Relations of Production: Social Networks, Social Change and the Organization of Agriculture in Late Prehistoric Southern Britain 9781841713007, 9781407319681

Citation preview

Relations of Production Social Networks, Social Change and the Organization of Agriculture in Late Prehistoric Southern Britain

Gloria Polizzotti Greis

BAR British Series 3 3 0 2002

Published in 2019 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 330 Relations of Production © Gloria Polizzotti Greis and the Publisher 2002 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 9781841713007 paperback ISBN 9781407319681 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841713007 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com 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 John and Erica Hedges in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2002. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2019.

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

for Michael

ABSTRACT

Southern Britain in the Bronze and Iron Ages was a time of transition , in which the organization of society apparently changed from a decentralized ( or "tribal") fonn to a centralized ("chiefdom ") pattern. Although the material correlates of this transition are quite visible in mainland Europe (exotic imports , rich burials , elite residential sites) , such assemblages are not represented in the British archaeological record. Therefore , there is considerable disagreement about the degree of complexity and social integration in later prehistoric Britain. This study attempts to investigate this issue through the medium of agricultural data . The techniques offloral and fauna] analysis (herd structure , ecological niche specialization , plant sociolog y) can be used to construct model s of agricultural production . These models are socioeconomic - they not only elucidate patterns of subsistence production , but are structured in a way that relates subsistence data to the social relationships of egalitarian and hierarchical societies: producer / consumer relationships , reciprocity , redistribution and tribute . The link between the social and economic dimension s of these relationships is crucial to an understanding of how hierarchie s develop , and fonn s the focus of this paper. The results of thi s study indicate that the social geograph y of Britain in later prehistory was quite varied across the region . The data from two of the three areas studied - the South Downs and Wesse x- indicate the presence of redistributive or even tributary hierarchies , identified as chiefdom s. The third area , East Anglia, exhibit s a greater degree of social and economic decentralization , identified as tribal in organization. An analysis of the results of this study showed that the models could be quite sensitive to variation in the social relationships among sites and between regions . This sensitivity made it possible to define issues for further study concerning the relationships of central and producer sites , and whether certain classes of sites (e.g. trade sites) might have had a different type of socioeconomic relationship with the center than did fann sites. Finally, it was noted that the models developed for this study could easily be adapted for use with data from other areas of the world , making possible cross-cultural comparisons of socioeconomic relationships.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. SOCIOECONOMIC PREHISTORY: Toward an Understanding of the Social Basis for Economic Behavior . ..............

1

1.1. The Study of Agricultural Economies in Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2. Social Archaeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 4 1.3. Socioeconomic Archaeology ......................................... 7 1.4. The Case Study: Southern Britain in the Bronze and Iron Ages ..................... 8

CHAPTER 2. TODAY'S DINNER, TOMORROW'S DATA: The Interpretation of Food Residues in the Archaeological Record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.1. Plant Remains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 2.1.1. the Wheats ..................... .. .......................... .. 2.1.2. Barley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3. Rye. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4. Oats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.5. the Pulses. . . . . . . . . . 2.1.6. Weeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weeds as economic resources Weeds as indicators of local ecology Weeds as indicators of economic intensity 2.1.7. Archaeological Deposition of Plant Remains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvest Threshing Storage Parching 2.2. Fauna) Remains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. Cattle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. Sheep/Goats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3. Pigs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4. Horses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.5. Wild Animals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Red/Roe Deer Wild animals as economic resources Wild animals as indicators of local ecology 2.2.6. Archaeological Deposition of Animal Remains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Activity Areas Feasting Hide Processing 2.3. Compensating for Variation in Analytical Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 3. RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION: Constructing Economic Models of Social Behavior. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8.

The Self-Sufficient Agricultural Economy. Producers and Consumers . . . . . . . . Intensification of Production. . . . . . . Specialization and Diversity. . . . . . . Reciprocity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Redistribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tribute ... Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 10 11 12 12 12 12

15

16 16 17 17 18 18

19

19

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 4. The SOUTHEASTERN COUNTIES: Kent, Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex. . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 22 24 25 26 28 29 30

.. 31 . 31

31 4.2. Bronze Age and Iron Age Settlements in the Southeast. . . . . . . . 34 4.3. the Southeast: Site Records . 4.3. I . the Late Bronze Age 4.3.2. the Early Iron Age 4.3.3. the Late Iron Age 4.4. Discussion: Agricultural and Social Developments in the Southeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

CHAPTER 5. The EASTERN COUNTIES: Norfolk, Essex, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire . ............................

45

5.1. Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Bronze Age and Iron Age Settlements in the Eastern Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. the Eastern Counties: Site Records. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. 1. the Early and Middle Bronze Age 5.3.2. the Late Bronze Age 5.3.3. the Middle Iron Age 5.3.4 . the Late Iron Age 5.4. Agricultural and Social Development s in the Eastern Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 45 48

57

CHAPTER 6. WESSEX: Dorset, Somerset, Avon, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Hampshire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 6 . 1. Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 6.2. Bronze Age and Iron Age Settlements in Wessex. . . . . . . . ..... 59 6.3. Wessex : Site Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 6.3. l. the Early and Middle Bronze Ages 6.3 .2. the Late Bronze Age 6.3.3. the Early Iron Age 6.3.4. the Middle Iron Age 6.3.5. the Late Iron Age 6.4. Agricultural and Social Developments in Wessex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

CHAPTER 7. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS . ........................... 7. I. 7.2. 7. 3. 7.4.

99

The Social Organization of Subsistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 A Socioeconomic Model of Development in Britain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 02 Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

APPENDIX 1. Sociological Classification and Ecological Range of Plant Species Mentioned in the Text . .. 104 1. 1. Sociological Classification of Plant Communities. 1.2. List of Synonymous Sociological Terminology. . . . . 1.3. Ecological Characteristics of Weed Species. . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

APPENDIX 2. Ecological Characteristics of the Mammal and Bird Species Mentioned in the Text . ...... 2.1. Ecological 2.2. Ecological

Characteristics Characteristics

120

of the Mammal Species. 120 of the Bird Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

APPENDIX 3. Gazetteer of Sites Used in this Text . REFERENCES . .............................

104 110 I 14

123 .

125

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No long-term project such as this is possible without the help of family, friends, colleagues and teachers. This study is a revision of my doctoral dissertation, Socioeconomic Prehistory: Social Change and the Organization of Agriculture in late Prehistoric Southern Britain (Harvard University Department of Anthropology, 1995). First ofall , I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their advice and assistance: Professor Peter S. Wells (now of the University of Minnesota), the late Professor K. C. Chang, and Professor C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky. Together they set me a formidable scholarly example to follow. I would like to express my gratitude to the Faculty of the Department of Anthropology for their knowledge and guidance, but I especially wish to single out Dr. Stephen Williams, for his valued assistance and advice both scholarly and practical, and for the broad range of his interests; Dr. Rosemary Joyce (now in the Department of Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley), who was both inspiration and sounding-board ; and Professor William L. Fash, for helping to put things in perspective and for moral support. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Administration and Staff of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, where I was formerly employed as Archaeological Collections Manager. While working on my dissertation, they provided me with the flexibility I needed to complete the project, accomodating my absences even when they were not convenient. Many thanks and more affection to my colleagues in the Collections Department, who carried the load that I so frequently shifted onto their shoulders, cheering me on all the while. Dr. Rubie Watson, Director of the Peabody Museum, provided me with the Research Fellowship necessary for me to revise this text. I thank the staff of the Tozzer Library for their assistance, their unfailing kindness, and their supernatural ability to locate even the most obscure references. Dr. Alan J. Silverside, now at the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Paisley, gave me permission to use material from his doctoral dissertation, A Phytosociological Survey of British Arable-Weed and Related Communities (Department of Botany, University of Durham, 1977)· he also offered helpful advice about further sources. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their constant faith, encouragement and support. Most of all, I thank my husband , Michael Greis, whose help was essential to the completion of this project ; and my beautiful children, Madeleine and Adam, who provided all the necessary distractions. It is to Michael that this volume is dedicated, with all my love.

Gloria Polizzotti Greis Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Harvard University

"Oneforms provisional theories and waits for time or fuller knowledge to explode them. A bad habit, Mr. Ferguson , but human nature is weak."

-Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire

CHAPTER 1: Socioeconomic Prehistory: toward an understanding of the social basis for economic behavior

"The artificiality of culture is in itself a sufficient argument against studying prehistory as though it was a natural science. Yet it is surely an equal error to suppose that culture is something outside nature: man after all is a natural organism and his culture is in essence a traditional medium for harmonizing social needs and aspirations with the realities of the physical world . . . Modes of subsisten ce confront us with the most vital aspect of economic life or indeed of life itself, since, not merely does survival itself depend on food, but the methods by which food is acquired affect more or less closely all other departments of cultural ltfe. . . Above all, [subsistence} illustrates how, in the case of man, the preliminari es to even such an overtly biological act as eating conform to patterns of social behavior. A knowledge of the efforts by which early man maintained life is essential to an understanding both of individual cultures and of the process of change unfolded in prehistory. " - Grahame Clark , "The Economic Approach to Prehistory" ( 1953 :218-220)

1.1. THE STUDY OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIES IN EUROPE Although the development of most analytic techniques for studying ancient agricultural economies is relatively new , the importance of such study has been understood for a long time. As early as 1826 C. Kunth publi shed a report identifying the desiccated remains of food plants found in Egyptian tombs and comparing them to modern forms (cited in J. Renfrew 1973: 1). In Europe , the greatest impetus for this type of study , and for nineteenth-century archaeology as a whole , was the discovery of the "Lake Dwellings" in Switzerland and Germany during the dry winter of I 853-54 (Keller 1866). Specialists were engaged to report on the remains of plants and animals that had been so abundantly preserved in the waterlogged deposits ; and these reports , while they lack much of the analytic sophistication of more modem efforts , are nonetheless notable in that they established the pattern for floral and faunal analyses that would prevail for the next century . The plant report by Oswald Heer , the "Father of Paleoethnobotany ", is credited with establishing the connection between archaeology and botany , and the use of modern plant science in the study of ancient floral remains (Helbaek 1953). Heer (1860) identified the remains and discussed means of distinguishing the archaeological from the intrusive specimens. He also used the floral remains to establish that the sites were

occupied the year round , to compare the differences in resource availability between sites , and to document changes in the domesticates over time due to cultivation. He speculated on the diffusion of the domesticated grain crops from the Near East, especially Egypt , and attempted to date the sites based on the occurrence of such domesticates in Egypt and mentions of them in the Bible. In the same publication , the report by Ludwig RUtimeyer on the animal bones emphasized the comparison between the ancient faunal assemblage and the fauna of the area in his own times (Rtitimeyer 1861, I 866). Like Heer , Riltimeyer discussed environmental reconstruction , seasonality , and morphological changes attendant upon domestication. He proposed a chronology that distinguished between the earlier layers where wild fauna were more abundant and the later layers in which the assemblages were dominated by domestic forms. The reports of Keller's excavations had a profound effect on European archaeology, as scholars all over Europe began searching the marshy regions of their countries for "LakeDwellings" (e .g. Bulleid and Gray 1911-1917 , Munro 1882, Troyon 1860, Curcic 1913, Gastaldi 1865) . The published reports of his excavations were widely read , setting a standard that would be imitated well into the twentieth century ( e.g . Greenwell I 870, Balch 1914, Duerst 1908 , PittRivers 1887-1898 , Bulleid and Gray 1911-1917) . During this same period , techniques of systematic excavation were being formalized by Pitt-Rivers , who was a protege of Henry Christie and who received his early training in archaeolog y from Canon Greenwell. Pitt-Rivers' major work , Excavations in Cranborne Chase (1887-1898) laid out both his methods and his discoveries in detail , and its organization owed much to the pattern established by Keller . Pitt-Rivers believed that the duty of the excavator lay in excavating and recording a site as fully as possible so that future researchers might themselves be able to use data dug up by others: "Excavators , as a rule , record only those things which appear to them important at the time , but fresh problems in Archaeology and Anthropology are constantly arising , and it can hardly fail to have escaped the notice of anthropologists ... that on turning back to old accounts in search of evidence , the points which would have been most valuable have been passed over from being thought uninteresting at the time. Every detail should , therefore , be recorded in the manner most conducive to facility ofreference , and it ought at all times to be the chief object of the excavator to reduce his own personal equation to a minimum." (Pitt -Rivers 1887-1898: l:xvii)

societies of the past:

Accordingly, and despite his own primary interest in art styles, Pitt-Rivers devoted much space in his reports to the description and analysis of the ancient agricultural evidence. Plant remains were scarce at the Cranborne Chase sites, and made more so because Pitt-Rivers' excavation techniques could recover only wood fragments and concentrated deposits of carbonized grains. The wood fragments were identified by a specialist, and the species present were compared to the modern wood cover of the area and found to be similar. Grain deposits were also identified by type. PittRivers estimated the productivity of the ancient crops by comparing a count of the kernels per cubic inch of the ancient grain with a sample of modern grain grown by his tenants. He was careful to replicate as closely as possible the growing conditions of the ancient and modem samples, including soil type for the fields in which they were grown, drainage, direction of slope, and height above sea level. He found that for the most favorable field situations the ancient yield was almost identical to the modern, but that the ancient yields for the poorer soils was only half that of the modem crops.

"The problems are too easy; one might say that the savant was no more than a master craftsman. The whole subject consists merely of a comparison of forms and of systematizations . . . Brilliant systematization, regarded as exact, has not led and does not lead to an elucidation of the organic structure of the whole life of the period studied, and to an understanding of the social systems, of economic and social history, to the history of religious ideas. In short, forms and types, that is, products, have been regarded as more real and alive than the society which created them and whose needs determined these manifestations of life." (Tallgren 1937:154-155) In Ta1lgren's opinion, the formal characteristics of artifacts were only relevant in that the artifacts are tangible manifestations of the productive system, and whose forms derived from their functions in that system. Therefore the starting point for the study of "the whole life of the period" should be the economic system, that is "the economic and social basis, of which the objects are manifestations" ( 1937:158). Moreover, Tallgren claimed that he was not alone in his criticism, but that he was merely articulating the "strong demand" of numerous dissatisfied colleagues for a "modification of the whole character and method of archaeology" (1937:158).

Pitt-Rivers also had all of the intact animal bones from the sites identified and measured. The measurements and quantities were published, by feature and depth, along with the other artifacts in his summary "Relic Tables". Although the collection was unsystematic (all fragmentary bones were discarded) he used the retained bone sample to estimate herd composition and the relative importance of livestock breeds to the ancient economy of Cranborne Chase. Because the bones were kept segregated by feature and depth he was able to make statements about the change in the herding economy through time. In addition, he used the measurements of the bones to estimate the average size of the stock, comparing them to the modem breeds and likening them to the more primitive "unimproved" stock still in use in the more isolated areas of Britain.

Clark, in his preface to Prehistoric Europe , echoes the words of Tallgren: "it is only when archaeological research has passed the stage of concentrating on establishing the base cultural and chronological framework that one can begin the task of writing economic prehistory" ( 1952:vii). Indeed, the subtitle, the Economic Basis , quotes Tallgren's words directly. Although Tallgren was using the term "economy" to encompass all production, Clark used the term specifically to mean "subsistenceproduction"; in his public lecture series, Prehistory at Cambridge and Beyond , he notes in retrospect that Ecological would have been a better term (Clark 1989b:91).

The Lake-Dwellings and Cranborne Chase reports, characteristic of the best and most advanced scientific archaeology of their day, formed the standard for the study of prehistoric agricultural economies in Europe that has largely remained unchanged. The considerable scientific advances of the last century have operated primarily on the techniques of collecting and quantifying these data, and on taphonomic questions(cf. M.K. Jones 1991a, Albarella 1999, Fasham and Monk 1978).

According to Clark, prehistory could only be properly understood when viewed "stereoscopically", that is from the point of view both of the natural scientist and the historian (Clark 1952, 1953, 1972, 1975, 1976). The single perspective ofhistory had only led archaeologists into "empty analyses of form"; but natural science, though it had attractive procedural attributes, was "insufficiently sophisticated to cope without qualification with all the complexities of human society" (1972: 15; cf. also Clark 1953, 1975, 1976). Culture was held by Clark to be "artificial" ( 1953:218), and a proof of this was seen in the deliberate changes in the habitat, habits, and morphology of the plants and animals domesticated during the Neolithic:

The first systematic efforts to integrate the data of productive economy into the total workings of European prehistoric cultures was not made until the 1950s. This type of study is primarily associated with the work of Grahame Clark at Cambridge, especially his influentialpublicationsPrehistoric Europe: the Economic Basis (1952) and Star Carr ( I 954). Clark, for his part, was building on the work of A.M. Tallgren of the University of Helsinki. Tallgren wrote in 1937 that archaeology had reached a "cul-de-sac", and that the only way to extricate it was to abandon the classifying and systematizing that had so occupied archaeologists' energies, and to return to the purpose of finding out about the

"The species domesticated by human societies over the course of generations were moulded in

2

conformity with the ideas and requirements of these societies and so acquired characteristics detennined at least in some measure by the cultural pattern of the societies into which they were in a sense incorporated by domestication . . . the physical environment was itself ultimately transfonned to accord with developing social needs." (Clark 1953:223-4)

"Matrix Analysis and Archaeology" ( 1962) was published no later than Lewis Binford's "Archaeology as Anthropology" (1962) , and that Analy tical Archaeology and New Perspectives in Archaeology were both published in 1968. It is also probably worth noting that British and American New Archaeologists rarely cited each others' work in their early theoretical publications . The inception of the Processual school has been variously dated at 1948 with the publication of Walter Taylor's A Study of Archaeology or at 1962 with the publication of Binford's influential article "Archaeology as Anthropology". Either way, the important aspects of its history and development are well known (cf. Trigger 1984, 1989; Conrad and Demarest 1984; Binford 1983 ; Clark 1989b ), and this discussion will concentrate only on the aspects of its philosophy that relate to the development of prehistoric subsistence studies. Processual archaeology emphasized the search for "laws of cultural development" (Binford 1968:9 ; also Willey and Phillips 1958; Fritz and Plog 1970; Watson , LeBlanc and Redman 1971). These laws were generalizations about cultural development based on observed regularities in the archaeological and ethnographic record that could then be applied as predictive hypotheses regardless of cultural content (cf. Hodder 1982:5) . Though the form of these laws was vague , their purpose was to introduce to archaeology the rigors of scientific method - that is, the formation of hypotheses that could be explicitly stated and then tested in the field, thereby elevating archaeological analysis above the level of inference and subjectivity that they believed prevalent. Culture itself was seen as a "system" composed of a series of interrelated components. This construction was not itself particularly new (cf. Clark 1953), but Processualists added to it the proposition that therefore all the components of the system were knowable because the "invisible" systems (for example , religion) could be extrapolated through the visible (economy and technology) (e.g. Watson , LeBlanc and Redman 1971). The obvious ideological ramification of this approach was that interpretation was of necessity functional - that is, to be accurately predictable , the unknown components of the system had to bear some functional relationship to the known components. The practical consequences were twofold: first, both the techniques of data collection and the theories to interpret them increasingly emphasized the economic sphere - subsistence , resource procurement and technology - at the expense of the social and ideological ; and second , to have any predictive value , the model demanded that the system be visualized as homeostatic and the causes of change to be external and catastrophic (Hill 1977:76; also , Flannery 1972:409 ; Binford 1972:107 ; Renfrew 1972: 19-20, 486 ; Clarke 1968:88, 129).

The post-Neolithic agricultural environment , in other words , was a dynamic and manufactured environment in which man limited the spatial diversity of his food resources , accelerated their maturation cycle , and appropriated the effects of predation to only himself (Clark 1976; cf. also Ducos 1978, Ingold 1993, S. Green 1980). Nevertheless , although Clark's approach advocated the equal application of two disciplines , it is still clear that the social sciences were more equal than the biological: "It follows that in consideration of the environment of early man one needs to take into account the web of social , cultural , historical relations that bind societies together and help men to conform to patterns , maintain their identity and survive ... bioarchaeology needs to be studied within the framework of social archaeology" (Clark 1975:4-5) . The economic approach to prehistory advocated by Clark , and especially its more scientific aspects , grew to prominence in the 1950s and 60s, in connection with the interest in the "hearths of domestication" in the Near East (e.g . Braidwood and Howe 1960 ; Hole , Flannery and Neely 1969) and in the Americas (MacNeish 1967, Sanders 1965). These cases , in which a fundamental change in food resource procurement coincided with a complete reconstruction of social relations , proved that the economic and social spheres were linked in a way that could not be severed , and that the study of one necessitated the study of both. The elevation of economic studies from subsidiary to paramount was accomplished by the New Archaeology of the 1960s. In the United States , the development of Processual archaeology is primarily associated with the works of Lewis Binford ; in Europe similar debates had arisen , primarily at Cambridge . On both sides of the Atlantic the New Archaeology was associated with the attempt to establish a disciplinary rigor more characteristic of the natural sciences than the social sciences , the search for predictive models that could be tested directly , and a belief that the processes of culture were a more appropriate field of study than the manifestations of culture. Nevertheless , while the British and American schools are frequently regarded as dependent phenomena , there were profound differences in their philosophies and they are perhaps better described as cordial rivals . Britons are quick to point out that the first publication of the New Archaeology to appear in Britain , David Clarke's

In Europe , advances in the study of economic prehistory were primarily associated with the Paleoeconomy school - the British Academy Major Research Project in the Early History of Agriculture - under the direction of Eric Higgs at Cambridge (Higgs 1972, 1975; Jarman , Bailey and Jarman 1982). The Paleoeconomists did not share the optimism of the Processualists that all aspects of culture were knowable ;

3

in fact, they were not particularly interested in knowing it all. The interpretive philosophy of the Paleoeconomists elevated the economy - which in their view meant the subsistence economy-to paramount importance, and characterized the other "cultural" aspects as irrelevant: "Our interest is in the constraints, rather than the noise of choice which in any case tends to operate upon the short-term trivia , on the economic fat rather than on the basic necessities" (Higgs and Jannan 1975:5). Higgs' belief in the irrelevance of culture over the long term was absolute. Unlike the Processualists , for whom the study of economy was a practical means to a more integrated end , Higgs ' emphasis on paleoeconomy was the linchpin of an explicit and uncompromising philosophical agenda which decried the belief in the "uniqueness" or "humanness" of culture as the product of an outmoded and anachronistic belief in the "supernatural":

transmitted change" and that therefore "the study of animal behavior is capable of yielding valuable insights into human behavior only in so far as the basic distinction between them is kept in mind" because "models of thought appropriate to biology are insufficiently sophisticated to cope ... with all the complexities of human society" (Clark 1975:4-5). From the strict ecological viewpoint of the Paleoeconomy school , this notion that culture made man unique among the animal s could be dismissed as "a value judgment of great emotional appeal" : "No doubt modern proponents of this view are influenced in some degree by the same feelings which placed the earth at the center of the medi eval universe ... The choic e of one of these aspects of humanity as having a preeminent significance depend s upon objectiv es and basic philosophical stances , and cannot be justified purely in terms of logical debat e. Implicit in th e view which gives preeminenc e to human uniquene ss is the belief that man is in some degre e divine , supernatural ; that the most significan t part of human behavior is not subject to the same laws which govern the rest of the universe." (Jarman , Bailey and Jarman 1982 :3)

"The 19th century had alway s to take the supernatural into account in its consideration s of man , endowed as he was with the gift of free will. There is now no reason why we should continue to be guided exclusively by I 9th-century tradition s and prioritie s, born as they wer e of the then contemporary needs , social conflicts , and climates of thought. We can surely pursue different priorities more in line with current needs , and one may wonder if this is best achieved by the elaboration of traditional archaeological models or whether there is not a better case for the reconstruction of basic objectives in the light of today's situation and intellectual climate ." (Higgs and Jarman 1975: 1)

Despite their common emphasis on an economic approach , the Paleoeconomists were often in deep disagreement with the Processualists. The Paleoeconomists did not see any predictive value in systems theory , since they regarded the "system" as too large and complex to accurately define or study. Moreover , in their view subsistence (hence cultural) systems were not balanced , but under constant stress . The cause of this stress , hence the prime cause of cultural change , was population pressure - low-level but constant - that continually threatened the subsistence base and pushed the economy in the direction of intensification. In other words , change was inevitable because the pressure was constant and it was therefore always adaptive to progress to the next productive level (Jarman , Bailey and Jarman 1982:6-7). The determinism inherent in this explanatory reliance on ecological adaptation and population growth was regarded as an interpretive strength and not a weakness: predictive laws by definition presupposed conditions that determined . The Paleoeconomists were also not particularly impressed by the Processualist s' own "scientific" orientation ; in Higgs' view , the American New Archaeology was still more interested in classification than in process , and despite their appearance of great scientific activity they were making little real progress in reorienting the objectives of their research (Higgs and Jarman 1975:5).

