[9]) R11.3X3 (1464[7]) (1536[6]) (1484,Q2[11]) R12JARX3(1291[7]) (1484,Q2[3]) (1376[8]) R12.3 (1376[6]) R21 R21.4 (1484,Q2[10])

314

Appendices R31 S20

R31.2 (1296[9]) DR33 (1353[8])

Area A, Phase 7B Fabric

Forms

C11 C11.4 (1523[20]) C11.6 (1295[10]) C12 C12.3 (1275[7]) F01 F01.9 (1264[11]) F01.16 (1522[7]) F01.18 (1293[3]) R01 R01.2 (1293[17]) R01.7 (1295[24]) R01.8 (1293[13]) R01.21 (1295[20]) R02 R02.5 (1275[9]) R02.18 (1295[6]) R04 R04.4X2 (1275[11]) (1295[17]) R04.8 (1275[3]) R04.10 (1293[6]) R05 R05.6 (1523[5]) JAR (1264[5]) Area A, Phase 6/7 Fabric

Forms

R11

R11.8 (1396[10])

Area A, Phase 7A Fabric

Forms

B01 C11 C12

B01.1 (1028[4][7]) C11.2 (1306[13]) C11.6 (1363[13]) C11.9 (1003[1]

C12.1X5 (1359[17]) (1363[16]) (1001[9]) (1391[16]) (1403[10]) C12.3 (1337[10]) C12.8 (1337[21]) C12.9 (1403[15]) C12.10 (1344[7]) C13 C13.3 (1391[9]) F01 F01.1 (1028[40]) F01.6 (1003[15]) F01.8 (1403[51]) F01.10X2 (1014[1]) (1345[2]) F01.11X5 (1028[8]) (1307[9]) (1357[8][1]) (1487[2]) F01.14 (1003[5]) F01.15 (1320[4]) F01.17 (1306[7]) BOWL (1006[14]) F01.19 (1003[5] F02 F02.1 (1028[10]) F02.2X2 (1337[12]) (1358[4]) M02 MORT (1357[1]) Q03 Q03.1 (1391[9]) R01 CONSTRICTED-NECK JAR (1320[10]) JARX4 (1357[10][7]) (1403[6]) (1001[7]) R012X2 (1003[10]) (1403[8]) R01.3X2 (1001[9]) (1003[25]) R01.4X3 (1003[5][3]) (1013[16]) R01.6X2 (1337[14][24]) R01.7 (1403[13]) R01.8 (1003[12]) R01.10X3 (1028[14]) (1337[9]) (1363[11]) R01.11 (1390[9]) R01.13 (1337[12]) R01.14X2 (1337[42]) (1365[6]) R01.16 (1391[18]) R01.17 (1474[9]) R01.25 (1363[10]) R01.27 (1345[13]) R01.28 (1487[7]) R02 R02.1 (1318[18]) R02.3 (1003[6]) R02.6 (1337[4]) R02.15X2 (1359[5])(1365[6]) R02.16 (1391[11])

315

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 R04 R05 R11 R12 R21 S20

R02.17X2 (1028[9]) (1337[9]) R02.18X5 (1003[10]) (1006[20][2]) (1013[6]) (1320[4]) R04.1 (1028[13]) R04.3(1013[5]) R04.4X2(1309[9]) (1390[3]) R04.5 (1388[5]) R04.7 (1630[9]) R04.8X4 (1320[9][7]) (1345[8]) (1447[17]) JARX2 (1028[4]) (1370[6]) R11.3X2 (1320[7]) (1391[12]) R11.4(1365[6]) R12.9X2 (1003[16]) (1320[2]) R21.1 (1028[16]) DR33 (1401[16]) DR18/31R/31RX2 (1028[1]) (1307[5]) DR31/31R (1307[4])