In the view of the Paleoeconomists , social organization was the post-facto justification for that form of human biological adaptation that is the subsistence economy (cf. also Watson et al. 1971, White 1959). Man was just one among many biological components in the environment , engaged in a mighty Darwinian struggle to wrest the means of subsistence from his ecological competitors: "Among the aspects of past human behavior which are particularly appropriate for analysis in terms of a long-term evolutionary approach , economic behavior clearly has a great importance. The economy is the primary adaptation whereby life is maintained and populations survive and grow. It is thus a biological linchpin exposed to the full force of natural selection , and as such it is to be expected that the impact of economic necessity or advantage will be widespread and profound in human behavior." (Jarman , Bailey and Jannan 1982:5)

1.2. SOCIAL ARCHAEOLOGY

The Paleoeconomists made Clark , their intellectual predecessor and a member of the Research Project committee , the explicit target of their criticisms. They singled out for particular scorn Clark 's belief that much of human evolution is expressed through "sociall y-transmitted change" rather than through "biologically- or genetically-

In European archaeology , the strict paleoeconomic approach has had its greatest success in the study of Mesolithic and Neolithic-cultural periods that have been defined by the functional relationship between social organization and food procurement. A major reason for this success of course is

4

that most of its methodology and theory was specifically tailored to study the development of early food-production systems.

explanation from the "just-so stories" of traditional practice offered in return an explanation of the human past that was in fact dehumanized.

For the broader study of European social development , and especially for the study of developing social complexity in the Bronze and Iron Ages, this approach has had serious disadvantages. Archaeological investigation focused on subsistence data because it was seen as having the greatest number of biological (i.e. non-cultural) constraints , and was therefore least open to subjective interpretation. However , in so doing archaeologists effectively reduced the study of prehistory to a study of economics , and specifically to the mechanics of food production. This reduction was intentional , largely for the ideological reasons outlined above, but also because , methodologically, it was easiest:

The unfortunate implications of this for the study of social development in prehistoric Europe have been far-reaching. The paleoeconomic paradigm became a modem incarnation of the Invasion Hypothesis , as each productive advance swept over the landscape of Europe as inexorably as ever did the Battle-Axe warriors or the Beaker Folk . One result was to foster a view of homogeneity in the study of European culture that minimized the effects of regional diversity: if the productive regime was broadly similar across temperate Europe , then it must necessarily follow that the pattern of social relations was similar as well. This assumption allowed archaeologists to piece out data missing from one area with data from another . For example, the abundant evidence from Germany and Scandinavia of settled village agriculture in the Neolithic implied that such settlements must have also existed in Britain. Evidence for these "villages", however , has failed to materialize despite intensive search , only recently leading researchers to envision a Neolithic economic regime organized around impermanent residence , in contrast to the continental pattern (Bradley 1972, 1991; Fleming I 972 ; Bradley and Hodder 1979; Entwistle and Grant 1989, Whittle 1996).

"In recognizing the development of a scientific archaeology . . . we are therefore making an important statement about the kinds of behavior and data that we are attempting to study. It is quite apparent that this will be a selective approach , certain aspects of human behavior and archaeological data being dismissed as oflittle or no importance to the particular objectives in view because they cannot be effectively studied by the available techniques within a scientific framework" (Jarman , Bailey and Jarman 1982:3; cf. also Higgs and Jarman 1975: 142)

The constraints of the Paleoeconomic paradigm have been felt most keenly by archaeologists studying the later prehistory of Europe. The strict economic approach has been notoriously unable to elucidate the process of increasing social complexity that characterized post-Neolithic Europe. As Renfrew has pointed out, the changes in food production after the Neolithic had little to do with production per se , and a great deal to do with society- landholding , labor organization , power relations (Renfrew 1974, 1982; also, Leone 1982). Therefore , any dichotomy made between the productive and social spheres at this time is a false one:

In other words , the ideologies of ritual and social organization could be safely ignored because they were unimportant , but they were deemed unimportant because the paradigm was unable to account for them. Thus, their lack of importance was not a reflection of ancient cultural attitude so much as a concession to modem ideology and method (cf. also Hawkes 1954, Smith 1955, Leach 1973). In addition , though Higgs' ostensible reason for the emphasis on economy was to purge archaeology of the vestiges of "nineteenthcentury superstition" , he offered in replacement a twentiethcentury philosophical conceit that would prove equally anachronistic: one in which the attitudes and concerns of modem western society were projected back to provide an interpretive paradigm for prehistory , that reconstructed the "basic objectives [of past societies] in the light of today's situation and intellectual climate" (Higgs and Jarman 1975: 12).

"Although they differ considerably , environments never assume an active role in determining what sorts of societies will inhabit them. Instead , the social system is dominant over the ecological system: the set of social relations constituted in the institutions, roles , and organization of a society determines how any landscape is going to be exploited . The ecological system imposes constraints on the types of resources that can be utilized , but does not detennine the level of appropriation of services from the environment or what is done with them" (Barker and Gamble 1985b:7; cf. also Ingold 1981, 1993; Hambleton 1999).

As a result , and despite its emphasis on scientific method and analytical sophistication , the paleoeconomic paradigm has turned out to be at least as simplistic as the "traditional" archaeology that it replaced. If traditional archaeology was often characterized by breadth of vision at the expense of scientific rigor , then the price for increasing the scientific value ofanalysis was a great narrowing of the field of vision , and a view of the past without a ritual or symbolic life. The elevation of subsistence economy to the status of prime mover reduced the motivations of people to the merely biological. Necessary efforts to rescue archaeological

Archaeologists on both sides of the Atlantic who study social development have found themselves reassessing the utility of an explanatory paradigm based solely on functionalism , economic efficiency, and technological detenninism. The most controversial result is Post-Processual Archaeology ,

5

also known as Structural Marxism (Conrad and Demarest 1984) and the Radical Critique (Earle and Preucel 1987). This school is most closely associated with Ian Hodder and other fonner students of David Clarke at Cambridge (Miller and Tilley 1984; Hodder 1982, 1984, 1985; Shanks and Tilley 1987a, 1987b; Hodder and Shanks 1993). It is characterized by the rejection of the technological and paleoeconomic paradigms in favor of a "symbolist" approach that focuses on the ideology and symbolism of social relations, and by a recognition that archaeological (and other) theory is embedded in the social and political culture (white , European) that created it. As such, Post-Processualism regards as futile any search for an objective archaeological reality. It is explicitly "political" rather than "scientific ", rejecting the so-called Scientific Method in favor of the "subjective consensus "- an acceptance of each interpretation of the past as having its own subjective reality that can differ from perspective to perspective (Hodder 1982, 1984) 1• Hodder (1982) calls Post-Processualism "reactionary " in the sense that it draws for inspiration on the broader and more humanistic type of archaeological interpretation that characterized the Pre-Processualists , especially Childe , Clark and Piggott .

Mediating the functionalist and symbolist approaches is a recent school of thought known as Social Archaeology . Social Archaeology lies somewhere between the New Archaeology and the Newer Archaeology, combining a scientific method of data collection and analysis with a more holistic and humanistic interpretive framework. Social Archaeology grew up alongside Processualism in the 1970s; it was essentially a branch of Processualism , pursued by Processualists (notably Charles Redman and Colin Renfrew) who studied complex societies and who felt that Processualism was wasting a valuable opportunity to explicate matters of social development that could have sociological utility in the modem world: "The combination of disappointingly mundane research results and unrealized potential of archeology's unique resource base has led to considerable disillusionment among scholars" (Redman et al. 1978:6). In other words , Social Archaeology was not just the study of prehistoric social organization , but a theoretical stance that saw archaeology as a social science (as opposed to a Science) in the broadest sense : "social archaeology will attain its goal of investigating the past to illumine the present: the archaeolo gy of society for society" (Renfrew 1973b : 1920) .

Because of its emphasis on agency and discourse , PostProcessualism has typically not been engaged with such pragmatic archaeological concerns as data collection and classification. The debate about interpretation has only recently spilled over into a discussion of excavation and methodology (Gero 1996, Gero 1997; cf. also Hassan 1997, Hodder 1998). Nevertheless critics who have pointed out that Post-Processualism did not offer its own program of analysis to remedy the perceived faults of Paleoeconomy and Processualism are missing the point: the acceptance (even encouragement) of subjectivity is hardly compatible with the publication of a methodology to achieve it:

In Redman's view, the improved analytic methodology and emphasis on hypothesis testing had increased the potential usefulness ofarchaeology, but that the discussion was falling into a kind of functionalism that was best suited to the study of the demographics and economics of simpler societies:

•

"The interpretive inadequacies of archaeology can also be related to self-imposed restriction engendered by choice of subject matter and exploratory frameworks. In situations where archaeologists have employed sophisticated methods and have attempted far-reaching interpretations , the mode ofexplanation often relied on linear causality with the situations being confined to "simpler" societies. For these societies it is often implicitly believed that fewer variables come into play , therefore presenting a more understandable system for interpretation. As a result , model-building and nomothetic techniques of analysis have been concentrated on remains of hunter-gatherers and primitive agriculturalists , leaving issues concerning more "complex" archaeological societies impoverished in method and theory. This means that archaeology has been bypassing many opportunities to perform studies and obtain results of direct relevance to problems in the world today. We believe that one of the most significant orientations of social archaeologists is to remedy this situation ." (Redman et al. 1978 :6)

"Although Processual and Post-Processual archaeologists conceive of "data" in different ways, there has been little discussion of a Post-Processual methodology ... This is understandable; any notion of a general methodology separate from the context of the production of knowledge could conflict with approaches that emphasize critique , interpretation and multivocality" (Hodder 1997:691 ).

However , whether or not subjectivity will ever lead to Consensus and thereby to Understanding , Post-Processualism has contributed two points of considerable importance to the debate: first, that "scientific" archaeology has increasingly divorced archaeology from its purpose - the broad understanding of human culture; and second , that old ideas are not necessarily bad ones .

A few years earlier in Britain , Renfrew used the same argument as the topic of his inaugural lecture at Southampton. He contended that the de facto goals of economic prehistory were insufficient to gain any understanding of the workings of ancient societies:

1

For an interesting critique - from a PostProcessualist viewpoint-of the success of this approach , see L. Smith 1994.

6

•

been taken up by non-Marxist Social Archaeologists , who see this as a useful antidote to the strict functionalism of Processualism and Paleoeconomy.

"My central theme this evening is that [the relationship of man to his environment] is not enough. What about the things which distinguish human culture from that of other species , which are unique to human experience? ... We are coming to realize moreover that no comprehension of the growth of society is possible without investigating these social factors as intensively as others , such as subsistence and technology". (Renfrew 1973 b:6- 7)

The resultant union of the two philosophies can be termed Socioeconomic Archaeology. Departing from such strict economic paradigms as Paleoeconomy and Processualism , which focus on technological and ecological constraints, Socio-economics is an integrated approach which focuses on economic choice and the implications of that choice for understanding the society under study. In a congenial productive environment such as characterizes most of Europe , agriculturalists are generally provided with more choices than they are likely or able to pursue. The content of these choices therefore is conditioned not by economic necessity as Higgs believed , but by the role these choices play in facilitating and reinforcing the social parameters of society (Barker and Gamble 1985a, Gamble 1981, Ingold I 981 , Bradley and Hodder 1979, Earle 1980). In other words , the resources of subsistence should no longer be seen as simply a source of human nourishment , but as important components in the social strategies of individuals and societies: "there has been a growing realization that the plants and animals of the farmyard community are likely to have been critical resources in the construction , transformation and reproduction of social formations and institutions oflater prehistory" (Barker and Gamble 1985b: 12). Subsistence production is intimately linked to the development of complexity , and is the engine that drives that development. This breaks the equation between subsistence and economy that the Paleoeconomists had labored to establish.

It is worth noting how closely Renfrew's definition of Social Archaeology echoes the words of such "traditionalists" as Tallgren and Clark. Renfrew later returned to the topic of Social Archaeology in greater detail in his Approaches to Social Archaeology ( 1984 ). In Approaches , Renfrew advocated the development of methodologies to study long-tenn social change that are based on specifically archaeological evidence (Renfrew 1984:4; cf. also "middle-range theory" , Binford 1977:6 ; "archaeological epistemology" , Clarke 1972:239). Attempts to retrofit archaeological data into models developed for social anthropology had not yielded the hoped-for epiphanies about social process , and it was obviously time for a new approach: "Social archaeology , seen as based upon a body of explicit interpretive theory , is a new subject. Increasingly we are coming to realize that it is not simply a prehistoric counterpart to social anthropology. The preoccupations of the social anthropologist so far have only rarely been directly relevant to the work of the archaeologist , and attempts toward the direct incorporation into archaeological thinking of the assumptions and procedures of the social anthropologist have in the main been fairly disastrous". (Renfrew 1984 :4)

Food residues are the ideal data for this type of study because they contain in themselves clues to the organization of production , which is itself a direct reflection of the organization of the society doing the producing (see Chapter 3). Such residues can be compared to a reconstructed environment in a way that goes beyond functionalism and environmental determinism to determine culture-based patterns of resource selection and exploitation. This should allow archaeologists to ask questions of the data beyond what was eaten , and toward the elucidation of social complexity. Examples of such studies include Martin Jones' analysis of the use of weed seeds in Dane bury grain deposits , tracing the production and distribution of grain between the central site and its satellites (M.K. Jones 1984b, Jones and Nye 1991); the identification of producer and consumer sites based on the chaff component of seed assemblages (Hillman 1981; Dennell 1974a, 1976a), and the social implications of the distributions of meaty joints (Davis 1987, Maltby 1984, 1985).

1.3. SOCIOECONOMIC ARCHAEOLOGY Among European archaeologists in the last few years , the humanistic appeal of Social Archaeology has begun to make deep inroads into the dogmatism of the strict paleoeconomic approach. Particularly in Britain , archaeologists studying later prehistory have increasingly espoused an approach that integrates the social and productive spheres: production is recognized as a corporate enterprise , and economy is therefore studied in the context of the social relations of production (Bradley and Hodder 1979; Renfrew 1974, 1982; Fleming 1972, 1985; Barker and Gamble 1985a; Barrett , Bradley and Green 1991; Bradley 1978, 1984, 1990; this approach has not been limited to Europe- for American examples see Hastorf 1983, Earle 1980, Crabtree 1990). The determinant role of society in the organization of the productive economy is a stance primarily associated with the Marxist anthropologists (cf. Shennan 1982, 1987; Friedman 1975; Friedman and Rowlands 1977; Gilman 1981; Spriggs 1984; Meillassoux 1972, 1981). However , the idea has since

Studies representative of the ideals of a Socioeconomic approach in British archaeology have begun to appear in recent years. Notable among these are the work of Cunliffe (1984a , 1993; Cunliffe and Poole 1991 ), Bradley ( 1984, 1990), Fleming ( 1985), Darville ( 1987), Barrett , Bradley and

7

Green (1991), and Richards (1990) , all of whom explore ancient British settlements and society against the background of changes in technology and production. Much work in a similar vein has been produced by floral and fauna) analysts (especially Martin Jones, J. M. Maltby , Annie Grant , and Caroline Grigson), combining the study of ancient societies with their own intimate understanding of agricultural production strategies , and much of the methodology contributed to this new approach comes from them. Typical of this emphasis among analysts is the recent volume edited by Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble , Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe ( 1985a) . Barker and Gamble , like many of the authors who contributed to the volume , grew up at Cambridge as students of Eric Higgs and were trained in the Paleoeconomy school. However , they realize , "with hindsight ", that the paleoeconomy method could not really say anything of interest to their field of later prehistory , and have modified its approach to encompas s the impact of social change on production , and a regional rather than site-based view .

everything. Processualism placed on one line of evidence (technology) the burden of elucidation all of the other components of the cultural system . Socioeconomy does not speak to the whole system , only to production and the relationship between production and social organization. Other aspects of culture, such as ritual , articulate with this , but in the main ritual must be studied with techniques that speak to ideology and symbolism , not subsistence resources .

1.4. THE CASE STUDY: SOUTHERN BRITAIN IN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES Thi s present study take s the pos1t10n that changes in production strategies are more likely to be initiated for social and/or ideological than for functional reasons , and that changes in regional social organization will result in changes in the organization of production in that region. It further take s the position that therefore differences in productive strategie s (diversity vs. specialization , reciprocity vs. redistribution , and so forth) can be studied to provide direct clues to the workings of the society doing the producing .

The available data for such studies is abundant. In the past century a huge base of fauna) and floral data has been established. As mentioned above , site reports that include species identification , relative abundance , and environmental reconstruction have been available for British sites since before the tum of the century. Improvements in excavation techniques over the years have only improved the quality of such data, especially with the impetus given by the Processualists and Paleoeconomists for the improvement of methodology , as techniques of collection and analysis of economic data have become increasingly sophisticated. Integration of this data, however , has always been fairly poor. Since analysis has generally focused on subsistence ("what they ate") , there has usually been little effort to integrate the results of these reports into the body of the report ; in general they take the form of lists appended like an afterthought to the general discussion (though there are notable exceptions: Grant 1984b; M.K. Jones 1984b , 1978; Maltby 1985).

The belief in the primacy of society incorporates the assumption that the productive role of an individual defines his role in society , and that the economy itself does not exist separate from the institutions that maintain it-institutions like reciprocal obligations, circulation of valuables, land tenure , land access , redistribution , and labor-sharing (Renfrew 1974, Fleming 1985, Leach 1954, Gamble 198 I). In this way , the subsistence economy as an entity is defined as the sum of the dependent social institutions: "The band is not different from the chiefdom because one hunts and the other farms· it is because the economic resources available to both are utilized in a totally different way in the sphere of social activity." (Gamble 1981 :217). It is often assumed by archaeologists studying later prehistory that agricultural intensification , probably fueled by population growth (cf.Cunliffe 1978) , accompanied and even enabled the increased complexity of European society during the Bronze and Iron Ages. Evidence for this intensification has been found in tool types , field size , size and density of settlements , and land colonization (e.g . Wells 1984 , Gilman 1981 ). Relatively little study , however , has been done on the direct evidence of agriculture - the floral and fauna) remains - to determine whether this intensification existed or what form it took.

For the purposes of Socioeconomic analysis , this database can be regarded as a large and unprocessed body of primary evidence. Such a database has several advantages: ( 1) as the Paleoeconomists observed, the biological parameters of these data are known , and can therefore be distinguished from the cultural; (2) the data are equivalent across sites and cultures in a way that man-made artifacts are not; (3) that data are ubiquitous; (4) the same data can be recombined for study on a variety of scales (feature , site region , time period) ; and , (5) 5) old data, if systematically collected and presented , can be as useful as new data; since the requirements of preservation have changed little , any systematic sample is eligible. In addition , the socioeconomic approach is not selective like Paleoeconomics or human ecology ; data are not collected and analyzed with reference to a single sphere of social action , but instead recognize the links between action in one sphere and that in another .

This study offers a program for the analysis of subsistence residues in social terms. The primary evidence will be published floral and faunal reports from excavated domestic sites. There are several advantages to using this dataset , the primary one being its large size and regional scope. Floral and faunal data chosen for this study must conform to the following guidelines: ►

Unlike Processualism , Socioeconomy does not try to do

8

the site must be systematically excavated over an

would be useful to include the Neolithic in such a study , but the nature of the existing evidence will not permit it: the database of identified Neolithic domestic sites is very smaJ1, and most well-analyzed sites from this period are ceremonial in function (M.K. Jones 1988a).

area wide enough to allow adequate interpretation of the site and its features ►

►

the analyzed sample must be systematically collected, and bear some defined relationship to the total excavated sample (this is especially important in the case of flora) remains , which are usually collected from a relatively small number of contexts)

It is proposed, then, that a socioeconomic approach may be helpful in shedding light on some persistently intractable questions. It is hoped that this approach will clarify the development of agricultural organization through time in southern Britain , and develop a method by which these data can elucidate the larger issue of social complexity.

the data must be presented with some distinction made by time period (for a multi-period site) and feature type

The sites for this study wiJI be drawn from the southern area of Britain during the Bronze (1500-700 BC) and Iron Ages (700-55 BC). The region will be analyzed in three units , defined more or less along cultural/geographical lines foUowing the division used by the Longman Press' Regional History of England: the Southeast (East Sussex, West Sussex, Kent and Surrey), the Eastern Counties (Norfolk , Suffolk , Essex and Cambridgeshire) , and Wessex (Dorset , Somerset, Avon , Wiltshire, Berkshire and Hampshire)2. Southern Britain was chosen for this case study for two reasons: first, because of the long history of archaeological investigation in this region , the database is large and geographically well-distributed; and second, other evidence for social change in this region is ambiguous - settlement traces before the Bronze Age are scarce ; the relationship of the small domestic sites to the larger central sites ( e.g. hillforts) is only poorly understood; burial rites vary greatly both between and within regions , and because of their placement cannot be associated with identified settlements (Whimster 1981 , C. E. Wilson I 981 ); and the goods traditionally used to identify social rank (gold, weaponry , fine metalwork) are scarce, and more often associated with ritual than social contexts. It is hoped that by approaching this issue from a different direction , some of these ambiguities might be made less so. The study focuses on the Bronze and Iron Ages because these are the periods when the greatest evidence for social change is apparent. The adaptive aspects of food procurement need no longer be considered as variables, and so choices in the organization of subsistence can be assigned to the social sphere of action. These periods span the transition from the isolated and perhaps impermanent settlements of the Early Bronze Age to the villages and hillforts of the Late Iron Age, incorporating periods of perceived social complexity (Early Bronze Age , Late Iron Age) and periods of presumed regional diversity (Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age). It

2

The choice is somewhat arbitrary. Among other areas that are rich in data and would yield interesting results are the Oxfordshire/Upper Thames region , the Yorkshire/Durham region , and Lincolnshire /East Midlands.

9

CHAPTER 2: Today's Dinner, Tomorrow's Data: the interpretation of food residues in archaeological deposits The keeping oflivestock is an occupation complementary to the growing of crops. The fertility of the soil cannot be maintained without manure , and the herds would be too costly to keep without grain , straw , chaff , roots and other produce for fodder. Arable cultivation and animal husbandry are synergistic processes , each made more efficient and productive by association with the other (F. E. Green 1908, Grant 1984b ). The archaeological remnants of these intertwined economies can reveal many details about the use of available resources and the general economic strategy of the ancient farming community , if the processes of use and deposition are understood. This section reviews the common resource s of ancient British cultivation , and describe s them in terms of their ecological requirements , economic utility , and methods of processing. These details are the fundamental units of analysis , the means by which the meal of a prehistoric farmer becomes the clue to understanding the org'anizational structure of his productive economy , and through that , the structure of his society.

2.1. PLANT REMAINS With the rare exception of preserved foodstuffs such as the "buns" from Glastonbury (Bulleid and Gray 1911-1917 , Helbaek 1952) and the preservation of actual prehistoric bodies such as Lindow Man (Brothwell 1987), the evidence of plant use in prehistory is limited to inference based on seeds preserved by carbonization. This evidence is, by definition , skewed toward accidental preservation rather than usage , and must be treated with caution and skepticism (see below). Nevertheless , as Knorzer (1971) has pointed out , carbonized seed assemblages share certain invariable characteristics: ►

they always include finds of carbonized grain

►

assemblages with large quantities of wild seeds always include large quantities of chaff

►

most wild species that occur in archaeological deposits grow today as weeds of cereal crops

In other words , the carbonized seed assemblages present in archaeological sites are always a product of economic-specifically , agricultural-activity . In consequence , the two components of the assemblage , cultivated plants and wild plants , must be viewed as part of a single system . The cereals are a direct expression of the agricultural economy of the farming community , but the weeds and non-cultivated

resources (including wild foods , medicines , oils and dyes) are the clues to the ecological "health" of the agricultural economy and the scope of environmental exploitation.

2.1.1. The Wheats (Triticum sp.) Wheat is a crop with early antecedents and widespread use in the Near East and Europe. As a result , there are a great variety of hybrid forms , no fewer than nine of which have been identified in prehistoric contexts (J. Renfrew 1973 ; G. Jones 1998). Five of these species--einkorn , emmer spelt , bread wheat and club wheat--were in use in prehistoric Britain . For the purposes of this study , the wheat species are divided into two groups , reflecting priority of use and characteristics of growth and processing. The first of these classes is the socalled glume wheats-emmer , spelt , and einkorn. These wheats are more primitive in character , retaining many of the characteristics of their wild ancestors. Primary among these are close-fitting glumes and fragile rachises. The spikelet breaks off the ear easily when threshed , but the kernel does not separate from the glumes. Removal of the glumes is laborious , and can damage the grain ; 30-40% of the grains can be rendered infertile due to bruising and damage during threshing. As a result , glume wheats are stored and sown with the glumes intact (Percival 1921, Harlan 1967)· efficient removal of the glumes requires parching (Section 2.1.7) , a process that improves handling of the grain for food use , but destroys its ability to germinate. The glume wheats are the more hardy and nutritious forms of wheat , and they dominated the wheat crop in prehistoric Britain. The second class are the free-threshing , or naked wheats - bread wheat and club wheat . .Bread and club are improved hybrid grains , more adapted to the uses of agriculture than their hulled relatives. Bread and club wheat grains are loose in the spikelets at maturity and thresh easily (Helbaek 1953, J. Renfrew 1973). However , the freethreshing wheats are neither as tolerant of ecological variation nor as pest-resistant as the glume wheats , and therefore their cultivation requires greater labor and attention. These species become economically important in the Iron Age and Roman Period. As a rule , the wheats are the least tolerant of environmental variation and the most demanding of soil nutrients of the major cultivated grains , though this varies considerably by species. They tend to prefer relatively warm temperatures and dry soil conditions , especially during the ripening period (Percival 1910, J. Renfrew 1973).

Spelt is a hardier crop than emmer , and more tolerant of environmental variation. It prefers light , dry soils, but can grow on heavier soils if necessary, and can withstand dampness better than emmer (Percival 1921, M. K. Jones 1981 ). Modem spelt is mostly winter-sown, and ripens early in the season.

Wheat can be sown in the spring, or in the winter if the location is sheltered from the worst of winter conditions. Winter planting is desirable because the crop matures earlier and so does not compete with the harvest demands of the spring-sown crops (Reynolds 1987). Also, winter wheat is more productive. The roots have more time to develop , resulting in a stronger plant that is less likely to collapse (lodge) under the weight ofits seed-head, and which will also send up a greater number of ear-bearing straws (tillers) (Reynolds 1987, J. Renfrew 1973, Percival 1921 ). Because winter wheat tillers more abundantly than spring wheat , it does not need to be sown as thickly, so an equivalent crop can be produced from less seed (Percival 1921).

Bread Wheat (T. aestivum) I Club Wheat (T. compactum): Grains of bread and club wheats have been identified in small quantities in Britain from at least Early Bronze Age contexts, if not earlier (cf. M. K. Jones 1978, 1980, 1988a ; Fowler 1983). Recent radiocarbon dates, however , suggest that at least some of the bread/club wheat in prehistoric contexts may be a modern intrusion , casting doubt on these early prehistoric occurrences (van der Veen 1992:74). Helbaek (1952) believed that the systematic cultivation of bread and club wheats was introduced into Britain by the Romans. Either way, bread and club wheats are relatively rare , and do not supersede emmer and spelt in economic importance until after the Iron Age.

Einkorn (T. monococcum): Einkom is present in Britain in the early Neolithic, but only in very small quantities; it rarely appears as a major component in early sites , and disappears altogether in later prehistory (Helbaek 1952, Fowler 1983, F. J. Green 1981; however , see Drewett 1982b ). It might be regarded as an inclusion in the emmer crop rather than a crop itself (Helbaek 1952). Einkom is the most primitive of the cultivated wheats, and retains numerous characteristics of the wild plant. The crop ripens very late, and the yield is relatively small; the glumes are very tight, so it is difficult to thresh , and the grains can be greatly damaged in the process (Harlan 1967, Percival 1921 ). Nevertheless , einkorn is a very hardy crop. The tight glumes make it unattractive to pests and rust. It can grow without manure on poorer soils than the other wheats, and it requires very little care (Reynolds 1979 , Percival 1921 ). Einkorn is higher in protein and fiber than the other wheats (J. Renfrew I 973 ).

Bread and club wheats are interfertile hybrids (T. aestivocompactum) . They are winter-hardy and have a very high yield compared to the other wheats (M . K. Jones 1981 ). They are also free-threshing , unlike the other wheats , making them easy to process and store. There are also several disadvantages to the cultivation of bread and club wheats . They require very fertile and nitrogenous heavy .soils , and so cannot be grown effectively without a systematic program of fertilization and perhaps fallowing. Because many of their natural defenses against disease and pests (e.g. close glumes) have been bred out , they require more care and attention than emmer and spelt (M . K. Jones 1981). Hence the shift from the cultivation of emmer and spelt to bread and club wheats signifies a greater investment in labor and resources , and a greater commitment to long-term scheduling and systematic agriculture than the earlier wheat crops .

Emmer (T. dicoccum): Emmer appears in Britain in the earliest Neolithic deposits, and seems , albeit on the basis of limited and ambiguous evidence (cf. Fowler 1983:158ff) , to be the dominant grain crop of the early agricultural period. This dominance declines rapidly , however , and by the Bronze Age emmer is only a small component of a barley-dominated economy (Helbaek 1952 , M. K. Jones 1988a , Fowler 1983, Mercer 1981).

2.1.2. Barley (Hordeum sp.) Emmer is the least hardy of the wheat species. It prefers warm average temperatures, and so it is rarely winter-sown. Emmer grows best on light, dry soils , and cannot tolerate heavier soils or damp locations. It is ideally grown on upland slopes, and is unsuitable for valleys or alluvial deposits (M. K. Jones 1981, Percival I 921; but see van der Veen 1991 ).

Barley is present in Britain from the early Neolithic , forming a small component of an economy dominated by emmer cultivation. In the Bronze Age, however , barley becomes the primary grain crop , reflecting its greater tolerance for the climate and soils of Britain (Helbaek 1952, Fowler 1983, M. K. Jones 1980). It is surpassed by spelt in the Iron Age , though it remains an important cultivar.

Spelt (T. spelta): Spelt was regarded by Helbaek ( 1952) as an Iron Age introduction into Britain, but recent data has shown that spelt was present as an important crop component on some sites in the Late Bronze Age ( cf. Black Patch , Sussex, Drewett 1982b; Loft's Farm, Essex , Brown 1988a) , and possibly as early as the Middle Bronze Age (Poundbury , Dorset, Sparey Green 1987; West Row Fen, Suffolk , Martin and Murphy 1988). During the Iron Age , spelt superseded both emmer and barley as the dominant type of grain on British sites (Helbaek 1952, Fowler 1983).

Barley occurs in two main forms: the lax-eared or denseeared two-row type (H. distichon), and the lax- or denseeared six-row type (H. vulgare). Prehistoric British barley seems to have been mainly of the lax-eared six-row variety , though there are a few occurrences of the dense-eared type (e.g . ltford Hill). There is no clear archaeological evidence for the occurrence of two-row barley in prehistoric Britain (Helbaek 1952, M. K. Jones 1988a, Tomlinson and Hall

11

and would not support other grains (J. Renfrew 1973, Percival 1910, M. K. Jones 198 I).

1996). All varieties of barley occur in both hulled and naked forms. As with the wheats, naked barley is free-threshing; the grains are loose inside the spikelet and part easily. In the hulled forms, the paleas and lemmas are organically attached to the kernel (opposed to the wheats , where the glumes enclose the grain); the paleas can only be removed by threshing if the grain is parched (Section 2.1. 7). The naked form is the first to be used in Britain, but through the Bronze Age the hulled form becomes more frequent , eventually replacing the naked form as the main barley crop (Helbaek 1952). This phenomenon has frequently been noted, but the reason for it is unclear (J. Renfrew 1973, van der Veen 1992).

2.1.4. Oats (Avena saliva) Like rye, oats appear only sporadically in pre-Roman British contexts (eg. Drewett 1982b , M. K. Jones 1978). Both the cultivated oat (Avena sativa) and its wild form (A. fatua) appear as a component of other cultivated crops , and may originally have been more of an exploited weed than a selected resource (F . J. Green 1981 , Helbaek 1952) . Oats prefer cool climates with lots of moisture. They require more water than the other cereal s, needing water even more than sunshine for proper development. Oats come in both hulled and naked forms (Percival 19 I 0, J. Renfrew 1973).

Barley prefers a comparatively long and cool growing season , with moderate, but not excessive rainfall. It grows well on light and well-drained soils , and is very tolerant of saline or alkaline conditions. It cannot abide acid soils , however , and tends to lodge on nitrogenous soils (J. Renfrew 1973, Percival 1910). Barley can be either winter- or spring-sown ; some spring varieties mature earlier than spring wheats , oats , or rye (J. Renfrew 1973).

Oats grow well in all classes of soils ; they are especially suitable for poor soils , and tend to lodge if the soil is too rich (J. Renfrew 1973, Percival 1910). Like rye , they grow well in soi ls that have been ruined by the cultivation of other crops (M. K. Jone s 1981).

2.1.5. The Pulses

2.1.3. Rye (Secale cereale)

The only one of the pulses for which there is significant prehistoric evidence is the horse bean , or Celtic bean ( Vicia faba). Evidence for this crop is well-attested in the Iron Age (Helbaek 1952, F. J. Green 198 I) , but there are some occurrences as far back as the Late Bronze Age ( e.g. Black Patch , Drewett 1982b). The pea (Pisum sativum) has been identified in Early Iron Age deposits at Bishopstone (Bell 1977) and at Glastonbury in the Late Iron Age (Bu Heid and Gray 1911- 1917). The lentil (Lens esulenta) does not occur in prehistoric deposits , and can be regarded as a Roman introduction into Britain.

Carbonized rye appears very rarely in prehistoric contexts in Britain, and it had been assumed that it was not an important cultivar until the Roman period (Helbaek 1952, Godwin 1975 , F. J. Green 1981, Fowler 1983, Tomlinson and Hall 1996). Recently, however, rye pollen has been identified in Bronze Age deposits in Wales and southern Britain , suggesting that the cultivation of this cereal may have been both earlier and more widespread than had been assumed (Chambers and Jones 1984, Chambers 1989). The apparent discrepancy between the pollen and macrofossil evidence has not been explained , although differences in processing , use, or storage should be considered.

The horsebean is not very hardy to frost , and was probably spring-sown. The bean grows best on stiff , preferably alkaline , soils with good drainage . It has a low yield on light soils , and on rich soils where it tends to go to leaf (J. Renfrew 1973).

Rye cannot tolerate heat, but it is impervious to frost , and so is an ideal grain for the northern European climates (J. Renfrew 1973, Percival 1910). Rye sprouts in cooler weather than the other grains , and therefore ripens earlier , usually before the midsummer heat. The advantages of this schedule are twofold: the harvesting of rye does not overlap with that of the other grains , and rye thrives in regions where the growing season is too short for the other, more warm-loving cereals. (J. Renfrew 1973).

The horsebean , like all legumes , is nitrogenous ; it harbors bacteria on its roots that draws nitrogen from the air , making the plant independent of the supply ofnitrogen in the soil. As the bacteria decay , they release usable nitrogen into the soil, ready to be absorbed by other plants. Planting a nitrogenous crop-either edible crops like peas , beans and lentils, or fodder crops like vetches and clover - is a rapid and effective means of restoring fertility to exhausted soils. The planting of "green manure" formed the basis for the fallowing cycle of medieval farming , and probably of prehistoric farming as well.

Rye can tolerate a wide range ofacidity, but it requires good drainage , so humic and clay soils are unsuitable (J. Renfrew 1973, Percival 1910). Rye has two root systems , a shallow one that runs just below the ground surface , and a second one that sends shoots as long as two meters deep. The deep root system enables rye to withstand drought better the other cereals , and to draw water and nutrients from soils deep below the reach of wheat and barley. As a result, rye can be grown in soils that have been ruined by intensive cultivation

2.1.6. Weeds Despite the undoubted economic primacy of the cereal crop,

12

man). The Borremose man is unique among his fellows for having consumed no cultivated species, his last meal having consisted of the seeds of goosefoot, buckwheat , sorrel, and gold-of-pleasure (Camelina sativa) (J. Renfrew 1973). Analysis of the small buns from Glastonbury showed them to be made of wheat and barley , mixed with the seeds of chess , wild oats (Avena fatua) , and orache. It should be remembered , however, that only the latter example can be regarded (albeit with caution) as "real food"; the conditions under which the bog men met their ends being atypical at least, their final meals were likely prepared under ritual or punitive constraint.

weed seeds are usually better represented in carbonized archaeological deposits than the cultivated cereals. Most such weeds are associated with the arable crops , and come into the site deposits as a consequence of the harvesting , cleaning , and storage of the grain. In some respects , weeds can be more informative in the analysis of agricultural practice than the crops themselves. As plants , the cultivated cereals are extensively interfered with. They are bred for specific characteristics; they are managed and cared for in a way that enhances their competitive advantage and causes them to thrive even in environments that differ greatly from their natural preference , and that would not be especially favorable under natural conditions. Weeds , on the other hand , usually appear in their normal ecological circumstances , ousted from some niches by a stronger competitor , and ousting others in turn. The composition of the residual weed assemblage , therefore , can reveal a great deal about the ecological circumstances under which the crops were grown, and about the socioeconomic strategies employed by the growers.

It is therefore difficult to know which of the potentiallyuseful weeds were in fact used in prehistory. In general , the inclusion of "weeds" would be essential to maintaining a varied and nutritious diet , and it can be assumed that their presence indicates a degree of toleration , if not intentional inclusion. Nevertheless , the range of seeds can only describe the resources available to the community , not whether the resource was indeed used, or even if its value was known. Only in rare instances , such as the possible cache of medicinal corn gromwell (Lithospermum arvense) seeds from Ashville in Oxfordshire (M. K. Jones 1978, G. Grigson 1955) or the cache of mustard (Brassica sp.) seeds at Old Down Farm in Hampshire (Davies 198 I), can deliberate collection and usage be inferred.

Weeds as economic resources: Many of the weeds that flourish in and around cultivated fields are themselves rich nutritional resources. During the Neolithic in southern Britain , wild plants were an important source- perhaps even the primary source-of plant foods (M. K. Jones I 988a) . Later in prehistory , after cultivated crops had become the dominant source of plant foods , certain weeds were still utilized , and perhaps even encouraged , along with the cereals for their nutritional value. Among these are the wild seeds such as brome and chess (Bromus sp.) , goosefoot (Chenopodium album), wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) and also rye and oats, which might have started as weeds of other cultivated crops (Helbaek I 952 , M. K. Jones 1988a). Some of these weeds may have been a source offamine foods - resources to fall back on when the main crop failed (Hjelmqvist , cited in M. K. Jones 1988a}--and so been maintained along with the main crop. Others , such as orache (Atriplex patula) and mustard (Brassica alba), are a good source of leafy greens, a resource not provided by the cereal crops , and may have been encouraged for their sake. Some plants also yielded valued non-food resources , such as dyes, medicines and oils.

Weeds as indicators of local ecology: Because of intense competition , weeds tend to grow close to their ecological ideal and are unlikely to flourish in (for them) marginal environments. As a result , the remains of the weeds are evidence of the ancient ecological conditions of the site and its environs. This type of environmental analysis can be accomplished by defining plant communities on the basis of their jloristic composition - that is, a group of plants defined by their co-occurrence (see association , below). Certain plants are more sensitive to their ecological relationships than others , and their presence or absence can be used to identify or distinguish between ecological niches (M. K. Jones 1988a, I 988b ; Knorzer I 971 ; van Zeist 1974; van der Maarel 1975). This approach , known as Plant (Phyto-) Sociology , is not new in the field of botany , but has only recentl y been applied to the analysis of ancient plant communities (Knorzer I 971 ; M. K. Jones I 984b , I 988b; G. Jones I 992). The terminology of sociological analysis has been defined primarily by the work of Josias Braun-Blanquet and Reinhold Tilxen (e.g. BraunBlanquet 1932), and is known as the Zilrich-Montpellier School (see also Whittaker I 978 , van der Maarel 1975). The categories mimic the structure of systematic botany , and can be defined in ascending order of inclusion:

Direct evidence for the use of wild foods is understandably rare. Apart from a small number of ancient bodies preserved in the peat bogs of northern Europe , there is at least one example , from Glastonbury , of carbonized "bread loaves". The last meals of the men from Lindow (Brothwell 1987), Tol1und and Graubolle (Helbaek 1958) proved to be remarkably similar - a gruel or mush of wheat , barley , and/or oats, with a liberal amount oflinseed (Linum usitatissimum) , buckwheats (Polygonum sp.), goosefoot , brome and sorrel (Rumex). The Graubolle sample is remarkable for the very large number of species represented (sixty total , of which thirteen appear in large quantities ; opposed to nineteen total species for the Tollund man and fourteen for the Lindow

►

13

Association: the smallest , most fundamental unit of plant sociology ; a community whose component species can be counted on to occur together in a given ecological situation

►

Alliance: a group of closely-related associations , defined by the presence of a large number of characteristic species; roughly equivalent to the genus in systematics

►

Order: a group ofrelated alliances

►

Class: a grouping of orders with a large number of sociologically-important species in common ; coincide in many (not all) cases with such conventionally-recognized plant formations as swamp , heath , dry meadow , water-meadow , and so forth.

occurring by itself, signifies poor drainage in the arable fields rather than exploitation of the marshland resources (M. K. Jones 1988b). On the other hand, the co-occurrence of spikerush, water-dropwort ( Oenanthe aquatica) and yellow-flag iris (Iris pseudacoris ), all species of mineral-rich reed swamps (order Phragmitetalia) , would be strong evidence that such environments were exploited by residents of the site. On a general level, then , the methods of plant sociology can be an informative and more rigorous way of defining plant communities and their use in ancient economies. The comparison ofancient assemblages with well-defined modern plant communities can yield more subtle insights into the nature of exploited environments than can an ad hoc comparison of niche preferences , and can also serve to illuminate unexpected differences that might have economic significance. The identification of such relationships in ancient seed assemblages is the means by which the local ecological situation ofa site, and the resources available to it, can be understood .