Area A, Phase 7B Fabric

Forms

C11

C11.3X3 (1301[11][5]) (1255[11]) C11.5 (1301[17]) C11.8 (1297[12]) C11.9 (1255[13]) C12 JARX3 (1255[5]) (1279[6]) (1301[2]) C12.1X4 (1255[10]) (1301[11][25][17]) C12.2 (1255[11]) C12.3X2 (1020[5]) (1255[10]) C12.4(1022[10]) C12.8 (1301[25]) C12.9X4 (1255 [12]) (1301[8]) (1330[4]) (1409, L1[11]) C12.12 (1279[14]) F01 F01.2 (1279[32]) F01.6 (1410,S2[10]) F01.7 (1409,L1[12]) BOWL(1256[5]) F01.10X3 (1255[1] [30]) (1301[10]) F01.11 (1297[6]) F01.15(1255[18]) F01.17 (1297[7]) (1278[17]) F06 F06.1 (1255[100]) F06.2 (1255[8]) M03 MORT (1301[1]) M03.1X2 (1020[1]) (1285[7]) M03.2 (1409[26) O01 O01.1 (1330[7]) O04 O04.1 (1255[16]) R01 JARX6 (1020[8]) (1256[6]) (1301[7]) (1409,L1[4][8][4]) R01.2 (1301[11]) R01.3 (1020[8]) R01.4 (1301[9]) R01.5 (1031[6]) R01.6X3 (1279[13]) (1301[10][14]) R01.11X2 (1301[5]) (1409,L1[10]) R01.12 (1301[17]) R01.17 (1256[10]) R01.20 (1301[20]) R01.22 (1297[45]) R01.26 (1301[8]) R02 R02.2 (1255[7]) JAR (1301[8]) R02.9 (1409,L1[39]) R02.10 (1301[15]) R02.14 (1301[24]) R02.15 (1301[31]) R02.18X2 (1301[3]) (1409,L1[6]) R04 R04.4X3 (1279[18]) (1330[5]) (1409,L1[5]) R04.6 (1297[12]) R04.8X4 (1279[8]) (1330[2]) (1409,L1[7][4]) R05 R05.5 (1301[8]) R06 R06.1 (1409,L1[1]) R06.2 (1412[7]) JAR (1409,L1[4]) R11 R11.8 (1015[6]) R11.9 (1330[12]) R12 R12.1 (1411[15]) R12.2 (1301[5]) R12.4 (1330[14]) BOWL (1255[3]) R21 R21.2 (1301[4]) R22 R22.2 (1412[17]) R31 R31.1 (1020[12]) S20 DR33 (1301[7]) W04 W04.2 (1301[5]) Area A, Phase 7C Fabric Forms R01

R01.2 (1263[14]) R01.4 (1263[16])

316

Appendices Area A, Phase 7D Fabric

Forms

C11 C12 F01 R01 R02 R04 Z30*

C11.12 (1354[10]) C12.1 (1354[9]) F01.10 (1354[11]) JAR (1356[7]) R01.20 (1354[7]) JAR (1354[2]) R04.4 (1354[6][11]) R04.8 (1354[3]) WIDE MOUTHED JAR/BOWL