In theory , a paleo-sociological analysis should be quite simple , matching the weeds that occur in archaeological deposits with the associations or alliances defined for their modern counterparts . In practice , the correlations are more difficult to accomplish. Since floristic relationships vary locally , it is necessary to have or produce a sociological classification for the local area. This study relies upon three sociological studies of British flora: a classification ofarable communities by Silverside (I 977) , recently updated by Rodwell (2000), and a classification of non-arable communities (Rieley and Page 1990) (see Appendix 1 for tenninology and details of classification) . It is also necessary to assume a correlation between ancient and modern plant behavior, a correlation that may not be wholly defensible given the nearly 5000 years of intensive human intervention in the agricultural landscape of Britain (M. K. Jones 1988b, van der Veen 1992). Finally, though associations are defined by the totality of the related community, archaeological deposits are by nature incomplete, and characteristic (indicator) species of an association might not have been collected or preserved in an archaeological assemblage. However , it is on the association level that changes are most likely to have occurred ; on a broader scale the pattern of relationships were probably similar over time , at least at the level of order and alliance.

A further extension of these data would be the identification of non-local resources in the site residues. For example , species of acidic marshy ground such as Molinia caerulea and Carex nigra or saltmarsh plants such as Plantago maritima and limonium vulgare would not naturally occur on a chalk downlands site. Should such species be present in the deposits from such a site, it can be inferred that these resources were intentionally collected and transported (for food , bedding , thatch , fodder , etc.). In conjunction with other evidence of such behavior , the transportation of nonlocal resources can be evidence of such intergroup relationships as reciprocity or tribute (see Chapter 3, sections 3.5, 3.7). Weeds as indicators of economic intensity: Fallowing: Resting the soil from grain production by allowing it to revert to grassland or by intentionally planting nitrogenous crops or weeds (such as beans , peas , vetches or clover) is a necessary strategy to prevent soil exhaustion. Grain crops have very high nutrient requirements , and a crop can only be maintained for a few years before the yields decrease considerably . This is especially true of the thin soils that form over chalk. A fallow year is an efficient way of providing livestock with high-quality nourishment while returning much-needed nutrients to the soil in the form of fixed nitrogen and animal dung. The classic three-field rotation of medieval agriculture (one field under summer cereals , one field under winter cereals, and one fallow) maintained the fertility of hard-used soils at a minimum annual loss of planting acreage , and it is possible that such a system was used in prehistory (Dahlman 1980, Sabean 1990, Palmer 1998).

Because of these changes in the composition of floristic associations over time, some analysts (eg. van der Veen 1992) have rejected a straight sociological approach in favor of an analysis that takes into account the niche preferences of individual plant species (autecology). They point out that plant assemblages in archaeological sites have more to do with cultural (ie, agricultural) selection than with plant ecology per se. Nevertheless , given the vagaries of archaeological sampling, both methods can be useful. Since the seeds in an archaeological waste deposit potentially derive from several original locations , tracing the individual preferences will provide a list of possibilities. Individual niche preferences can be extremely broad (eg. K. Taylor 1999 , Firbank 1988), but correlating the "overlap " with sociological classifications can narrow down the scope. For example , spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris ) is a common marshland species that appears widely in Iron Age, but not modern , arable deposits. It is more likely that spike-rush ,

The growing requirements of the fallow plants are , as a rule, quite different from those of cereals , and so it is unlikely that

14

cereals and legumes would have been grown together 1• Therefore, the association of grassland plants and legumes with grains can be considered specific evidence of fallowing, and has been so defined as a sociological class of modern arable communities (class 5a: Molinio-ArrhenathereteaStellarietea, Silverside 1977; see also Schmidt 1981).

period, the risk of the harvest being spoiled by rain is reduced. As a rule, the autumn-germinating weeds (particularly Bromus secalinus, Agrostemma githago, Galium aparine, Cerastum holosteioides , and Veronica hederofolia) are indicators of autumn-sown crops (Hillman 1981, M. K. Jones 1978, van Zeist 1974). They germinate with the winter crop, and are therefore difficult to eradicate without damaging the grain ; they are , however , destroyed by plowing in preparation for a spring-sown crop. Conversely , the spring-germinating weeds (especially Polygonum convolvulus, Chenopodium album, Stellaria media, Thlaspi arvense, Sonchus arvensis, Erisimum cheiranthoides, and Angallis arvensis) are associated with root crops and summer cereals (Silverside's (1977) Class 2; see Appendix 1.3). A preponderance of either type, or the association of one type with a specific crop, can be used as evidence of sowing season .

In ancient agriculture, bean and cereal crops were processed differently; beans for seed or food would not be stored in pits, nor need they be parched for use. Nevertheless, residues of cereal crops often contain seeds of legumes and grassland (pasture) weeds. Therefore, for prehistoric seed assem b Iages, fallowing can be defined as the co-occurrence nitrogenous weeds (especially those ofalkaline soils--Vicia sp., Trifolium sp. and Medicago lupulina) and grassland plants of Silverside's (1977) classes 5, 21 and/or 22 (MolinioArrhenatheretea and Festuco-Brometea ; see Appendix 1.1). Examples of these weed assemblages have been identified as early as the Early Bronze Age at Brean Down in Somerset ( see Section 6 .3 .1 ), and are quite common after the Late Bronze Age in both the Sussex Downs and Wessex (see Sections 4.3 and 6.3).

2.1.7. Archaeological Deposition of Plant Remains Harvest: The crop , weeds and grain together , is brought

Soil depletion: Apart from being indicators of ecology , the

back to the site at harvest. The density of the weed residues is a direct result of the method of harvesting. Ear-harvesting, in which the seed-heads are broken off the standing straw by hand , produces the cleanest assemblage ; nearly all the weeds are left behind with the exception of those , like the bindweeds , that wind themselves around the ear (Reynolds 1981a). Sheaf collecting , either by cutting the straw with a sickle or by uprooting the whole plant , incorporates the maximum number of weeds , since all the plants are taken up together. In an experimental harvest conducted at the Butser Ancient Farm, Reynolds ( 1981a) counted out one sheaf of harvested emmer to include I 833 straws (used for thatch , fodder , and bedding) and 30-40 ,000 weeds seeds.

weeds of arable fields can also give clues to soil quality , and stress that might result from too-intensive agriculture. Annual weeds, which tend to be nitrophilous , will abound on rich agricultural soils (see Appendix 1.3). Conversely , the dominance of perennial weeds , and especially nitrogenous weeds , is a certain indicator of depleted soils (Warrington 1924). A shift in the weed profile from annuals to perennials , especially if it is accompanied by a shift from wheat and barley cultivation to the hardier rye and oats , is the hallmark ofa depleted and stressed agricultural economy (M. K. Jones 1981).

Sowing season: The inclusion of certain classes of weed seeds can be an indicator of the season in which the crop was sown, and this, in turn, can be an indicator of agricultural intensity. Apart from the pulses and em.mer, which are not frost-hardy and must be spring-sown in Britain , most cereals can be sown either in the autumn or in the spring. Since autumn-sown crops ripen in midsummer, and spring-sown crops ripen in late summer or early fall , the harvest workload could be spread out over a longer period of time because the schedules of the two crops do not compete. It would therefore be possible to have more land under cultivation at one time than would be the case if all the crops were sown in the same season. Also , since mid-summer is a relatively dry

Threshing: Threshing describes the initial separation of the spikelets from the straw , weeds and other debris. This is usually accomplished by beating the sheaves with flails , or by lashing the sheaves against a wall or threshing frame (for a detailed description of the methods of threshing , see Hillman 1981). Following the threshing , the grain is winnowed to separate the kernels from the lighter chaff and straw fragments , then sieved to separate out the weeds and other impurities. The deposits that are left over can be described as follows (cf. Hillman 1981; M. K. Jones 1985; Dennell I 974a , 1976a; Grieg 1990; Engelmark 1989; van der Veen 1992): ►

clean grain (free-threshing and naked cereals): relatively pure grain of homogeneous size, free of chaff , most weeds , and other debris

►

semi-clean grain (glume wheats and hulled grains): separated spikelets , but still retaining the glumes and paleas ; relatively free of weeds and straw

1

In Central America in both ancient and modern times , com and beans were grown in the same field ; the beans provided the com with much-needed nitrogen and the cornstalks supported the bean vines , improving the productivity of both crops. This is not feasible in grass-grain agriculture , since the heavy vines would tangle and pull down the straw , ruining the crops.

15

►

primary cleaning waste (threshing): smal1er weed seeds, unused straws , awns , straw nodes , culm bases (root ends), chaff (especially from free-threshing cereals), smal1 amount of grain

►

primary cleaning waste (winnowing and sieving): chaff (esp. free-threshing cereals), small and medium weed seeds, small amount of grain

necessary to render all types of grain dry and floury for milling , and so is usually done as part of the food preparation process. Parching the grain destroys its ability to germinate , so grain stored for seed would never be parched (Percival 1921, Reynolds 1979). Nor is it likely that grain would be parched before pit storage , since the dry grain would draw moisture from the ground , facilitating spoilage (Reynolds 1979). Parching, like secondary cleaning , was most likely done piecemeal at the time of use, rather than in bulk .

The clean and semi-clean grain would be ready for storage , kept for later consumption or use as seed. The waste would be swept away to be discarded, burned as fuel, or fed to the livestock.

2.2. FAUNAL REMAINS

In a damp climate such as that of Britain, the grain would be subjected to a final cleaning , piecemeal at the time of use (Hillman 1981, van der Veen 1991). The free-threshing grains would be mostly clean , but the larger weed seeds that would not have come out in the sieve (e.g. Agrostemma githago, Raphanus raphanustrum , Polygonum convolvulus , Chrysanthemum segetum) would have to be picked out by hand. The hulled grains would have to be parched to loosen the glumes and paleas , and then threshed , winnowed , and sieved again to clean the parched grain of its chaff. As with the free-threshing grains , large weeds seeds would have to be removed by hand. The resulting secondary cleaning waste would be characterized by chaff(especially glume bases and spikelet forks) from the hulled cereals and large-seeded weeds.

The fauna] remains in later prehistoric sites derive overwhelmingly from domestic livestock. Although wild animals form a significant component of the archaeological deposits for Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites , they become virtually absent on Late Bronze Age and Iron Age sites. This suggests that the settled agricultural economy had become sufficiently well-established that hunting was no longer necessary as a supplementary economic strategy (M. K. Jones 1988a, Grant 1981); it also suggests that clearance and cultivation had so altered the landscape surrounding settlements that the "natural" habitats of these creatures no longer impinged on the immediate surroundings of the sites. Wild animals do not share the same symbiotic or parasitic relationship with livestock that weeds share with crops. It would be virtually impossible to avoid gathering in some weeds with the harvest, but with the exception of rodents and scavengers , it would be nearly as difficult to incidentally acquire an assemblage of wild animals. Therefore nearly every creature present in a cultural context represents a deliberate attempt on someone's part to acquire its resources.

Storage: Reynolds ( 1979, 1981 a, 1981b) has demonstrated that in cool climates pits in the ground are ideal for storing grain , preserving its germinating ability as well if not better than modem storage methods. The pit can be dug into clay, dirt or chalk; it does not need to be lined. Once the grain is put in and the pit is sealed , the layer of grain in contact with the sides of the pit will sprout. The normal respiration of the sprouted grain will deplete the oxygen in the sealed pit, arresting further germination, and keeping the stored grain in a state of dormancy. The anaerobic atmosphere of the pit also prevents the growth of bacteria that could cause spoilage. Once the seal is broken, however , the processes of sprouting and bacterial growth resume, so an opened pit must be emptied quickly .

2.2.1. Cattle (Bos taurus) European domestic cattle were derived from aurochs (Bos primigenius) , the wild cattle of the European and Asian forests. The aurochs was notable for its large body and the wide sweep of its horns. Domestication reduced both features considerably , resulting in a small-bodied creature with short curled horns, known as the "Celtic shorthorn" (Bos longifrons) . The early domestic cattle of Britain were of this shorthorn type , suggesting that the stock were brought to Britain from the mainland rather than domesticated in situ from the native aurochs population (Noddle 1989).

The mat of sprouted grain around the sides of the pit is useless for either compost or fodder and can be burned in situ, thereby cleaning the pit and leaving it ready for the next use. Eventually the sides of an unlined pit become very smooth, because the roots of the sprouting grain adhere to and pull off any smal1 irregularities.

Cattle are browsers; they thrive on a combination of grass, leafy plants, brush, leaves and small branches. They also require a steady supply of water . Riverbanks , water meadows , or any areas that were too wet for agriculture were ideal for keeping cattle (Legge 1989, Grant 1984a).

Parching: Along with cooking , parching is the means by which clean grain is most likely to become carbonized . Parching is a necessary step in the final cleaning of the hulled grains because the heat loosens the glumes and paleas and renders them brittle, enabling them to be removed by threshing (Helbaek 1953, Hillman 1981). Parching is also

Cattle must be sheltered for the winter , which is costly , and so the herds were culled in the fall. Surplus young animals (especially young males) and older animals past the age of

16

ovicaprids unless goats have been specifically identified.

breeding were slaughtered, keeping only the cattle that were needed to build up the next year's herd. These remaining animals would be kept stalled for most of the winter and fed on stores of grain, hay and leaf fodder that were laid down earlier in the autumn.

Sheep are grazers, requiring grassy pasture or fodder of hay and straw. They obtain most of the water they need from the grass they eat, and can thrive on pastures that would be too dry for cattle. Sheep need a constant change of grazing ground to minimize infections and disease (F. E. Green 1908, Reynolds 1987); they are also susceptible to parasites that infest damp meadows , such as foot rot and liver fluke , and so are better suited to upland terraces than valley bottoms (Grant 1984a). Goats are browsers , and more variable in their diet than sheep. Left untended , they can destroy young trees , shrubs , fruit and vegetable crops.

Cattle provide numerous valuable resources - meat and milk for food , muscle to pull the plow or cart, dung for fertilizer , bone for tools, and hides for clothing, coverings and containers. Cattle reach their maximum body weight in about three years, but can be kept for breeding, milk production , or traction for another seven or more years . Manure can be collected from the byres and pasture, but if cattle are turned out on a harvested field to graze on the stubble , they will manure the field evenly themselves.

Sheep are very hardy to winter conditions , and can be left out to forage for themselves. They also maintain a compact home range, which makes them easy to tend and herd (Pryor 1996). Goats are less hardy and must be sheltered in the winter . They are less gregarious than sheep , more prone to wander , and difficult to maintain in a sedentary flock.

The kill-off profile , or pattern of ages at death , can be used as a clue to the products exploited in antiquity. If cattle were bred primarily for meat, then the bulk of the butchered animals should be youngsters between about eight months and three years old. Three-year-olds are the most economically efficient, because they have just reached their full body size, and therefore yield the maximum amount of meat for the labor and feed invested in them ("optimal meat age") ; nevertheless , younger animals might be culled to reduce the herd size over the winter , or because the demand for meat exceeded the number of available three-year-olds (Maltby 1979). If the animals were kept primarily for breeding and labor , many of the animals would be older- as much as eight years old or more . A dairy economy would be represented by two age peaks , one of very young animals and one of older animals . The young animals would represent neonatal deaths and calves culled to free up the milk supply of the lactating females (Legge 1981, 1989; Maltby 1981 ; Hambleton 1999 ; for an alternate model , see Entwistle and Grant 1989).

Both sheep and goats are a good source of meat , milk, bone , dung , fiber and hides . Goat hair can be woven , though sheep wool is better for spinning (Ryder 1981 ). Kill-off patterns for meat and milk production would be similar to those for cattle (Grant I 984 ; Maltby 1981 ); sheep and goats reach their optimal meat age at two years.

2.2.3. Pigs (Sus scrofa) In early prehistory the domestic pig was virtually undifferentiated from the wild boar (Sus scrofa ) that was common in the forests of Europe and the Near East. Boar piglets are easily tamed , and it is likely that most domestic stocks were raised by taking in and breeding wild piglets (C. Grigson 1982, Clutton-Brock 1989). In later prehistory , pigs and boar could be distinguished on the basis of size , pigs being generally smaller and more gracile with less prominent tusks and a shorter face . However , since the practice of taking in piglets and interbreeding domestic and wild stock continued , the distinctions between wild and domestic populations are not well-defined .

2.2.2. Sheep (Ovis aries) I Goats (Capra hircus) The ancestors of domestic sheep and goats are West Asian in origin , and therefore the establishment of these two species in Britain was accomplished by transporting animals from the continent. The early domestic ovicaprids of Britain were morphologically similar to those of mainland Europe (Noddle 1989, Glass 1991).

The great economic virtue of pigs is that they cost almost nothing to keep. Pigs are omnivorous , and will thrive on a combination of human food debris , dairy waste left over from butter and cheese production , and pannage from the forests. In return they produce high-quality meat and manure (the manure of pigs is the most beneficial to the soil of any of the domestic stock). Pigs, which lack sweat glands , require shade from the sun in summer and mudholes to wallow in. They must be sheltered in the winter to keep warm. Their ideal habitation for most of the year are moist woodlands ; since they can find their own food and will not wander far if they can avoid it, a forest herd would require very little labor to keep. If kept in the forest , sows were likely to interbreed with the wild boars , maintaining the similarity between the domestic and wild populations (C. Grigson 1982).

Sheep and goats are generally treated as a unit in fauna) reports because most elements of their skeletons are indistinguishable , though there are a few diagnostic bones (Boessneck 1969). Since most of the diagnostic bones in British sites can be identified as sheep , it is generally assumed that the ancient flocks were of sheep, with only a small percentage of goats. For example, at Winnall Down in Hampshire , identified sheep outnumbered goats by a ratio of 34-to-l (Fasham 1985); at West Stow in Suffolk the ratio was 26-to-l (West 1990). AtDanebury(Grant 1984b), onlyfour goats could be identified out of a total MN I of 1565 ovicaprids. In this study, the term "sheep" will be used for all

17

resources from Neolithic sites, this percentage decreased steadily , to only a negligible amount by the Iron Age (M. K. Jones 1988a). Red and roe deer are usually represented in small numbers ; other animals, including fur-bearing creatures such as fox, badger , beaver , and rabbit , and woodland and water birds appear sporadically. Their use may be seen as opportunistic rather than systematic.

Other than manure , the only economically-useful products of pigs are meat and hides. Most pigs were slaughtered when young , most of them by two years , when they reached their optimal meat weight. Pigs are very fertile ; they can reproduce after only one year, and continue until they are around eight years old. They litter six or more piglets at a time , and if well-fed , might produce two litters a year. Accordingly, only a small number of pigs needed to be maintained over the winter for breeding, since the herd would regenerate rapidly the following spring. Pigs are therefore more likely than any of the other livestock to represent the meat component of the ancient diet (Grant 1984a); a kill-off pattern favoring two-year-olds would be expected of a healthy productive economy, but the increasing slaughter of yearlings or middle-aged animals might be one clue that the economy was under stress (Maltby 1979).

Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) I Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus): Red deer are adaptable creatures who prefer the forest but can thrive if necessary on grassland and arable crops. Roe deer are more dependent upon woodlands , feeding on leafy plants and shrubs such as are found at the margins of clearances . Neither species forms herds , but travel singly or in small family gro ups (Coy 1982).

The great majority of deer remains in archaeological sites is antler rather than bone , so the level of deer exploitation might be much lower than is usually presented . Antler is densest and most suitable for tool-making in winter, just at the time that it is shed. Collecting shed antler in the forests would yield a considerable amount of raw material , but would involve no hunting .

2.2.4. Horse (Equus equus I Equus caballus) The domestic horse of prehistoric Europe was descended from the European wild horse (Equ usferus). In northwestern Europe these horses were quite smal I in stature and are referred to as "Celtic ponies" ; they are similar to the modern feral ponies of southern Britain . The Celtic pony is quite different from the larger , more powerful horse of the Scythian steppes that was used in southeastern Europe (Clutton-Brock 1989).

Wild animals as economic resources: Given their small representation on Bronze and Iron Age sites, it is unlikely that wild animals , even deer , would have contributed much to the diet. Nevertheless, many of the wild animals preserved in archaeological bone assemblages were edible , at least in part, and those found in domestic contexts were probably consumed. The red deer is the only creature among these that would yield a substantial amount of meat.

Horses are grazers ; they must be fed on grass or supplementary fodder of hay, straw or grain, along with an adequate supply of fresh water . They require some shelter in the winter. Horses are not as strong as cattle, and are not as useful for traction. They do not provide milk of a quality or quantity comparable to cattle , sheep , or goats. Horses do have the advantage of speed , and can be ridden ; there is evidence for horse-riding in the Iron Age, and it can be assumed that this was the function of most horses on Iron Age sites (Grant 1984b ).

Most wild game were more valuable for their secondary products than for their food value, and these might have been the qualities that attracted ancient hunters . Feathers, especially those of eagles and geese (Clark 1952), could be used for fletching arrows. Fox, wolf, muskrat , beaver , rabbit , badger , and polecat are all good sources of fur. The collection of pelts is particularly indicated if the animals are only represented by the bones of their feet and skulls , since these are often retained when the pelt is stripped from the animal in the field, and discarded at the site once the pelt was cleaned and preserved .

It is believed that horses were not bred in prehistory , but that wild adults were rounded up and broken for riding as needed (Harcourt, in Wainwright 1979), but this is disputed (Grant 1984b). Nevertheless , the bones of young horses have been found at the Late Iron Age sites of Copse Farm in Sussex (Bedwin and Holgate 1985), Meare Village East in Somerset (Coles 1987) , Poundbury in Dorset (Sparey Green 1987) and Chilbolton Down in Hampshire (Schadla-Hall 1984), suggesting that breeding might have become a component of the livestock economy by the end of the Iron Age. Horses cannot be broken until they are around three years old, and would be kept as long as possible , so the age-at-death profile should represent older animals almost exclusively.

Wild animals as indicators of local ecology: Even though they have attracted less study than wild plants , wild animals are equally useful indicators of local environmental conditions , and the ecological niches exploited in prehistory . Some animals , such as red deer , can adapt to considerable change in their surroundings ; most , however , cannot and they use their mobility to seek out more congenial habitats . Consequently, the composition of the wild animal assemblage will reflect the different types of environments available to the local residents.

2.2.5. Wild Animals Wild animals appear as a small but consistent component of the fauna} remains in later prehistoric sites in Britain . Although wild animals comprised half or more of the fauna)

There is no parallel in fauna! studies to the complex relationships of plant sociology . Nevertheless , similar

18

of one or more animals. Since all of the animals were selected for meat , there should be none of the age distribution that characterizes domestic assemblages. Since the animals were consumed and their remains discarded in one place and all at the same time , the bones should exhibit less of the extreme fragmentation , attrition and scavenger-damage than do fauna! remains in household refuse (Maltby 1985).

principles can be applied, albeit in a less rigorous manner: certain habitats will be inhabited by identifiable animal communities, and the presence of these animals on a site, especially if there are several species from the same habitat , can be taken as evidence of the economic utility of that habitat. On the other hand , an animal community will not be represented with the same completeness as a plant community since many species would be left behind. Unlike plant collecting, in which the inclusion of weeds is incidental and wide-ranging , the hunting of animals is intentional and selective. Wild faunal remains cannot be expected to exhibit the same breadth and variability as wild floral remains.

Hide processing: When the hide or pelt is stripped from an animal , the foot bones and skull are often left attached , to be removed later when the hide is cleaned. A deposit of animal bones that is dominated by heads and feet might indicate this activity. An example of this type of deposit was found at Glastonbury (Bulleid and Gray I 91 1-I 917). Although all parts of the sheep were found at Glastonbury , horses and cattle were represented exclusively by skull and foot bones. Together with the boggy location of the site and the abundance of tannin-rich oak and willow branches found at the margins of the mound , this suggests hide processing at Glastonbury on a large scale , rather than normal domestic butchering of cattle and horses for food .

Appendix 2 is a list of the wild animals commonly found in British Bronze and Iron Age sites, along with their uses and ecological preferences. The animals fall broadly into six categories, defining the following environments: river valleys , river margins , clearances , woodlands, meadows , and commensals/scavengers.

2.2.6. Archaeological Deposition of Animal Remains

2.3. COMPENSATING FOR VARIATION IN ANALYTICAL METHODS

The residues of meat production are not as numerous or characteristic as those of grain production. Processing of meat would necessarily be rapid to prevent spoilage , and many of the procedures (such as evisceration) are unlikely to leave characteristic archaeological traces . Nevertheless , certain types of bone discard assemblages exhibit patterns that can be associated with specific economic behaviors.

Quantification ofresidues is the persistent weakness oftloral and fauna! analysis. Several methods have been proposed , each with its merits , but all are hampered by the irremediable errors inherent in archaeological recovery techniques , and by the fact that the material recovered bears an unknown (and unknowable) quantitative and distributive relationship to the original sample. Since these methods and their problems have been discussed at some length (Hastorf and Popper 1988, Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984, Grayson 1979, 1984, Pearsall 1989, Uerpmann 1972, Payne 1975, Hambleton 1999), they need not be repeated here, except to note that different methods are suited to different situations of recovery , and that therefore no single method has been deemed uniformly desirable or has been universally adopted .

Activity areas: Consumption of an animal requires a laborious process of cleaning and disarticulating since mature animals are only rarely consumed whole. During this primary cleaning process , the useful non-food resources would be stripped and laid aside (bone for tools , hides , horns and antlers) and the carcass would be cut into manageable pieces for consumption or preservation (drying , smoking or salting). The unused parts of the carcass would be discarded. Halstead , Hodder and Jones ( 1978) suggest that the composition of the bone assemblage in features can be used to define these stages of processing. In general terms , they define butchery or food preparation areas , which have a high proportion of skull , foot and lower limb bones from eating or table areas , which are characterized by vertebrae , pelves , scapulae , upper limb bones , and the absence of feet and skulls. If the bone assemblage of a site shows this kind of separation, it may be possible to define specific activity areas of the site, with the food preparation waste representing processing areas , and the table waste representing areas of domestic activity (cf. also , Wilson 1996).

Recent attention to data collection in floral and fauna) analysis promises to improve both the integrity of the samples and introduce some consistency into the methods of data analysis and presentation , greatly facilitating cross-site comparisons and regional surveys (cf . Cherry , Gamble and Shennan 1978). The challenge of this study , in the mean time, is to make use of the existing published data without allowing its variability to either obscure or falsely introduce meaningful patterns in the analysis . There is no equation that translates one method of quantification into another or makes different data presentations directly comparable on equal terms. There are , however , two measures of relative abundance that can be extrapolated from most published fauna) and floral reports , and they can be used to impose some measure of uniformity. These measures are simple percentages (or NISP) and ubiquity.

Feasting: Feasting assemblages are relatively easy to identify , since they tend to occur in ceremonial or monumental , rather than domestic , contexts ( eg. Hambledon Hill; Mercer 1980, Bradley 1984). Feasting deposits are characterized by the complete or nearly-complete skeletons

NISP is the acronym for the Number of Identified

19

account for about 34%; their ubiquity is roughly comparable. There is, however , a much greater degree of fragmentation of the cattle bones, reducing their likelihood of being identified relative to the more intact sheep bone assemblage. Finally, the overall sample size is not very large (N = 2481 ). Taken together, this raises the strong possibility that cattle were under-represented in the identified sample , and that they might have been more important to the Ashville economy than is immediately apparent. The modest dominance of sheep at Ashville is a possibility , but by no means a certainty. Especially in the case of smaller domestic sites, comparisons of assemblages and ecological data throughout the immediate region will produce more meaningful results than the analysis of single sites.

Specimens, and simply means the percentage of bones or seeds of a certain species out of the entire identified sample. For example, if there are 342 cow bones in an identified faunal sample of 1000, then the NISP = 342 or 34.2%. NISP has the virtues of being simple, straightforward, and numerica11y exact; but as a measure of relative economic importance it is very inadequate. The counts are easily skewed by differential processing methods (eg. fragmentation) or by the recovery of a single concentrated sample; the intact skeleton of an animal or a jar of stored seed will exert a disproportionate influence on the final result. Fo11owing the suggestion of Chaplin (1971) for animal bones, distortions caused by a concentrated deposit can be minimized by counting the deposit as a single rather than multiple occurrence.

There is no magic number that infallibly divides the significant differences from the insignificant. Such judgements can only be made on the bases of sample size, consistency , and some measure of subjective experience . It is necessary that these judgements be made explicit when they occur so that they can be evaluated in their tum .

The inaccuracies of NISP can be further mitigated by coupling them with measures of frequency, or ubiquity (Popper 1988, Hubbard 1980) . Ubiquity describes the number of features or contexts in which a species occurs , as a percentage of the total number of contexts. Thus , a species that occurs in seven out of ten features is more ubiquitous than one that is present in only three. The measurement of ubiquity assumes that a resource of importance will have been widely distributed throughout the settlement , and will therefore have had a greater number of opportunities for preservation and recovery. ldea11y,the species for which the NISP is greatest will also be the most ubiquitous , thus confirming insofar as is possible its status as primary resource. Conversely, a low ubiquity score can modify the apparent importance of a concentrated deposit, while a high score can perhaps elevate the importance of a resource that was used widely, but was not preserved in representative numbers due to differences in processing or deposition. Because of the small size of cereal grains and the relative ease with which they are scattered compared to animal bones, a "high" ubiquity score for an animal species will be rather lower than a "high" grain score. Fiannly, the analyst has no choice but to rely on the subjective facilities of experience and common sense. Despite the inaccuracies of quantification methods , certain samples will show clear and meaningful differences. For example, Grant's (1984b) analysis of the Danebury fauna shows that sheep are the dominant livestock in all Iron Age phases of occupation, accounting for about 60% of the fauna I remains. Cattle are the next most abundant species, at about 20%. Grant quantified her findings using several different methods , and all showed a similar relationship. In addition , the site area had been extensively excavated, reducing the likelihood that the recovered sample was idiosyncratic; the data set is very large (for the Late Iron Age, N = 164,395) so anomalies would have a very small impact on the final result. In case such as this, it is safe to say that sheep were two-tothree times as abundant as cattle at Dane bury. The fauna! remains from the Ashville Trading Estate (Wilson 1978) present a more ambiguous picture. Sheep bones represent about 53% of the combined Iron Age deposits , while cattle

20

CHAPTER 3: Relations of Production:

constructing economic models of social behavior

The settlement may be isolated , or it may lie within a landscape of undifferentiated settlements. Its neighbors would be selfsufficient agricultural communities like itself , and none would have obligations to a central hierarchical authority .

A series of predictive models have been constructed to analyze the subsistence data from sites. These models are socioeconomic in conception - that is, they describe the economic manifestations of various social relationships . "Economy", in this context , will be taken to mean "subsistence production". Since economic practices are a reflection of the social functioning of communities , these models are an attempt to understand this social functioning through the medium of specifically economic data.

The village should produce a diverse range of agricultural goods, including several species each of grain and livestock. Such diversification mitigates the effects of annual variation , and acts as insurance against the failure of a particular resource (see Section 3.4). Accordingly , the site should be located to take advantage of a range of ecological niches - for example , on a river terrace , where at the same time it has access to the valley bottom for grazing cattle , the terraces for planting crops , and the drier uplands for grazing sheep. The community would also have access to the varied wild resources of the different ecological zones. Wild resources can act as a fonn of insurance in poor years, but as a rule agricultural produce would dominate the economy. All resources found on the site , both domestic and wild, should be characteristic of the local ecology and should easily be obtained within the catchment of the site. Scale of production activities and storage facilities should be commensurate with the estimated population size of the site (Hastorf 1983, Crabtree 1990, Bakels 1996).

In all cases these models will focus on the evidence of food production , that is, primarily fauna! and floral remains. Each model is designed to address a particular research focus in socioeconomic studies; as such , they are not mutually exclusive and there will be considerable overlap in some categories. For example, regional specialization can be studied as a contrasting strategy to regional diversity (see Section 3.4) , but also as a component of the relationship between producers and consumers(Section 3.2). Never-theless , each model allows for the isolation and study of a specific economic behavior or social characteristic. Broadening the study of each such behavior from the site to the region will allow some understanding of the economic function of each site within its region , and how this economic function both reinforces and is structured by the regional social regime .

Livestock: The self-sufficient community will exploit the full range of available livestock - typically sheep and goats , pigs , cattle , and perhaps horses-though the relative importance of each species will be determined by local preferences and ecological conditions.

3.1. THE SELF-SUFFICIENT ECONOMY Agriculture is an inherently cooperative activity. Seasonal variations in demands on labor and capital , the uncertainty of production from year to year , and the need for marriage partners quickly builds networks of kinship and obligation between households and villages. In reality , it is unlikely that a fanning community , except for a truly isolated pioneer settlement , will be completely self-sustained. This model , therefore, does not describe a situation likely to be found in real life; it is presented as a baseline for comparison , a foundation upon which other models of socioeconomic interaction can be built up.

Because the community breeds its own livestock , the fauna} remains will reflect the very high number of neonatal deaths (up to 40%) associated with ancient stock breeding (Grant 1984, Maltby 1985). The kill-off schedules of the surviving animals will be consistent with the economic functions of each species (see Chapter 2). For pigs , which are primarily used as food , the greatest number will be slaughtered in their second year when they reach their optimal weight ; smaller kill-off peaks should occur at one year (culls) and at six to eight years , when the breeding stock has outlived its usefulness. For cattle and sheep , the distribution should favor older animals ; although some animals will be killed after two to three years for meat , a significant portion will be kept into advanced age for breeding , milk (cattle and sheep) , wool (sheep) , and traction (cattle).

3.1.1. Evidence of Self-Sufficiency The self-sufficient settlement is defined as a closed economic system, producing only for itself without supplying any of its produce to its neighbors, or relying on its neighbors for any part of its own economic needs . The village produces only the amount required for its annual consumption plus enough to maintain the herds and plant next year. The full range of production and processing activities should be evident in the floral and fauna} remains.

Grain: As with livestock , a self-sufficient community will grow a variety of grains , though the specific choices will be detennined by the local climate and the quality of the soil. The floral remains should be indicative of the whole range of grain processing and consumption activities. Deposits of semi-clean (hulled) and clean (free-threshing) grain are indicative of

21

is characteristic of a more complex social organization. The central site, for example a hillfort , might serve a number of functions as the focus of a territory. Produce transported to the site might be stored for safekeeping or for future redistribution within the territory- in essence a regional warehouse. Such an arrangement would protect food stores in times of uncertainty (political or climatic), and could also serve as a mechanism for the distribution of the varied produce of a region among its inhabitants. In a politically centralized society , satellite communities might be sending foodstuffs to the center in the form of taxation or tribute, as in the model suggested by CunliffeforDanebury(Cunliffe 1984 , 1991, 1993 ; M.K . Jones 1984, 1985). This produce would be consumed by the residents of the central site, presumably those at the upper end of the social scale. Alternately , some of this produce might be used by the regional elites to trade outside the territory for luxury goods or commodities (Wells 1980, Renfrew 1982, Crabtree 1990). Either way, there would be no evidence that the produce was returned or redistributed to the satellite communities.

storage contexts . Chaff deposits will contain debris from all stages of cleaning , from threshing to the final sieving. In addition, weeds removed from the grain assemblage during the cleaning process should be characteristic of the local area, and should represent the catchment of the site (M. K. Jones 1985; Hillman 1981, 1984).

3.2. PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS Economic data can be expected to vary between sites that produce goods for others as well as themselves , and sites that consume goods produced elsewhere. This type ofrelationship can be dictated by either economic necessity or by social patterns. The relationship may or may not be reciprocal , and it can cut across different levels of social complexity. There are three basic types of producer/consumer relations: ►

sites might exploit different ecological niches within the same general landscape , exchanging goods as a means or reducing labor and/or increasing productivity

►

communities might specialize in the production of some desirable or proprietary commodity , trading it to agricultural sites in return for produce

►

produce may be transferred from satellite communities to a central site, either for redistribution or as tribute

3.2.1. Evidence of Production The characteristics of producer sites will vary according to their product and their ecological situation. Nevertheless , there will be several characteristics that they have in common. A production site can be expected to be located in an area optimal for the production of its product, in order to minimize costs and maximize efficiency. In addition , the scale of production should exceed that necessary for the size of its population (Hastorf 1983, Crabtree 1990, Bakels 1996).

The first case , niche exploitation , could be expected to occur in regions where the topography is relatively variable over short distances. For example, in terraced river valleys, the valley bottoms are ideal for raising cattle, but unsuitable for sheep , which would suffer from liver fluke and foot rot in such damp conditions. Conversely , the upland terraces are ideal for sheep , but too dry to sustain cattle (Grant 1984). The lower terraces are best suited to arable. In such a case, a community might occupy a swath that travels upward from the valley floor to the upper terraces , incorporating the various ecological zones. Or it might specialize in the valley floor , supplying the occupants of the upper terraces with cattle in return for sheep. In such a case , the occupants of each zone would produce goods desired by the others, and the sites would show evidence of both consumption and production behavior (Lewthwaite 1985; Murra 1980, "vertical complementarity" ; Fleming 1985, "catena" pattern).

livestock: Livestock producer sites are most readily identified by two clues: the age profile of the fauna] remains (Grant 1984), and the skeletal elements present in the waste deposits (Maltby 1984, 1985; Grant 1984). If a community produces livestock to trade on the hoof, the faunal assemblage should show a depletion of animals at the optimal meat age, since this is the most efficient time to kill them if meat production is the primary consideration. In addition , there should be an emphasis on breeding- a relatively large number of very young animal (normal neonatal mortality among ancient livestock was around 30-40%; Grant 1984; Maltby 1981 , 1985), and a large number of older animals (six or more years) representing the breeding stock. This pattern should hold most closely for pigs, which produce no secondary products while alive; there would be little incentive to rear pigs above the two-year range except for the few needed for breeding.

In the second case , a community might specialize in the production of a commodity, such as salt, and would rely on the trade in their product for obtaining the majority of their food. The fauna] and floral residues from such a site would show almost exclusively a consumption pattern , derived from a relatively wide range of producer (client) sites.

Although trade of live stock would be the expected pattern for most intercommunity trade , there are some instances , such as in urban centers or when meat was traded preserved , when the animals would be butchered at the production site. In such a case, production assemblages are identified not by the age profile but by the bone waste assemblage (Grant 1984, Maltby 1984 ). The bones should represent animals ofall ages (though there will still be a significant peak at optimal meat age) , but certain parts of the skeleton will be strongly under-represented.

The first two cases can take place among groups of equal or unequal social standing. The case of redistribution or tribute

22

image of those of producer sites. Ideally, the assemblages co11ected from partner sites would together form a complete economic assemblage , uniting the waste bones with the meat bones and the chaff, weeds , and straw with the cleaned grain (M. K. Jones 1984; Payne 1975).

The majority of the bones will represent the parts of the body that carry the least meat--the skull, the distal limb bones, and the feet. Vertebrae, scapulae , pelves and the proximal limb bones should largely be absent. Butchering and breakage patterns should show a high degree of regularity. The bone waste will often be concentrated in large and prearranged disposal areas, and rapid deposition (dumping and even burial) would preclude much bone loss and secondary damage (gnawing, erosion, epiphyseal separation) (Maltby 1984, 1985).

Nevertheless , while the actual situation is never so tidy, the components of consumption assemblages do indeed complement those of production. While producer sites can be expected to be situated in ecologically optimal areas , consumer sites are more likely to be located in areas only marginally suited for production of the specific resource. Thus, the acquired produce may often be characteristic of a different environment than the one in which the site is located ; in the case of central sites in complex economies , a large number of different (and often distant) environments might be represented (cf. M. K. Jones 1984). Consumer sites should show little evidence of intensive production , and might even have been under-producing relative to its size and estimated population (Hastorf I 983 , Bakels I 996).

Grain: Grain-producing sites should be situated on arable land best suited for the type of crop being grown (see Chapter 2). The sites should exhibit all of the characteristics of arable farming-field systems, storage features, and permanent dwellings (M. K. Jones 1985, Hastorf I 983).

The identification of grain assemblages is somewhat more complicated than those of faunal remains, the primary cause being the relatively large number of steps necessary for the processing and storage of grain. In addition , grain and grainprocessing waste can enter the archaeological record at several different stages, each time in a different form (see Section 2.1.7; also Hillman 1981; Dennell 1974, 1976). To obtain a truly clear picture of grain processing at a site , it is best to know the contents of individual deposits in context before studying the pattern of the site as a whole. Unfortunately , in many cases when the grain is reported as a single assemblage , this is not possible.

Livestock: If the consumer community is receiving butchered meat, then the most frequently-occurring bones should be those of the meatiest portions of the carcass-the scapula , the pelvis , the vertebrae , the humerus , and the femur (the same bones that are under-representedon producer sites). The majority of the animals should be at optimal butchering age , since neither breeding nor the maintenance of herds is an important consideration . Waste bones , especially those of optimal age , should be scarce or absent. This pattern occurs most frequently at urban sites (Maltby I 985).

The general distinction between grain producer and consumer sites is that producer sites can be expected to contain , among the various types of site features , all types of processing waste along with the cleaned grain deposits; consumer sites will contain a relatively restricted range of debris types (M. K. Jones 1984, 1985; van der Veen 1991, 1992). The waste products at production sites will derive from threshing , winnowing and coarse sieving , the steps which rid the grain of straw and some of its weeds.

If the stock were traded on the hoof , probably more common in prehistory , the age range should again cluster at optimal meat age, but because butchering and disposal occurred locally all elements of the skeleton will be present (Maltby 1984, Grant 1984). Grain: Grain is transported from the producer to the consumer site in "storage condition". This means that the free-threshing cereals were transported as clean grain, and the hulled cereals were transported as semi-clean spikelets which had to be threshed and winnowed again to free them of their chaff before use (M. K. Jones I 985 , Hillman 1981). Therefore , while there will indeed be cleaning debris on consumer sites , its content will be more restricted than on producer sites. There should not be any primary cleaning waste; nor should there be many weed seeds or much secondary waste from the free-threshing cereals. The bulk of floral remains at consumer sites should be (I) cleaned stored grain, and (2) secondary cleaning debris from hulled grains (see Section 2.1.7; also , Hillman 1981; M. K. Jones 1985; Dennell 1974, 1976; vanderVeen 1991, 1992). Because of the relatively high value of grain at consumer sites , there should be few cereal grains mixed into the cleaning debris, as some effort will be expended to pick them out (M. K. Jones 1985).

At producer sites, in addition to clean and semi-clean grain stores, there should also be several additional categories of cleaning debris: primary debris from the initial threshing and sieving (straw fragments, coarse weeds and weed heads , some rachises and awns) ; secondary debris from final cleaning in preparation for use or storage (especially large weed seeds and glume bases and spikelet forks from the glume wheats and other hulled cereals) (Hillman I 981 ). In addition , both of these waste assemblages are likely to contain a quantity of cereal grains that came loose during cleaning and were swept up with the rest of the waste. In a production site, where grain is relatively abundant , less effort would be made to recover these "lost" grains than on a consumer site where the unit value is much higher (M. K. Jones 1985).

3.2.2. Evidence of Consumption Because the two types of sites are complementary , the economic residues of consumer sites ought to be the mirror

A consumer site can also occasionally be identified by extreme

23

3.3.1. Evidence of Intensification in Response to Economic Stress

diversity in the resources consumed ; this is especially the case with respect to grain consumption. A floral assemblage that contains small amounts of more than four grain species , especially if the grains have differing ecological requirements (such as emmer and bread wheat) , is more likely to be a consumer drawing on a wide catchment than a producer practicing a diversified strategy (see also Section 3.4.2).