* = intrusive Area A, Phase 8 Fabric

Forms

C11 C12

C11.3 (1379,Q1,L2[22]) C12.1X5 (1551,Q3[100]) (1379[9]) (1379,Q1,L3[5]) (1497,Q1,L4[20]) (1379,Q1,L4[13]) C12.2X2 (1497,Q1,L4[10]) (1551,Q3[10]) C12.3 (1497,Q1,L4[29]) C12.8X2 (1497,Q1,L4[23]) (1551,Q3[20]) C12.9X3 (1379,Q1,L3[10]) (1551,Q3[5][15]) C13 C13.2 (1379,Q2,L1[6]) F01 F01.3 (1379,Q2,L1[20]) F01.4 (1551,Q3[9]) F01.5 (1379,Q2,L2[21]) F01.6 (1497,Q1,L4[22]) F01.10 (1379,Q1,L3[11]) F01.11X14 (1379[19][9]) (1379,Q?,L2[10]) (1379,Q1,L1[36][4]) (1379, Q1,L4[13]) (1379,Q2,L1[13][6]) (1497,Q1,L4[14][5][5][11]) (1551,Q3[17][6]) F01.12X4 (1379,Q1,L1[7]) (1379,Q1,L3[10][7]) (1497,Q1,L4[11]) F01.13 (1254[9]) F01.15X2 (1379,Q1,L4[45]) (1497,Q1,L4[8]) F01.18 (1379,Q1,L3[2]) F01.19 (1379,Q1,L1[3]) (1551,Q3[5]) F03 JAR (1379,Q1,L2[5]) F05 F05.1 (1497,Q1,L4[7]) M02 M02.1 (1379[22]) O04 O04.2 (1317[6]) R01 R01.1 (1497,L4[10]) JARX5 (1379,Q1,L1[5][4]) (1379,Q2,L4[8]) (1551,Q3[5][5]) R01.8 (1379[14]) (1379,Q1,L4[12]) R01.10 (1379,Q1,L2[14]) (1379,Q2,L1[7]) R01.16 (1379,Q1,L4[19]) (1497,L4[12]) (1551,Q3[12]) R01.17 (1497,L4[20]) R02 JARX4 (1379,Q1,L1[5]) (1497,L4[3][3]) (1551,Q3[1]) R02.6X2 (1379[15]) (1379,Q1,L3[11] R02.7X4 (1379,Q1,L3[15]) (1379,Q1,L4[16][12]) (1497,L4[10]) R02.10X6 (1379,Q1,L3[11]) (1379,Q1,L4[16]) (1497,L4[14][13]) (1497,Q1,L4[22][8]) R02.11 (1551,Q3[20]) R02.13X2 (1485[14])(1497,L4[12]) R02.17X3 (1497,L4[4]) (1497,Q1,L4[7][3]) R02.18X3 (1497,L4[17]) (1497,Q1,L4[6]) (1551,Q3[16]) R04 R04.2 (1497,L4[17] R04.4X4 (1379,Q1,L3[17][7]) (1497,L4[16]) (1551,Q3[21]) R04.5X3 (1379,Q?,L2[6]) (1497,L4[14])(1551,Q3[10]) R04.8X4 (1379,Q1,L3[19]) (1497,L4[6]) (1551,Q3[26][10]) R05 JARX2 (1379,Q1,L1[9]) (1379,Q1,L3[6]) R05.2 (1379,Q1,L3[9]) R11 R11.3X3 (1379,Q1,L3[9]) (1379,Q2,L3[13]) (1551,Q3[30]) R11.4 (1379,Q?,L2[17]) R11.8X2 (1379,Q1,L3[10]) (1497,L4[13]) R12 JARX4 (1497,Q1,L4[5][6]) (1551,Q3[6][3]) R12.3 (1379,Q1,L3[6]) (1551,Q3[16][7]) R12.4X4 (1379,Q?,L2[9]) (1379,Q2,L1[11]) (1497,Q1,L4[10][25])

317

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998

R12.5X3 (1379[6]) (1379,Q1,L4[29]) (1497,Q1,L4[67]) R12.6 (1379,Q1,L3[12]) R12.7(1497,Q1,L4[13]) R12.8 (1379,Q1,L1[6]) R21 R21.3X3 (1379[19]) (1379,Q?,L2[10]) (1551,Q3[41]) R22 R22.1 (1379,Q1,L2[10]) W04 W04.1 (1551,Q3[18])