Typically , archaeologists have identified economic stress with the expansion of settlement onto "marginal" land. Viewed in isolation , however , this is an ambiguous clue. Land that is marginal for grain might nevertheless be well-suited for pasture (e.g. Fengate, Pryor 1991), or soils that are marginal for wheat might be ideal for barley . "Marginal" land might support a number of desirable minor resources , in which case its use might constitute economic expansion rather than stress.

3.3. INTENSIFICATION OF PRODUCTION Intensification is defined as a systematic increase in the agricultural output of a community. In fact, intensification encompasses two distinct phenomena : an increase in productivity , and an increase in production (Bender 1978). The two are not synonymous. A farmer might increase his productivity by increasing the yield of each plot , but might still maintain the same level of production by reducing the number of acres that he works. Increased productivity might reflect a desire on the part of the farmer to use his resources more efficiently or to make his yields more predictable , wherea s increased production reflects the need for a greater overall yield (Bender 1978).

A more reliable indicator of stress is an overall decline in the standard of living. While such a decline might itself be difficult to recognize in archaeological remains, the responses to it leave characteristic clues in the economic record. The responses to this type of stress are response s that will increase the productivity of the community , since in this situation the community would be working harder just to maintain the status quo. For this reason, increases in productivity are not the types of changes that lead to an increase in social complexity (Gamble 1981, Bender 1978; cf. Sahlins 1972, Renfrew 1982, Gilman 1981).

There are several strategies a community can pursue to increase its productivity and/or its production. For early farming communities, the shift from swidden agriculture to permanent farming represents an increase in intensity. For settled farmers , if the landscape is open and land is available , they can increase the amount of acreage under cultivation. Alternately , if there is insufficient labor to increase arable , the community can make use of uncultivated land by increasing its reliance on wild resources , such as nuts , fruits , wild grains and game animals . If the community has no access to new land, then intensification requires an increase in the output of existing acreage through crop rotation , multi-season planting , fallowing and fertilization.

Livestock: The most reliable faunal evidence for economic stress is the age profile of the livestock . If the herds are being overused or reduced in size, the ages of the slaughtered animals will be lower than the optimal , as farmers are forced (through need or the inability to provide winter fodder) to slaughter them before they reach optimal age. Because of the emphasis on arable , the need for traction animals will remain ; but overall the number of older animals will decline as the need (or support) for breeding stock is reduced. Over time , the body size of the surviving animals might even decrease as their nutritional status declines (Maltby 1979). Accompanying overuse of the livestock, the number of wild animals being used for food might increase.

The choice of intensification strategies will depend upon the social, economic and demographic situation of the community . Intensification may result from a need to counteract degradation of the environment arising from adverse climatic change or overuse of the soil. In such a case, the community must increase production just to maintain its standard ofliving . Alternately , an economically stable community might intensify in order to produce a surplus. This surplus might be used for trade, for tribute , or for the acquisition of commodities purposes that enhance the economic and social standing of the community or its territory.

Grain: In a balanced productive regime , cultivation of grain should be combined with stock-rearing. The stock not only provide a reliable source of fat and protein in the diet, but also traction for plowing and manure necessary for maintaining soil fertility. In a system under stress, this long-tenn balance is often sacrificed to a short-term strategy of increasing arable acreage by lowering herd size and therefore reducing pasture. Such a course will result in an increased yield for the first few years because grain produces more per acre than livestock and because the fertility of newly-tilled soil is quite high. Nevertheless , as soil fertility declines under successive harvests , the depleted herds will no longer be able to supply sufficient manure to counteract the decline (because of both lower herd size and less nutritious hay). The result is a downward spiral of increasing labor and decreasing productivity (Clark 1953; Grigg 1980, 1982 ; Maltby 1979).

The difference between intensification in response to economic stress and intensification to produce a surplus parallels the distinction between increased production and increased productivity. In responding to stress , the goal of the farmer is to increase his productivity ; in generating a surplus , the farmer seeks to increase his overall production . The two situations leave different evidence in the archaeological record , and will therefore be discussed as separate models .

Several aspects of this process leave visible clues in the archaeological record , and serve as tangible evidence of the declinin g economic fortunes of the community. Certain grains

24

Unlike communities under stress, which produce only for themselves and may even be consumers, surplus-oriented communities will be producers and will exhibit all the relevant characteristics (Section 3 .2. l ).

are more demanding than others in terms of their ecological requirements. If the community is growing quantities of emmer , barley, club and/or bread wheat , this indicates that the fertility of the soil is fairly sound. If the community grows rye, oats , and/or spelt- and especially if there is a shift from emmer and barley to spelt, oats and rye - this is indicative of land whose quality is declining. The diversification is an attempt to make use of soils that have been overused and not sufficiently replenished (M. K. Jones 1981 ).

One other aspect that sets prosperous communities apart from those under stress is innovation. Since they run little risk of economic shortfall , prosperous communities are the more likely to adopt new agricultural tools or techniques that improve production and reduce labor. Poorer communities, which lack the resources for investment in new technologies , and which can ill afford the risks associated with learning the new techniques , will lag behind in the adoption of such innovations. They are more likely to wait a while until the techniques are more familiar and easily acquired , hence less risky and expensive (Cancian 1980, Grigg 1982 , Bender 1978, Ellis 1988).

A second indicator is the presence of "famine foods"- the edible seeds and weeds such as Bromus and Chenopodium that grow along with the crop but are usually sorted out when the grain is cleaned. The presence and use of these seeds as foodstuffs indicates the failure or insufficiency of the main crop and a reliance on whatever is available instead (M. K. Jones 1988a). A further clue to soil depletion is in the composition of the waste weed assemblage. The co-occurrence of grassland and nitrogenous weeds would indicate an effort to maintain the fertility of the soil by fallowing , while the appearance of autumn-germinating arable weeds ( especially Galium aparine and Bromus sp.) would signal a shift to a two-season planting schedule (see Section 2.1.6). A preponderance ofnitrogenous weeds and perennials (see Appendix 1.3) is a good indicator of poor soils. Conversely , annual weeds thrive on soils with adequate nitrogen (Warrington 1924).

Livestock: The community can be expected to maintain adequate herds , both as a source of food and revenue , but also as a source of manure and traction to maintain the fertility of the fields. The fauna) remains will either exhibit the characteristic age profile and butchering patterns of producer sites (Section 3.2) or of a self-sufficient community (Section 3. 1). In addition , there may be an increase in the body size of the slaughtered animals , reflecting their better nutritional status (Maltby 1979). Grain: As mentioned above , surplus sites will exhibit the characteristics of producers of grain and/or livestock . In addition , other evidence will survive in the archaeological record. Unlike communities under stress , prosperous communities are more likely to be growing the higher-quality grains-emmer , bread wheat , and barley. Depending upon their ecological situation they might also grow the hardier wheats or rye, but the residues will not show the same broad variety as poorer sites, nor will the crops be mixed with famine foods such as Chenopodium or brome. The soils can be assumed to be healthy , and this is shown by the presence of annual rather than perennial weeds (Warrington 1924).

3.3.2. Evidence of Intensification to Produce a Surplus While communities that are seeking to increase their productivity are economically marginal , communities that are seeking to produce a surplus are already prosperous , and are relying on their fortunate economic circumstances to enable them to increase overall production. By definition such a community (or the region of which the community is a part) is socially mobile , and seeking to enhance its relative status (Wells 1980, 1984; Sahlins 1972; Gamble 1981 ). The surplus does not represent nutritional need but a source of revenue with which to acquire prestige goods. In a less centralized system the community might produce the surplus for its own use , to trade to others for resources they cannot produce themselves. In a centralized regime , the surplus of a community will most likely be directed as a form of tax, tribute or contribution (investment) toward a central site , the residence of the higher social levels of the group. The elites would use this tribute to acquire goods desired by the satellite communities , as well as goods for themselves that signify and reinforce their elite status.

3.4. SPECIALIZATION AND DIVERSITY Correlated closely with the investigation of centralized and non-centralized societies is the issue of diversity of production versus specialization (for this purpose , agricultural rather than craft specialization). Diversity of production defines a mixed farming economy , one in which a household and/or a community annually produces small quantities ofa wide range of crops and livestock. Specialization occurs when the community produces a restricted range of crops , but in quantities exceeding those required for its own consumption. Broadly speaking , diversification is an attribute of noncentralized societies , while specialization increases as social complexity increases.

Accordingly , in a case of centralized authority , the regional settlement pattern can be expected to include central sites that serve as the foci of elite residence and activity , and encompass large-scale facilities for storage .

25

dividers rather than crops , and more labor is used up in redundant tasks (Dahlman 1980, Thomas 1927; compare , however , diversity as a characteristic of consumption , Section 3.2.2). Nevertheless, the careful balancing of enterprises can support symbiotic relationships between crops that increase productivity and work to the advantage of the producer. For example , the waste products from dairy and arable are highquality fodder for livestock , who in turn return manure to restore the fertility of the soil. The differing nutrient needs of each crop act to retard soil exhaustion when compared to crop specialization, and differing work and maturity schedules may allow the farmer to spread the work load over a longer period of time (Green 1908, Grant 1984, E1lis 1988, Nonnan 1977).

3.4.1. Evidence of Specialization In tenns of labor and resource input, specialization is a more efficient and less costly strategy than diversification. Rather than pursuing numerous tasks , many of which operate on different schedules , a specialized economy concentrates on a smaller number of (usually compatible) tasks. This allows the community to produce more for the labor expended and to maximize the use of its land area (Ellis 1988, Grant 1984, Maltby 1985, Levy 1911, Thomas 1927). Nevertheless, as an economic strategy specialization is a risky choice. Specialized economies are typically less flexible and less opportunistic than diversified economies. Moreover , by decreasing the number of crops that it produces , the community thereby increases its dependence on each crop. Failure of a crop, which could be a relatively small problem in a diversified economy where there are other resources to take up the shortfall, can be a very serious problem in a specialized economy , as each crop represents a greater investment of resources , and a greater proportion of the annual yield (Dahlman 1980, Grant 1984, M. K. Jones 1984, Ellis 1988).

Variety of production is also a means of reducing the risks of crop failure . Heterogeneous crops are less likely to facilitate the spread of diseases and pests that cause large-scale destruction. But most important , a smaller percentage of the annual yield is invested in each crop , so failure of one crop is easily offset by successful production of the others (Ellis 1988, Norman 1977, M. K. Jones 1984, Grant 1984, Dahlman I 980, Lee and Bates 1974). Production of a reliable surplus of a specific crop is not compatible with diversified fanning. A diversified strategy typically emphasizes variety over quantity; the community expends its labor in maximizing the number of crops it produces , with little labor left over for intensification. The goal is to produce enough to support the community. While surpluses occasionally occur , these surpluses are kept within the community, either as insurance against poor harvests, for the occasional purchase of commodities, or for use in ritual. Surplus per se is not intentionally generated, nor is it systematically used as a means of obtaining goods from elsewhere. In fact, production of a regular surplus is a disadvantage , since there is no demand for the goods in a region of other diversified producers (Gamble 1981, Bintliffe I981 , Zvelebil 1985, Bakels 1996).

Specialized production is ofnecessity characterized by surplus production, and specialized communities are by definition producer communities. In other words , specialization is a means by which a reliable surplus might be produced by channeling the resources of the community into the favored crop(s). For these reasons - high economic risk and production of surplus-specialist sites are not economically self-sufficient. In order to offset the risks inherent in specialization , and to provide for other necessary resources as well as consumers for their produce , specialist communities must operate within a structure ofregional cooperation. In order for specialization to be economically viable, the community must be assured of two things: (I) consumers for their produce , who in tum supply the products the community needs but fails to produce itself, and (2) social mechanisms that insure support in case of crop failure, such as group storage facilities or redistributive mechanisms. Such regional interdependence further requires the existence of social structures that regulate them and guarantee their continuation year after year. Because of these requirements, specialized production is more characteristic of complex (chiefdom) societies than of less complex social organizations (bands, tribes), and thrive in the presence of centralized and/or market economies (Sahlins 1972, Zvelebil 1985, Gamble 1981, Maltby 1979, Grant 1984 M. K. Jones 1984).

Unlike specialist producers , communities that practice diversified farming are self-sufficient. Since they produce all of the products that they need for themselves, they do not require the produce of other communities , and there are few outlets for the use of surplus . This economic self-sufficiency tends to correlate with social self-sufficiency. Diversified communities are less likely to be associated with complex social institutions ( chiefdoms, states) than are specialist communities (M. K. Jones 1984, Sahl ins 1972, Gamble 1981).

3.5. RECIPROCITY As a pattern ofresource exchange , reciprocity has traditionally been understood by anthropologists to be the first economic milestone on the road to a market-oriented economy. In this view, reciprocity was held to be more "primitive" than redistribution or market exchange , since it lacked a organizational mechanism that controlled and centralized the society and the flow of goods. While redistribution promoted

3.4.2. Evidence of Diversity Compared to economic specialization, diversification is a more labor-intensive choice. Each household or community must perfonn a wider range of tasks , each with its own work requirements and schedules. The large number of simultaneous enterprises requires that more land is used up in fences and

26

the unification and centralization of social and economic functions , reciprocal exchange maintained the independence of these institutions (Polanyi 1944, Polanyi et al. 1957, Sahlins 1965).

mechanisms that assure their safety in time of need. Parties who demonstrate an unwillingness to participate in the system are subjected to the severest forms of social and economic ostracism (Arensberg and Kimball 1948).

Reciprocal exchange invo Ives the transfer of goods of roughly equal value between parties of roughly equal status. In early discussions , reciprocity had been primarily identified with giftgiving, especially as contrasted with such "purely economic" relations as barter (Mauss 1954 , Malinowski 1922). The concept was further developed by Service (1966) and Sahlins ( 1965) to describe a system that not only reinforced the social order (eg. gift-giving) but also encompassed exchanges of a more "economic" character involving the movement of needed resources, and requiring differing degrees of socioeconomic proximity and integration. In the Sahlins/Service scheme , reciprocity takes three forms:

Balanced reciprocity is more formalized , more valueconscious , and more time-bound than generalized reciprocity. In a balanced relationship , goods and services of mutuallyagreed value are exchanged within a defined and relatively short period of time. Balanced reciprocity is more economic than social, and so there is no long-term commitment to the trading partner; partners cannot be relied on as resources in time ofneed. Partners trade as long as the need exists and both parties are satisfied , but any disturbance ( delay in payment , disagreement over value) can terminate the relationship. While in a generalized reciprocal relationship rapid payment is considered unsociable , in a balanced relationship rapid ( or preferably simultaneous) payment is the ideal: "It is notable of the main run of generalized reciprocities that the material flow is sustained by prevailing social relations; whereas , for the main run of balanced exchange , social relations hinge on the material flow" (Sahlins 1965: 148).

Generalized reciprocity describes the informal give-and-take that characterizes kin groups and close friends. Goods and services are given with the expectation that appropriate return will be made sometime in the future, and that eventually all favors wi11balance out. Values of receipts are not calculated , nor is there any established formula for the nature or timing of the return. Finally , the economic aspect of generalized reciprocity is inextricable from the social, and thus it functions as a mechanism for depressing socioeconomic differentiation between the parties involved.

Negative reciprocity is the "unsociable extreme" , a relationship in which one party seeks to maximize its own advantage at the expense of the other. Haggling , cheating , and even outright theft are considered forms of negative reciprocity. Negative reciprocity is also a way of amassing social advantage , through such means as competitive gift-giving (e.g. the potlatch or the kula ring) , or by using a temporary economic advantage to establish debtors to yourself as a form of "stored favors" (Maltby 1985, Halstead and O'Shea 1982, Henry 1951). In contrast to generalized reciprocity , negative reciprocity can be a means of promoting social differentiation.

Despite the apparently unstructured character of the system , generalized reciprocity is by no means random. Reciprocity is part of a web of social relationships and cannot be separated from them. It is also a form of insurance , allowing each member of the reciprocal community - family , clan , village - to draw on the resources of the others in times of need. Therefore , deviation from the accepted norms of the system threatens both the social integration and the economic wellbeing of the community. As a result there are stringent (if unspoken) rules that govern these transactions , to which close collective attention is paid. A person who does not return , or who is very slow to return favors is an obvious drain on the system. However , a person who dispenses favors without accepting any in return is also a threat , since this upsets the leveling mechanism and is seen as an attempt to gain influence or control over his fellows. Similarly , a person who pays back too quickly is signaling an unwillingness to be bound by the long-term obligations that proximity and kinship require ( cf. also Arensberg and Kimball 1948, Rees 1968). Indeed , the community can even be structured in manner that compels participation. An example would be the medieval English open-field system , in which the tenants farmed unconnected parcels ofland within the village allotment: "There is simply no incentive left for the individual tenant to make separate decisions when his strips are scattered. He participates naturally in the collective" (Dahlman 1980: 129). Members participate not only because it is the social norm for their community , but also because they fear being excluded from their personal networks and from the socioeconomic

Despite the association of reciprocity with primitive trade , reciprocity coexists easily within (or in spite of) redistributive or market economies (Hodges 1988, Maltby 1985). Apart from reinforcing the social bonds or community or kinship groups , generalized or balanced reciprocity can improve the productivity of producers in a centralized economy by diffusing the cost of capital investments (Thomas 1927, F. E. Green 1908, Hartley 1979), or maximizing the utility of ecologically diverse holdings (Grant 1984, Spielman 1986, M. K. Jones 1984, Fleming 1985).

3.5.1. Evidence of Reciprocity Despite the wide range of behaviors incorporated in the term reciprocity , the archaeological correlates are much more limited. While generalized reciprocity between kindred and neighbors can be assumed , little material proof could be provided undernormal archaeological conditions. Conversely , it is generally not possible to quantify perceived advantage , or the amounts and goods of values exchanged to demonstrate episodes of unequal or negative reciprocity. Therefore , in the archaeological context , "reciprocity" is understood to mean idealized balanced reciprocity , where goods distinctive to one

27

provide the needed resource variety , but also to act as a fonn of insurance against the ecological risks that specialization implies (Grant 1984) (Section 3.4). Thus, as their economic autonomy erodes, producers become bound into the redistributive system and are increasingly unable to extricate themselves (Gamble 1981, Gilman 1981). Conversely , the central agency, whether a person or a community , gains in status over the outlying sites both in tenns of prestige (being depended upon) and wealth (retaining a portion of the goods) .

community or region are traded for those from another. In areas with no evidence of political or economic centralization , it can be assumed that reciprocity is the primary form of economic interaction (Fleming 1985, Maltby 1985); in areas with centralization, reciprocity forms only one aspect of intercommunity economic interaction. For both faunal and floral remains , a reciprocal relationship will appear as a combined producer-consumer production strategy , wherein a community produces some products in surplus to trade out , and receives others in return. In most cases , the goods traded will be characteristic of the local area and represent a local division of labor or niche specialization (Section 3 .4). Reciprocity can be distinguished from redistribution by two means: (I) the lack of centralized authority , and (2) the lack of variety. A balanced reciprocal relationship is unlikely to involve large numbers of partners or long travel distances , whereas goods passing through a redistributive network are likely to be drawn from a wide area and therefore a larger number of environmental zones .

Thus , whereas reciprocity works to maintain local autonomy and equalize social statuses , redistribution does the opposite : removing direct contact between partners in favor of a controlling intennediary , centralizing social and economic roles , and ultimately increasing and institutionalizing unequal and dependent economic relations (Gilman 1981, Fleming 1985, Gamble 1981). Redistribution differs from a tribute system (Section 3.7) , in that the goods are held "in trust" for the participating communities , with some form of material return expected. Social power is maintained by giving away valued resources, and the failure to distribute goods erodes prestige .

3.6. REDISTRIBUTION

3.6.1. Evidence of Redistribution

In evolutionary terms , redistribution is regarded as the second stag in the development of primitive localized exchange into a regional market system. Unlike reciprocal exchange , in which the transfer of goods between communities is direct , redistribution is mediated by a central organizing authority (Polanyi et al. 1957, Sahlins 1972, Service 1975). Typically , goods from outlying sites are gathered for storage at a central location, and ultimately are divided and re-distributed to the outlying sites in the forms of feasts , gifts, or famine relief.

By definition , a redistributive economy requires a central place toward which resources flow and are stored , and satellite settlements that provide the goods. The central site should be residential in character and be equipped with storage facilities far larger than would be required for the maintenance of the site itself . Since the central site is a consumer drawing on the produce of the entire territory, the floral and faunal remains wil I be characteristic of this consumer orientation (Section 3 .2). The grain (and its constituent weed assemblage) should be indicative of a wider area of ecological zones than are represented in the immediate area of the site. Moreover , the grains should be present in clean or semi-clean condition , and there should be no evidence of primary cleaning. The livestock remains should cluster at optimal meat weight, with few very young or very old individuals. In cases where the redistributive territory has a great deal of ecological variation , the variety of both plant and animal species at the central settlement may exceed that at the satellites.

The practical consequences of redistribution are several. In areas of variable productivity , redistribution serves to even out yield differences between more and less-advantageous locations. Similarly, the system can mitigate annual variations in productivity by storing surpluses in good years and dispensing them in poor years (Service I 962 , 1971; Sahlins 1972, Renfrew 1973). Redistribution can serve to maximize the productive capabilities of ecologically-variable territories by assuring each ecological zone access to the produce of the others (Lewthwaite 1985, M. K. Jones 1985, Fleming 1985, Murra 1980, Service 1962). In more advanced socioeconomic systems, redistribution can be a means of supporting full-time craft production (Childe 1942, Redman 1978), or a means of acquiring resources and commodities from outside of the territory (Wells 1980).

The role of the satellite sites is more complicated , and they may fulfil several roles depending upon the richness of the distributive territory and the socioeconomic complexity of the system. First, the sites must produce a surplus of at least one resource to feed into the redistribution system , so it can be expected that a significant proportion of their labor will be dedicated to this task. This resource will be one to which they are ecologically well-suited. In addition , it is likely that the community will also produce goods for its own use, to maximize dietary variety and household prosperity; therefore the second role is of self-sufficient producer , or a combination of production and reciprocity (Sections 3.2, 3.5). Finally, the site will receive its share of the goods redistributed by the center , and thus they will be consumers of certain categories of

The social consequences of redistribution are more profound. In places where resource diversity is maintained by redistribution , constituent sites can become encouraged to specialize their production , making it easier to produce the surplus necessary to provide for the center (Gilman 1981, Service I 962 , Lees and Bates I 974). In so doing , producers become dependent upon the redistributive system not only to

28

primate site in the territory will be the residence of elites ( distinguished from sites used solely for regional storage or defensive citadels). In addition to its residential function , the site will be characterized by a large-scale storage facility , well exceeding the storage needs of the resident population (Maltby 1985, Hastorf 1983, Bake ls 1996). The extent of this surplus storage capacity is an indicator of the size and/or richness of the tribute territory.

produce. Ideally , these goods should come from ecological zones not represented among their immediate area, but should be represented among the goods found at the central site.

3.7. TRIBUTE A tribute system is the antithesis of a redistributive system. In a redistributive system, goods provided to the center by the satellite communities are ultimately "returned" in the fonn of famine provisions , non-local foodstuffs or commodities. In contrast, a tributary system is one-sided: goods flow from the countryside into the center, but there is no corresponding tangible return.

Complementary to the elite sites are the satellite sites that comprise the productive territory. These sites will be producer sites (Section 3.2) with evidence of intensification of production (Section 3.3). Ideally , the satellites should be prosperous , producing a comfortable surplus for use as tribute; more likely, there will be sites in the territory who were marginal producers to begin with, and whose productive abilities are being severely strained by the necessity of producing a surplus. Indeed , the possibility exists that the territory as a whole is suffering economic stress in an effort to produce the required surplus , and this would have negative implications for the social and economic stability of the system , and of the elites who are (literally) overtaxing their productive base.

This one-way flow takes place in the context of institutionalized social inequality and is a manifestation of the power structure , reinforcing the superior social position of the elites relative to that of the producers of the goods (Smith 1976) . In this sense , goods sent in tribute fonn a tax or tithe that the lower classes pay to the elite , rather than the mutual arrangement of social and economic insurance implied by redistribution (Renfrew 1982). The elites may use the tribute for their own subsistence , to support a warrior /noble class , and/or to trade for luxury goods - all of which serve to reinforce and delineate their exalted status. A tribute system may be maintained by force , but this is not a necessary condition ; it may also be maintained by prestige (especially in cases where the ruler is considered divine) , by social custom , or by the return of necessary intangibles such as defense or ritual intervention that make the arrangement a willing contract between the levels of society.

Both tribute and redistributive relationships are complex , involving a large number of component sites of varying scales. Such as system can be recognized only by territorial analysis ; it would not be evident in the residues of a single site. Livestock: At a central site collecting tribute , the fauna! remains will be characteristic of a consumer economy (Section 3.2), receiving a broad selection of domestic and wild stock from a variety of ecological niches. Livestock will almost exclusively fall into the optimal meat range , though the presence of younger individuals might be an indication of economic stress in the producer sites (Section 3.3). The age range is likely to be so highly restricted because traction and breeding will take place elsewhere , and most other secondary products (wool , hides , cheese) are more easily transported and stored in their finished fonn. Metrical analysis might show that the livestock found on central sites are larger than the average for the region (Maltby 1979).

3.7.1. Evidence of Tribute The most important distinction between central sites that function as redistributive foci and those that exact tribute is that the latter territories should show no sign that goods are being redistributed. A tribute site is primarily a consumer site, living on the produce of its satellites; the satellites are typically distributed over a wide area of the surrounding countryside and encompass a range of ecological zones. Thus the goods that reach the central site will display the characteristics of their varied ecological origins , and the environmental markers included in these goods will be much more heterogeneous than is justified by the area immediately surrounding the site (Sections 3.2, 3.6) . If these goods are then redistributed within the territory , some portion of these environmental markers would be expected to show up at the satellite sites as well. If the goods are all retained at the center , then the production sites will have evidence only of goods that are characteristic of their local environment (M. K. Jones 1985).

At the satellite sites , the faunal remains will be characteristic of a producing economy (Section 3.2). The livestock produced will be characteristic of the local environment (e.g. sheep in the uplands , cattle in the valley bottoms). The age structure of the fauna] remains will show a depletion at optimal meat age, since these are the individuals being sent to the central site. If the demands of tribute are straining the economic means of the community , this depletion might include a relatively large proportion of younger animals.

Since a tribute system is by definition a characteristic of a hierarchical society , the first test is for the presence of such a society , including evidence of pervasive social inequality , settlement ranking , and public works , among others (Renfrew 1973, Berry 1961 , Peebles and Kus 1977, Service 1962). The

Grain: As with livestock , the grain residues at the central site will be consistent with the evidence of a consumer economy. Since the grain would arrive in a clean or semi-clean state there would be evidence of final cleaning , but no evidence primary cleaning . In addition , since the central site will receive

of

29

grain from all over its territory, the debris from the final cleaning process will be indicative of a range of ecological zones. Conversely, the satellite sites will show evidence of grain production. Floral remains will be indicative of all stages of processing, from harvest to final cleaning, rather than just threshing and winnowing waste as at the central site. If the tribute system involves only a limited range of products, grain and plant products will occur at the producer site in greater variety than at the central site. If the tribute system is taxing the productive capability of the site, there might be evidence of soil depletion , or that the complete crop of a specific cereal is being sent out, with none retained for local consumption . An example of this kind ofrelationship has been discussed by Martin Jones for Danebury . According to Jones' analysis , the floral remains at Danebury are indicative of the ecological zones in the surrounding but not immediate area of the hillfort. There was no evidence , however , of this mixed ecological assemblage at the satellite sites , suggesting that the produce that reached Danebury was consumed at that site or traded away, rather than stored for future redistribution (M. K. Jones 1984, 1985, 1991; see also Section 6.4.4).

3.8. CONCLUSION By comparing the component models of productive economies, it is believed that a pattern of evidence can be produced to characterize decentralized ("tribal") and centralized ("chiefdom") societies in southern Britain , as well as a means of visualizing the transition between them (see Chapter 7). These types of economic data, whose components do not change over time , can be combined a recombined to differing socioeconomic situations. Illustrating the various combinations and their transitions, and the relationships of these combinations to their social manifestations is the focus of this study.

30

CHAPTER 4: The Southeastern Counties: Kent, Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex

the chalk can be covered locally with soils of typically acid reaction , such as Eocene sands or clay-with-flints. These are relict sedimentary deposits which mix through chemical weathering with the underlying flint-bearing chalk subsoil (Limbrey 1975, MacPhail and Scaife 1987). Finally , to the southwest of the South Downs , at Selsey, is the Sussex Coastal Plain, a broad alluvial delta of sands , gravels and brickearths (Catt 1978, Limbrey 1978).

4.1. GEOGRAPHY The topography and ecology of the Southeast is dominated by the elevated structure of the Weald in the center of the region , and the two broad areas of chalk-the North and South Downs- that flank it. In the north the Downs slope gently toward the Thames Valley and the sandy marshes of the Thames Estuary and the Kent coast. In the south, they slope down to the English Channel as beaches of alluvium and sand , interrupted at Beachy Head and again at Dover by steep chalk cliffs. These east-to-west bands of the Weald and Downs are crosscut in a north-south direction by the major river systems of the region: the Arun , Adur, Ouse , and Cuckmere , which flow through Sussex southward into the Channel ; and the Wey , Mole , Wandie , Darent , Medway , and Stour that flow northward into the Thames and its estuary.

To the north and northwest of the North Downs , the soils are a patchwork of generally acidic types, such as Bagshot Sands and London Clays, as well as alluvium and gravels along the terraces of the Thames tributaries. The northeast and eastern rim are marine and freshwater alluvial deposits well-mixed with loess, fine yellow aeolian silts of Late Devensian age. The loess is strongly alkaline and holds water well , mitigating the acidity and too-free drainage of the gravels and sands, and increasing the fertile potential of the coastal alluvium (Catt 1978, Limbrey 1978).

These distinct physiographic regions bear distinct soil types , which in tum have had a strong effect on the vegetation and land-use patterns of the region (MacPhail and Scaife 1987). The Weald is the elevated plateau in the center of the region. Its soils are characteristically heavy , poorly-drained clays and gleys (Weald clays , stagnogleys and argillic brown earths). These soils are hard to work. The clay component impedes drainage , causing them to waterlog easily and the high water content can impede the exchange of oxygen within the soil regime , ultimately resulting in oxygen deprivation and leaching of iron (gleying). These soils are typically acidic (Limbrey 1975).

4.2. BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE SETTLEMENT IN THE SOUTHEAST Settlement in the southeast has been strongly shaped by its geological structure , focusing on the Thames Valley and the North and South Downs , and largely avoiding the Weald (see Drewett et al. 1988: Figs. 3.1, 4.1, 5.2). The apparent reason for this pattern is that the Weald soils, though fertile , are heavy and not suited to the prehistoric type of ard or lightplow cultivation. The light soils of the Downs and the river valleys are less fertile and durable , but are wanner and more easily worked, and more hospitable than the damp soils for the emmer and barley in use during the earlier part of this period .

The North and South Downs are defined by broad expanses of pure chalk substrate. Soil development over the chalk is usually thin, and in many areas has eroded away altogether leaving sterile patches of bare chalk. The South Downs soils are primarily rendzinas - a mixture of mineral and organic material formed by earthworm action ; they lie in a layer above the essentially unchanged chalk substrate. Such soils are typically alkaline and very fertile (Limbrey 1975, MacPhail and Scaife 1987, Sheldon 1978). Overlying the North Downs chalk are other base-rich rendzinas as well as other easily-worked and fertile brown calcareous earths . Brown earths are typically nutrient and oxygen rich, with the nutrients and aeration maintained by a high earthworm population. Earthworm action also encourages drainage in these soils, and reduces the possibility of mineral or base leaching . In areas of very high calcium content (e.g. thin soils over chalk) calcium may precipitate in the form of calcium carbonate , ultimately leaching the upper soil layer of bases. In soils with high clay content , gleying may result as water passage is impeded (Limbrey 1975, British Geological Survey 1977). Despite the high base content of the substrate ,

4.2.1. The Bronze Age There are few traces of settled agricultural activity in the Southeast during the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Most of the evidence for occupation in this area is based on the presence of ritual sites, especially burials in urns or in barrows. With the exceptions of Belle Tout in East Sussex and possibly Broomwood in Kent , sites that can be considered "domestic" consist primarily of scatters of flint and sherds, with perhaps a pit or two (Bradley 1970, 1982; Parsons 1961) There are no stratigraphic associations of pottery types from the Southeast in this period , nor are there any associations between these domestic scatters and bronze artifacts (Drewett et al. 1988). Areas such as the Weald seem to have been sparsely occupied , if at all. Nevertheless , there is no particular reason to believe that occupation of the

31

lower valleys of the Darent and Stour have greatly altered the landscape, and with it the evidence for Bronze Age settlement. Champion (1982) , however , advocates increased study of the area around Romney Marsh, especially in view of the extensive use of fenland resources demonstrated in Cambridgeshire by Pryor ( 1980; Pryor et al. 1985).

region overall was unusually sparse or isolated. There is ample evidence of activity such as flint mining and barrow building that date back into the Neolithic. In addition , all of the pottery types current for this period are found in this region, placing it securely within the larger distribution networks (Drewett et al. 1988). There are several hypotheses to explain the apparent lack of early prehistoric settlement data, including soil truncation (Evans 1975), ephemeral construction techniques, or seasonal transhumance (Fleming 1972; Bradley 1972, 1978).

In contrast to the Downs and the coastal zones , the Weald shows little even of these ambiguous traces of settlement. Most finds are consistent with use as temporary camps , such as the rock shelters at High Rocks , Sussex (Money 1960) or the numerous finds of projectile points (E. Curwen 1936, Drewett et al. 1988). Needham ( 1987) notes that short-term clearances in the Surrey Weald are indicated by several finds of Early Bronze Age flat axes, and a corresponding increase in alluvial deposition on the slopes to the north. A small number of barrows also date to this period . This evidence declines after the Early Bronze Age , suggesting that early attempts at agricultural settlement in this area were not successful.

Typical of Early Bronze Age "domestic sites" on the Downs is Ebbsfleet in Kent (Burchell and Piggott 1939). The deposit consisted of sherds from about twenty-seven vessels ("Ebbsfleet Ware"), as well as a number of worked flints. There was no indication of features or patterning in the distribution of the artifacts . The small pollen profile was dominated by alder and hazel , with some oak, birch , lime and herbaceous plants , indicative oflocal clearance . Assemblages of this type have been found in Sussex at Bullock Down and Kiln Combe (Drewett 1982c ), and at Ashcombe Bottom (Allen 1984); and in Kent at Baston Manor (Philp 1973) as well as at Ebbsfleet. Similar material has also occurred as isolated deposits within later period sites at Itford Hill (Burstow and Holleyman 1957), Whitehawk (Curwen 1934b, 1935), North Bersted (Bedwin and Pitts 1978), and Findon (Bedwin 1979), all in Sussex. The North Downs in Surrey and Kent show little evidence of cultural activity during this period (Champion 1982, Needham 1987).

By the Late Bronze Age, evidence for settled agriculture is neither scarce nor ambiguous. In contrast to earlier Bronze Age farming settlements , farmsteads of the later Bronze Age were substantial and relatively numerous. Sites from this period are best known from the chalklands of the South Downs, and are typically sited on terraces overlooking the river valleys (Drewett et al. 1988, Burstow and Holleyman 1957:210-211). Typical of these settlements is the site of Black Patch , near Alciston , East Sussex (Drewett 1979, 1980, 1982b; Russell 1996). Black Patch consisted of a cluster of five huts, possibly contemporaneous , surrounded by an agricultural field system. The huts defined a variety of functional areas: a cooking/living area , a weaving shed, a flint-knapping area , and possibly a byre. The residential unit was most likely a small extended-family group (however , for Drewett's interpretation of family organization based on African models see Drewett 1982b, Drewett et al. 1988). Other excavated examples of this type of settlement in Sussex are ltford Hill (Burstow and Holleyman 1957, Ellison 1978, Holden 1972), New Barn Down (Curwen 1934a) , Blackpatch (not to be confused with Black Patch ; RatcliffeDensham and Ratcliffe-Densham 1953), Plumpton Plain (Holleyman and Curwen 1935), Cock Hill and Amberley Mount (Ratcliffe-Densham and Ratcliffe-Densham 1961), Varley Halls (I. Greig 1997) and Park Brow (Wolseley et al. 1927). These chalk-terrace sites are all similar in structureclusters of two to five huts accommodating a family group , occasionally fenced with a palisade and bounded by field systems. Blackpatch , New Barn Down and Cock Hill, which are roughly contemporary , all lay on a series of adjacent chalk hill slopes within the same square kilometer. Although economic data for these sites is limited , faunal collections suggest that the livestock economy was based on cattle herding, with small numbers of sheep and pigs .

The only site of the Early Bronze Age to exhibit patterning is the Beaker-period site of Belle Tout , on Beachy Head, East Sussex (Bradley 1970, 1971a, 1982; Drewett 1982a, Russell 1997). The settlement consisted of two post-built huts (Structures 1 and 5) surrounded by hearths , knapping floors , shallow pits, and a quernstone. Organic remains were not preserved in the acidic clay-with-flints soil, but several carbonized grains of emmer and barley were preserved in potsherds. The hut area was surrounded by a bank with an internal ditch, more suggestive of stock control or ritual than defense (Drewett et al. 1988). The most intriguing feature at the site was a shaft some 45 meters deep; this was revealed in a cliff fall in 1971, but could only be partially investigated before the remainder fell away (Bedwin 1982). There is also evidence at Broomwood in Kent for a possible enclosed settlement of Early Bronze Age date , but little excavation has been undertaken to assure this (Parsons 1961). The practice oflocalized clearance and small-scale farming is assumed for such sites (Drewett et al. 1988), but there is also the possibility that settlement in this period was partly transhumant , and more dependent upon stock-raising than on settled grain agriculture (Bradley 1972, 1978; Fleming 1972). Assessing the pattern of settlement in the coastal regions of Kent is problematic given the extensive physiographic changes in the coastline since ancient times (Champion 1980, 1982). Severe erosion at Thanet , and especially the region between Reculver and Whitstable , marine transgression along the Thames estuary , and marine alluvial deposition at the

Sites on the river valley itself have been more difficult to locate , possibly because they were fewer, and possibly because alluvial deposition has acted to bury or destroy

32

furnished the transport of goods between sites and regions (Hanworth 1987) . In this connection it should be noted that the Thames Valley sites from the Late Bronze Age onward are the focus of imported goods, especially fine metalwork (Hanworth 1987: 149-151 ). This proposed hierarchy will be discussed at the end of this chapter.

them. Drewett (et al. 1988) has suggested that such locations were more desirable for agriculture than the chalk uplands , and that the settlement of the chalk represents an expansion upward from the river valleys. This is not likely , since many of the valleys have heavy and acidic soils unsuited to the light-ard agriculture of the Bronze Age ; it is more likely that these sites served a specialized function , possibly associated with the regulation of trade (see Section 4.4). Sites on the alluvium in this area , including Runnymede Bridge (LBA) , and Copse Farm and North Bersted (both LIA) , were particularly characterized by their lack of evidence for arable production. Runnymede Bridge , near Egham , Surrey , was a waterfront settlement , apparently built back along a quay at the river's edge (Needham and Longley 1980, Needham 1991 ). The quay was made from small oak stumps , and fronted the river for nearly fifty meters. Remains from the site show evidence of small bone- and metal-working industries. The adjacent site at Petter's Sports Field (O'Connell I 986 , Needham 1990), which lies only fourhundred meters away , was notable for a large founder's hoard. It was suggested that settlement shifted from Runnymede Bridge to Petter's in response to rising water levels at the close of the Bronze Age (O'Connell 1986, Needham 1987), but further investigation casts doubt that Petter's was a residential site , and may have instead been a workshop or other special-purpose structure (Needham 1990).

4.2.2. The Iron Age The transition to the Iron Age is not readily apparent in the South Downs ; Early Iron Age farmsteads such as Heathy Brow (Bedwin 1982) , Park Brow (Wolseley and Smith 1924, Wolseley et al. 1927) and Slonk Hill in Sussex (Hartridge 1978) continued the pattern established for these sites in the Late Bronze Age. Sites of this type continued to form the basic social and economic unit in this area throughout the Iron Age. Late Iron Age examples included Hawk's Hill (Hastings 1965) and Brooklands Farm (Hanworth and Tomalin 1977) in Surrey ; Famingham Hill in Kent (Philp 1973) ; and Came's Seat (Holgate 1984) , Copse Farm (Bedwin and Holgate 1985) and North Bersted (Bedwin and Pitts 1978) in Sussex. Moreover , the scarcity of settlement sites in the Weald and Surrey Heath continued in the Iron Age ; intensive field-walking in some of these areas has failed to yield traces of settlement (Hanworth 1987). The primary characteristic of the Bronze /Iron Age transition in the Southeast is the appearance of hill forts. In the Early Iron Age, hill forts were largely restricted to the South Downs (Drewett et al. 1988: Fig. 5.2), and tended to be small , with a single bank-and-ditch rampart . Despite the amount of labor expended to construct them they seem to be neither residential nor particularly well defended: the ramparts are often feeble , and excavations in the interior have failed to tum up occupation on a significant scale. Moreover , the hillforts are not sited in area s of dense settlement , but rather in areas apparently empty of occupation (Drewett et al. 1988) . The lack of satellite settlement, storage facilities , or adequate defenses cast doubt on the interpretation of early hillforts as regional centers of grain production and redistribution (see also Section 4.4 ).

There are few if any settlements of farmstead type known from the North Downs , where the prevailing topsoil is acidic clay-with-flints rather than the thin but fertile rendzinas of the South Downs (British Geological Survey 1977). A small number of sites are known from the acid heath lowlands of northern Surrey and western Kent , such as the possible farmsteads at Hayes Common , Kent (Philp 1973) and Weston Woods , Surrey (Harding 1964 ). Settlement was apparently rare in these areas as the fragile acidic soils were not suitable for early prehistoric farming techniques. Sites such as these might have taken advantage of localized suitable conditions that allowed arable , or might have been pastoral settlements . Evidence for Late Bronze Age sites of larger than farmstead scale is inconclusive. Small ditched enclosures such as Mill Hill, Darenth and Highstead (all in Kent) were probably no more than farmsteads (Stebbing 1934, Champion 1980, Drewett et al. 1988, Philp et al. 1998). A small number of larger enclosures are known , such as Highdown Hill in Sussex (Ellison 1981; Wilson I 940 , 1950) , and Queen Mary's Hospital , Carshalton , Surrey (Lowther 1945, Adkins and Needham 1985). It has been suggested , based on their size , that these served a communal function - specifically , as centers of redistribution or manufacturing (Drewett et al. 1988, Hanworth 1987 , Needham 1987); such a function cannot be securely ascribed because of the lack of excavation . Nevertheless , it has been proposed that the hierarchy of sites in the Late Bronze Age constitute a system wherein produce is generated by the farmsteads which function as extended family units (cf. Drewett 1982b , Holden 1972), and the large enclosures served as central collecting and redistributive agencies and sites of manufacture , while the river sites

An example of this early hillfort type is Harting Beacon , West Sussex (Bedwin 1978a, 1979c). Harting Beacon was the largest of the Early Iron Age hill forts in the southeast, enclosing an area of about twelve hectares. It was a subrectangular enclosure with a single rampart on three sides ; the fourth side was undefended , but faced a steep scarp slope. The western rampart was pierced by a single entry which was fortified with a timber gate. Limited excavation in the interior yielded a small amount of manufacturing and domestic debris ( one piece of slag , two spindle whorls , a loom weight , and some potsherds). The environmental evidence showed undisturbed grassland , with no evidence of cultivation or intensive pasturage. Other early hillforts in Sussex which have been excavated present a similar picture . Excavations at Chanctonbury Ring

33

(Bedwin 1980) showed no evidence of domestic settlement ; mollusks preserved in the fill were characteristic of undisturbed contexts. Ditch ling Beacon (Crow 1930, Rud ling 1985), Highdown Hill (Wilson 1940, 1950), Thundersbarrow Hill (Curwen 1933) were likewise apparently empty of settlement or disturbance. Two possible exceptions are the hillforts at Seaford Head and Hollingbury Camp. Seaford (Pitt-Rivers 1877, Bedwin 1986), which lies at the edge of a chalk cliff, is now the site of a golf course . Construction of the golf course coupled with erosion of the cliff have extensively damaged the site. Excavation of the ramparts has shown that Iynchets extended up to the defenses , and that the hilltop was probably under cultivation prior to hillfort construction (Bedwin 1986). Recent excavations at Hollingbury (Curwen 1932, Holmes 1984) have discovered a small occupation (five huts) and a sma11amount of domestic debris. The features and artifacts recovered seem to be indicative of a permanent occupation , though on a very small scale.

of the Britons ; it is possible that sites such as Bigbury were tribal strongholds for raiding and defense during local conflicts . The central-place role of the later downland hill forts is more plausible , an interpretation based on analogy with the betterknown hillforts of Wessex , such as Maiden Castle and Danebury (Drewett et al. 1988, Cunliffe 1976). The role of the Wealden hillforts is more problematic . It has been suggested that movement onto the Weald was a response to population pressure on the Downs and river valleys (Drewett et al. 1988, Cunliffe 1982) , but the lack of farming sites in this area is a serious objection to this interpretation , especially since increasingly intensive local survey has failed to turn up evidence to change this picture (Hanworth 1987). Wealden sites might have been a response to increased iron demand in the Late Iron Age: the Weald is rich in iron ore, and was the center of the Romano-British and Medieval iron industries in the southea st (Drewett et al. I 988: Fig . 6.2; Money 1978). Alternately , these sites might have served as citadels , relatively inaccessible refuges during the increasing disruption that preceded Caesar's entry into Britain: "I should mention that the Britons give the name 'oppidum ' to any densely wooded place they have fortified with a rampart and trench and use as a refuge from the attacks of invaders" (Julius Caesar , De Bello Gal/ico , V.21 ).