318

Appendices APPENDIX 4.3 ANIMAL BONES FROM THE ROMANO-CELTIC SHRINE AT LITTLE PAXTON Emily Murray Quantity and provenance A small assemblage of hand-collected animal bones was recovered during the salvage excavation of the RomanoCeltic Shrine at Diddington in 1986–1987 (see Fig. 1.5 for location). A brief report on the excavation was prepared subsequent to the investigations but no further analysis was undertaken (Jones 2001b). Unfortunately, only partial stratigraphic details survive with the result that the dating for the majority of the contexts is insecure. Most of the animal bone assemblage must therefore be considered as unstratified. Faunal remains from four dated features was recorded in full along with a relatively large sample of bone from F541, although no records survive for this feature. The other features for which the animal bones were recorded are; F540, marked as having come from the enclosure ditch of the shrine; F2 and F3, two linear features located to the south of the shrine, also Romano-British in date; and F26, a well-dated Iron Age pit. The remainder of the assemblage was given a cursory examination to note the presence of any unusual or interesting specimens. Preservation Although fragmented, the preservation of the mammal bones (cortical integrity) was good. F541 had a mixture of waterlogged and non-waterlogged bone which may indicate that the bones derived from different layers within the feature, or alternatively, that the context had been disturbed sometime prior to excavation. Methods of quantification and identification The assemblage was recorded using a modified version of a system devised by Davis (Davis 1992; Albarella and Davis 1994). This system considers a selection of anatomical elements as ‘countable’, while the presence of ‘noncountable’ specimens of interest is noted. Antlers and horncores were recorded, but not ‘counted’, if the specimen had a complete transverse section. Bones of caprines were differentiated on a limited number of specimens using the criteria described in Boessneck (1969), Kratochvil (1969) and Payne (1969 and 1985). Species represented The range of species represented are cattle, sheep/ goat, pig, horse, red deer and domestic fowl (Tables A–B) and F540 also had oyster (Ostrea edulis) shells. A third of the caprine bones were positively identified as sheep. No identifiable goat bones were observed and it is probable that the majority of the elements that could not be speciated belong to sheep, as goat is rarely found on Roman sites in Britain (Albarella 1998, 102). The tooth wear stages for the main domesticates from the shrine are listed in Table C and the age-slaughter pattern for caprines shows a leaning towards the slaughter of young lambs aged between 6–12 months (Payne stage C). The presence of young animals was also demonstrated by the post-cranial bones, as many were unfused, including two halves of a metapodial shaft from a neonatal individual. The Romans prized sheep and goats milk (Dobney 2001, 37) and the remains of young lambs at Diddington may reflect the importance of the use of dairy products from these animals. One complete horse longbone, a metacarpal from F540, gave an estimated withers height of 13.3hh (after Vitt 1952) and this compares best in size with a pony. A proximal horse metacarpal, from F21 (ring ditch, possibly Iron Age), had several horizontal knife cuts located around the proximal end indicating skinning and/ or defleshing. Six separate pieces of red deer antler tine (‘non-countable’) were recovered from F2 and F3. One of these had been sawn across one end while the shaft of a cattle metatarsal from F21 was sawn transversely, proximal to the distal epiphysis. These specimens indicate that both bone and antler were worked by occupants of the site. The presence of a red deer metacarpal indicates that venison must also have been exploited. The occurrence of red deer, as well as roe deer and badger, was recorded in an assessment of the late Roman material from excavations at the quarry (Area A) also at Little Paxton, Diddington (Albarella and Hammon 1999). Signs of carnivore gnawing were noted on cattle and horse bones from F2, F3, F540 and F541 and a sheep tibia, also from F541, had been heavily gnawed by a rodent.

319

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 Discussion The general trend for animal bone assemblages in the transition from the Iron Age to Roman period is a decline in sheep and a dominance of cattle (Dobney 2001, 36–37; King 1991, 16–17). Few Roman sites have a dominance of sheep/ goat although those that do, according to Luff (1992, 117) are assigned to the 1st or 2nd centuries AD while a number of rural and provincial Roman sites also have a greater frequency of sheep/goat (Albarella 1998, 102; King 1991, 17). The assemblage from the Little Paxton shrine is too small, and the dating and contextual information too insecure to allow quantitative analysis or any meaningful analysis of temporal variation. However, there were twice as many caprine bones as cattle in the Romano-British assemblage. Given the method of recovery, ie hand-collection during a salvage excavation, one might expect a bias towards the recovery of bones of large animals. The fact that this is not the case may therefore reflect, even under-represent, a genuine predominance of caprines rather than cattle. This is not apparently the case for the contemporary site (Area A) at Little Paxton quarry immediately adjacent to the shrine, as cattle were found to dominate the number of ‘countable’ bones recorded in the assessment of the hand-collected assemblage (Albarella and Hammon 1999). The animal bone assemblage recovered from excavations of the roman temple at Uley also had a high percentage of sheep/ goat bones (Woodward 1992, 74–75). This included a large number of goats which has been interpreted as evidence for ritual activity, as their presence, along with domestic fowl, was interpreted as being associated with the cult of Mercury the main deity worshipped at the temple (ibid). The presence of articulated or semiarticulated skeletons can also be indicative of ritual activity (Dobney 2001, 42–43) but there were no records for the occurrence of either from the shrine at Little Paxton. TABLE 4.3A: NUMBER OF ‘COUNTABLE’ SPECIMENS (NISP) BY SPECIES AND FEATURE FROM THE SHRINE

Phase Feature Cattle (Bos taurus) Sheep/ Goat (Ovis/ Capra) Sheep (Ovis aries) Pig (Sus scrofa) Horse (Equus sp.) Red deer (Cervus elaphus) Domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) Domestic fowl/Pheasant (Gallus/ Phasianus) Total NISP

Iron Age F26 8

Romano-British F540 F2 3 10 6

2 1 9

4 2 2 2 2 18

‘Sheep/ goat’ includes the specimens identified to species

320

1 1 1 11

F3 5 4

R-B? F541 7 6

2 3 3 15

3 8 4 1 26

Total NISP 15 34 12 14 10 1 3 2 79

321

Feature F541 F2 F2/7/1–17 F2 F2/7/1–17 F2 F3 B/C F541 F540 F541 F3 B/C F541 F2 F541 F541 F540 F540 F541 F541 F540 F540

F540

F540

Element tibia tibia metatarsal horncore horncore metacarpal astragalus humerus metacarpal phalanx 1 tibia metacarpal metatarsal tibia tibia tibia tibia scapula humerus femur tibia

tibia

tibia

-

-

GL 2110 892 1327 1240 661 705 c 1009

95

95

Bd 636 511 468 421 c 467 604 257 203 258 278 281 285 139 131 97

-

-

BFd 474 -

98

89

Dd 113 100

-

-

BT 648 -

-

-

HTC 328 -

-

-

SD 342 134 101 63 60 59

-

-

237 -

-

-

669 -

-

-

963

-

-

478 -

-

-

640 -

-

-

297 505 -

-

-

227 389 -

Measurements largely follow von den Driesch (1976) and humerus HTC, BT and Bd are taken for all species using the method described by Payne and Bull (1988, 42) for pigs. ‘Wmax’ and ‘Wmin’ are the largest and smallest diameters at the base of horncores and ‘L’ is the length of the outer curvature of the horncore.

Taxa Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Cervus elaphus Equus sp. Equus sp. Equus sp. Equus sp. Equus sp. Ovis aries Ovis aries Ovis aries Ovis aries Ovis aries Ovis aries Sus Gallus gallus Gallus gallus Gallus gallus Gallus/ Phasianus Gallus/ Phasianus

TABLE 4.3B: POST-CRANIAL MEASUREMENTS TO THE NEAREST MILLIMETERE, OF MAMMAL AND BIRD BONE FROM THE SHRINE

Appendices

Excavations at Little Paxton Quarry, Cambridgeshire, 1992–1998 TABLE 4.3C: INDIVIDUAL TOOTH WEAR STAGES OF LOOSE TEETH (L) AND TEETH IN MANDIBLES (M) FOR CATTLE (B) AND PIGS (S) AFTER GRANT (1982) AND SHEEP (OVA) AND SHEEP/GOAT (O) AFTER PAYNE (1973 AND 1987) Feature/ context F541 F541 F3 B/C F3 B/C F3 B/C F3 F540 F540 F540 F541 F26 F26 1004 F540 F540 F3 B/C F3 B/C F541 F3 B/C F2 F26 1003 F540 F2/7/1–17 F26 1002 F540 F540 F541 F541 F541 F541 F2 F3 B/C

Taxa B B B B B B O O O O OVA OVA OVA OVA OVA OVA O O O O O O O O S S S S S S S

M/L L L L L M M L L L L M M M M M M M M M M M M M M L L M M M M M

P3 P P -

P4 5A 7A 7A 9A c -

DP4 H 13L 16L 16L 14L 16L 16L 17L g

M1 k b 4A 6A 6A 7A 6A 6A 7A 9A 9A 9A 9A 9A m j d

M2 k 8A 9A 8A 9A 9A 9A 9A l H

M3 U g j 11G 11G 10G 4B 2A 8G 11G 11G b V f c -

M12 c b 9A c -

Mandible wear stages Elderly Immature B/C C C C C C C/D D/E E E E E/F G G Subadult Adult Adult Immature

Teeth whose wear stage was recordable were assigned to the mandibular stages of O’Connor (1988) for cattle and pig, and Payne (1973) for caprines. Mandible wear stages for sheep after Payne (1973): C = 6–12 mths, D = 1–2 yrs, E = 2–3 yrs, F = 3–4 yrs, G = 4–6 yrs

322