In the Late Iron Age, most of these downland hill forts fall out of use, but the few that remain are refortified into larger and truly defensive structures and their defenses were maintained and improved over time ("developed hillforts" , Cunliffe 1991). Increased density of interior features shows that they functioned as residential , storage and/or manufacturing sites. There are forts of this type in Sussex at Cissbury (Curwen and Williamson 1931), Torberry (Cunliffe 1976), the Trundle (Curwen 1929, 1931b) and the Caburn (Pitt-Rivers 1881, Curwen and Curwen 1927, Drewett and Hamilton I 999) . Excavations at the Trundle revealed a large number of artifacts and pits indicative of domestic settlement and manufacturing (textiles , iron), and the bones of domestic livestock. Torberry yielded similar evidence , as did the Caburn , which is of somewhat later date. In addition , hill forts appear for the first time in areas of the High Weald and the Greensand Hills: High Rocks (Money 1960, 1968), Garden Hill (Money 1977) and Saxonbury (Winbolt 1930) in Sussex ; Anstiebury, Holmbury, and Hascombe in Surrey (all Thompson 1979); Oldbury (Ward-Perkins 1944; Thompson 1984, 1985), Bigbury (Jessup and Cook 1936, Thompson 1983) and Quarry Wood Camp (Kelly 1971) in Kent. No forts are known from east of the Medway in Kent (Cunliffe 1982). These late-appearing hillforts of the Weald are more like the early hill forts of the Downs - unoccupied enclosures rather than residential /manufacturing centers (Drewett et al. 1988, Cunliffe 1982). Proton-gradiometer surveys of the interiors of Anstiebury and Holmbury, for example , indicated the presence of temporary features (such as hearths) and little other disturbance ; excavations at Hascombe revealed evidence of short-term domestic settlement , similar to that from Hollingbury (Thompson 1979). Excavations at Bigbury revealed only small-scale settlement (a single hut and a hearth) , but a relatively large number ofiron tools (mostly for agriculture and forestry , including plowshares , billhooks and axes) , and an iron smithy. The most notable find from this site, however , was slave fetters : an intact eighteen-foot gang chain with six collars , two detached collars and various fragments . Strabo (IV .5 .1-2) noted that slaves were an export

4.3. THE SOUTHEAST: SITE RECORDS 4.3.1. Late Bronze Age This section , and the comparable sections of the next three chapters , are intended to present the details of existing economic data from each region. The analysis is based on the method outlined in Chapter 3. A discussion of variation within time periods and change over time for each region concludes each chapter. ltford Hill (East Sussex , NOR: TQ 447 053 . Burstow and Holleyman 1957, Holden 1972, Ellison 1978): The Itford Hi 11site 1ies on the upper terrace of the Ouse valley , near the town of Lewes. The site consists of ten shallow platforms cut into the chalk subsoil and partially surrounded by soil banks. The platforms supported round post-built huts, apparentl y arrayed into three clusters . The huts showed no sign ofrebuilding , so it was assumed that they were all in use at the same time, for an occupation lasting about one generation (Burstow and Holleyman 1957:209 and Fig. 31). Further study of the site by Ellison ( 1978) however , suggests that the clusters might have been successive, with groups of two to five huts in use per phase , and that occupation might have lasted for as long as a century . The site is surrounded by relict lynchets , some of which date to this period . In addition , a small barrow cemetery lies some ninety meters north of the site, containing the cremation burials of seventeen people. The association of the settlement and cemetery was proved by the remarkable match of two halves ofa potsherd between the two sites (Holden 1972); this is the

34

Black Patch (East Sussex , NGR: TQ 495 086. Drewett 1980, 1982b): Black Patch , like ltford Hill , is a series of clustered hut platforms cut into the chalk subsoil and partially surrounded by earthen banks . The main settlement cluster at Black Patch has been designated Hut Platform 4 , and contained five huts, possibly contemporaneous (but see Russell 1996). Hut Platforms 1 and 2, which are slightly smaller , might have been slightly earlier than Hut Platform 4 ; the site plan might represent successive settlement foci over a period of time , similar to the pattern suggested by Ellison ( 1978) for Itford Hill. Artifacts from the site were mainly domestic (pottery , flint tools , etc.) , but included a small number of bronze tools and ornaments (including a finger ring and a razor) , and a few artifacts acquired from longer distances , including whetstones from the Weald and a fragment of a quernstone from Mayen in Germany. Deposits at Black Patch were much disturbed ; the farmer had attempted to level the site by plowing. Consequently , the data available from undisturbed conte xts was greatly reduced .

only cemetery of its kind that can be securely identified with a particular settlement. The faunal residues from Itford Hill are few ; little was collected despite the relatively good state of preservation. The report concerns itself mostly with a portion of an articulated ox carcass from Hut N ; mention is made of other fauna] remains only to note that they were derived from sheep , cattle , pigs and horses , and that cattle were the most abundant species. Floral residues are more informative. The analyzed sample was taken from a pit deposit in Hut D, and represent a single context. The deposit (Burstow and Holleyman 1957:206) was primarily hu11ed barley with a small amount of emmer . The presence of secondary chaff suggests that the grain had been stored in a semi-clean state ; this is consistent with the processing of hulled barley and em.mer, which must be parched before final cleaning. Both grains require light , dry alkaline soils of the type prevalent at ltford Hill. In addition to the grain , eighty-four weed seeds belonging to fourteen species were identified , including Polygonum convolvulus , Brassica campestris , Chenopodium album), and Galium spurium. Most species fall into the sociological class Stellarietea media (annuals of arable and disturbed ground ; see Appendix 1.1), and within this class into the orders Polygono-Chenopodietalia and Centauretalia cyani , associated with fertile soils and (usually) the cultivation of summer cereals . In addition , there were two species (Rumex crispus and Polygonum aviculare) characteristic of compacted and damp arable soils such as footpaths (class Plantaginetea maioris) , and one seed (Stachys palustris) characteristic of damp pasture and fallow (association Ca Ithion palustris ). All of these species are at home on nitrogen-rich alkaline soils , and together they describe a consistent image of the local productive environment: tilled fields , pastures , and the smaller plant communities at their margins .

A field system , parts of it of Late Bronze Age date , surrounds the settlement , and a line of eleven barrows lies along the ridge at its front , about five-hundred meters away . Test excavations at the barrows showed that most predated the settlement , though two of them might have been contemporary . The fauna! sample was quite small , totaling only 195 identified fragments and representing some sixteen individual animals . The majority of thes e bon es were of cattle (NISP = 155, 79% of identified sample ; MNI = 7, 54% of domestic MN I). Of these seven individuals , two were very young (less than six months old) , two had reached optimal meat age ( circa three years old) , and three were older adults . Sheep were represented by only a small number of bones (NISP = 30 , 15%; MNI = 4, 31% ), from two youn g adult s (optimal meat age) and two older adults. For both sheep and cattle , all parts of the skeleton were represented . The only other domesticate preserved was pig (NISP = 2, 1%; MNI = 2, 15%), one of which was a newborn , the other an adult. There were also a few red deer fragments (N = 7) and a single unidentified bird bone.

Nine of the fourteen weed species typically germinate in the spring , and four in the autumn. The autumn-germinating weeds , especially Galium aparine, Bromus sterilis and Sherardia arvensis are common weeds of winter crops. This suggests that the occupants of ltford Hill employed a twoseason crop strategy, planting some of the barley crop in the fall , and barley and emmer in the spring . In addition , the presence of legumes among the crop weeds (Medicago lupulina and Vicia tetrasperma) coupled with the presence of the grassland plants Stachys palustris and Plantago /anceolata may indicated a fallowing regime (see Section 2.1.6 ; also , Silverside 1977, Drewett 1982b ). The absence of perennial plants and the abundance ofnitrogen-loving specie s in the weed profile suggests that fallowing at ltford Hill was a strategy to maintain the health of good soils and reduce the concentration of crop .pests rather than a remedial response to soil depletion (Warrington 1924).

The predominance of cattle over sheep was a characteristic of Late Bronze Age farmsteads on the South Downs , attested at several other sites of thi s type , and the sample from Black Patch , despite its very small size , is consistent with this. Although there are no water source s in the immediate vicinity of the site , cattle could well have browsed the wooded valleys below the site ; the availability of woodland near the site for the cattle and pigs is attested by the remains of deer . Water would also have been available at the many springs that rise along the terrace scarp. The site has several depressions interpreted as dewponds (these also occur at Itford Hill) , and these might have been sufficient for the immediat e needs of the cattle. The age distribution of the pigs and cattle suggest that they were bred at the site, and the

35

sampled ; most were filled with miscellaneous domestic debris and sweepings . None of these yielded a significant quantity of seeds, though they did contain seeds from nonagricultural contexts (i.e. not associated with either crops or arable weeds). These were seeds of damp acidic soils (Potentilla sp., Carex sp.) that may have been tracked up from the valley, and potentially-edible seeds of scrub woodland such as blackberry (Rubus fruticosus), hazel (Cory/us avellana) and sloe or hawthorn (Prunus sp.)

livestock would have served to supply a full range of resources (milk , meat , wool and traction). Undisturbed contexts for the floral samples came mainly from pits within the hut platforms, but also included small samples from fence and post-holes and from ponds. The bulk of the sample came from two pit deposits, called Pit 3 (Hut Platfonn 4 I Hut 3) and Pit 12 (Hut Platform I / Hut 1). The samples from each context were treated separately.

Runnymede Bridge (Surrey , NGR: TQ 018 718. Longley 1980, Needham and Longley 1980, Needham 1985, 1991): The Runnymede Bridge site is located right on the bank of the Thames , on the Berkshire-Surrey border at the island of Runnymede. The site is a waterfront or quay of oak posts driven along the bank (perhaps at the time a small island) in a double row, stabilizing the alluvium of the bank. The posts might have supported a walkway . Behind the quay was laid a layer of brush and wood to stabilize the wet land surface.

Pit 3 was a large pit near the wall of the hut, assumed because of its homogeneous fill to be the result of a single episode of dumping. The fill was apparently a grain deposit , with little domestic debris mixed in. Although the seeds were carbonized, there was no sign of burning in the matrix of the pit, suggesting that the burning had occurred elsewhere prior to deposition. The sample contained 96% barley and 4% emmer. The grain had been stored in a semi-clean state: the spikelets had been broken up, indicating threshing , but the pales had not yet been removed, suggesting that an accident while parching was the reason for carbonization. In addition to the grain , twelve species of weeds were present in the pit, all in very small numbers. The weed flora of Pit 3 is very similar to that from Itford Hill, and reinforces the impression of similarity between the economic practices and the structures of the two sites. All species of weeds in Pit 3 were annuals associated wi h cultivation, especially the orders PolygonoCnenopodietalia and Centauretalia cyani. There was also a small number of autumn-germinating species ( Galium aparine, Bromus sterilis) indicating autumn sowing ofbarley, and a small number of legumes ( Vicia tetrasperma, V. hirsuta, Medicago lupulina), suggestive of fallowing.

Because ofwaterlogging , the lower portions of the platform and pilings are well preserved ; the upper surface of the "platfonn" however is gone , and with it any direct evidence of structures or dwellings. The residential character of the site is inferred from the domestic nature of the debris , but it is not clear whether the living area was on the quay itself or whether it lay higher up on the bank. The site was originally interpreted as a trading port, receiving goods from the continent for transport up the Thames system (Needham and Longley 1980), but this interpretation has since been modified (Needham 1991). There is some evidence of workshop activity, especially bone and antler working, and metal casting, but this does not seem to have occurred on a very large scale. Further, there is no concentration at the site of continental trade goods, suggesting that the site functioned on a regional rather than extra-regional scale.

The Pit 12 deposit was similar to Pit 3, also representing a single-episode deposit of grain that had been carbonized, but not in situ. Like Pit 3, the grain had been stored in a semiclean state. The Pit 12 sample was more heterogeneous , however, and contained only 63% barley , with 34% emmer and 3% spelt. In addition , fourteen beans (Viciafaba) were included, a very early record for cultivated beans in Britain (Drewett 1982b; J. Renfrew 1973). The weeds in Pit 12 were the same as those in Pit 3, with the addition of Galium mollugo and lolium perenne, both weeds of wet meadows, clearances, and damp fallow (order Molinietalia). The presence of beans in a grain storage deposit is unusual, since the crops do not grow together nor are they processed in the same way. It is likely that they, like the nitrogenous weeds in Pit 3, were stray seeds from a previous crop that grew up among the barley, and that their presence in the barley represents fallowing or crop rotation. This evidence is strengthened by the presence of lolium and Galium, which are grassland crops, and more likely to be holdovers from a fallow year than crop weeds (Silverside 1977, Drewett 1982b) .

Because of the lack of in situ structural remains the identification of primary domestic contexts is difficult. The animal bones were analyzed by strata (layers of the Late Bronze Age river-channel deposits) rather than by feature type. While this limits the possibility ofassessing context or distinguishing areas of specific activity, it has the advantage of illuminating changes in the use of resources through the period of Late Bronze Age occupation. The livestock from the earlier strata at Runnymede show a much more restricted age pattern than those at the Downland sites. The cattle , which were the most abundant species (NlSP = 54%), were nearly all killed at young adulthood (optimal meat age), and only a few were kept until they were older. Pigs, which also make up a large proportion of the remains (NISP = 24%), show a pattern similar to cattle , as do they relatively few remains of sheep (NISP = 20%) . For all three species the bones are present from all parts of the skeleton with little evidence of removal.

A number of other pits, post holes, and fence holes were

36

seeds from a very wide range of ecological niches , including standing water and fens, dry acid grassland , heath, woodland and scrub , carr , and arable . The samples contained no grain and none of the material was carbonized; since they derived from natural rather than man-made features , they are a record of the drainage catchment at the site.

The bones from the later strata show some interesting changes from the earlier pattern. While cattle in the early layers make up 54% of the bone fragments , this percentage declines in later deposits to 20%. Pig remains correspondingly rise from 24% to 46% over this time. Sheep remain at 20-25% throughout. In addition , the age at death of the cattle declines, indicating the killing of younger and younger animals. Because the bone sample was well-preserved and quite large (for LBA , N = 9290) , these trends can be regarded with some confidence.

The midden samples , L24 and L 19, contained 2176 and 1260 seeds respectively , including a large amount of carbonized grain , chaff and weed seeds ; there was also a quantity of uncarbonized waterlogged material. Of the cultivated plants, the glume wheats dominated. Emmer and spelt fragments are not always distinguishable from each other when carbonized , but among the securely-identified fragments spelt was the more abundant. There was also a significant percentage of barley. For all three grains , there was a large percentage of carbonized chaff relative to the amount of grain ; nearly all was chaff from secondary cleaning , indicating the processing of semi-clean grain. The weed seeds are from a mixture of species favoring wet or marshy ground , scrub , damp grassland , and arable . The arable weeds-especially Chenopodium album (N = 627) , Atriplex sp. (N = 117), Stellaria media(N = 122), Papaver sp. (N = 53) , Polygonum aviculare (N = 139), and Polygonum convolvulus (N = 40)formed the largest part of the sample. These species are primarily spring-germinating annuals , characteristic of fertile , nitrogenous soils ( orders Bidentetalia tripartiti and Polygono-Chenopodietalia). There was no significant representation of fall-germinating weeds ; with the exception of a small amount of Brom us (N = 25) , none of the common weeds of autumn-sown crops were present. The dampground species fell into two groups: acid-tolerant species such as Carex, Rorippa palustris and Monti a fontana , and alkaline-soil species such as Nasturtium officinale and Eleocharis palustris . There were also a number of seeds from species ofacid woodland (Pteridium aquilinum , Rubus fruticosus and Rosa sp.) In total , over one-hundred species of weeds were included in the two midden samples , drawn from a broad range of ecological niches (Needham 1991 : Table 24) .

The scarcity of sheep is expected in such a damp environment as Runnymede Bridge. Sheep are highly vulnerable to dampground parasites such as liver-fluke (which was detected in the deposits) , and would not easily succeed in a floodplain setting. Pigs and cattle would both thrive in this setting , and so it is not surprising that they dominate the sample. Nevertheless , there is clear evidence of increasing stress in the cattle population, both in the decline in numbers in favor of pigs, and in the increased use of immature individuals. There are several possible explanations for this stress. If Runnymede were entirely a consumer site, then the changes in cattle might have been a reflection of stress at the producer site and not relevant to Runnymede at all. If parasite infestation was a serious problem , then pigs, who are more resistant than cattle , would survive better. There is some evidence that space to keep livestock was restricted: three cattle had their horns sheared off, a practice meant to keep them from goring each other when closely confined ; pigs can be kept in much closer quarters than cattle. Any or all of these factors might have contributed to the decline of cattle at the site. The fauna) remains at Runnymede are indicative of a meat assemblage, and there is no significant indication the livestock were bred at the site. If the quay and platform represent the primary domestic settlement area, then the residents were receiving stock bred elsewhere ; there is no significant evidence either of newborns or of older animals who could have been the breeders. The scarcity of older individuals also precludes a significant dairy or weaving industry, and lacking traction , makes it less likely that crops were grown at the site. It is possible that Runnymede was a special-purpose site consuming goods from elsewhere. Alternately, it is possible that it was a special-function component of a site located on slightly higher ground , but this has not been investigated.

The pit sample F 15 (N = 80) was cleaner than the midden samples , with less chaff and fewer species of weeds. The grain and the majority of the weeds were carbonized. The grain was primarily glume wheats (emmer and/or spelt) with a small amount of barley. The weeds , especially Polygonum convolvulus (N = 22) , Chenopodium album (N = 6) and Rumex sp. (N = 10), were nearly all spring-germinating annuals of cornfields and field margins ( order PolygonoChenopodietalia ).

The flora were sampled by context rather than stratum , so the same evidence of change through time is not available. Several types of contexts were sampled ; of these , two could be considered natural/environmental rather than of cultural origin (L20 and L 14/20), two were sedimentary deposits associated with a midden and would therefore contain some mixing of cultural and natural deposits (L24 and L 19), and one is from a secure cultural context - a clay-lined storage pit of Late Bronze Age date (F 15).

Taken together , the three deposits Ll9 , L24 and Fl5 represent the use of a semi-clean stored crop. Despite the large amount of preserved chaff , none derived from primary cleaning (see Section 2.1.7). The weed flora were unusually heterogenous , suggesting that they were drawn from an area extending beyond the area of the site itself. Many of the weeds reflect the generally damp and acidic conditions of the

Samples L20 and L 14/20 are interesting in that they contain

37

Avena are spring-germinating, but Galium is typically a weed of autumn-sown crops. The scarcity of weeds suggests that the crop was stored in a clean state.

local gravel and alluvial soils, but numerous species (notably the arable weeds) were typical of more alkaline soils, and several ( e.g. Aethusa cynapium, Pastinaca saliva, Eleocharis palustris, Bromus sp., Daucus carota) cannot abide acid conditions. Moreover , the grains are not especially suited to the local soils; spelt is hardier , and somewhat more tolerant of damp conditions, but emmer requires dry soils and barley cannot tolerate acidity. Although spelt is the dominant crop, the significant presence of emmer and barley are indicative of a wider arable catchment. It is reasonable to assume , then, that at least some of the crops recorded at Runnymede Bridge were not grown locally. Runnymede was apparently a consumer of grain, which was received at the site already partly processed, and also oflivestock. Its position along the river implies a specialized function , involved perhaps with trade along the Thames.

The post hole samples (Features 505 and 522) contained no grains , but yielded seeds from four species of weedsChenopodium album, Atriplex patula, Polygonum convolvulus and Polygonum aviculare - all springgerminating annuals of fertile soils (class Stellarietea mediae). Because Chenopodium is edible and occurs in such large numbers (N = 175), it was suggested that this was a supplemental food crop (Bell 1977:273). This is unlikely , however, both because Chenopodium does not occur in the grain storage context from Pit 1 I, and because the structure in which the Chenopodium was found was not associated with grain storage. Rather , these weeds probably represent seeds cleaned out of the stored crop.

4.3.2. Early Iron Age It is significant that at Bishopstone spelt has taken over from emmer and barley as the primary crop. This pattern has been noted elsewhere in Britain in the Iron Age (Helbaek 1952, Fowler 1983). The single Galium seed might be seen as evidence that part of the crop was winter-sown , but no conclusion can be derived from such scanty evidence , especially given the absence of autumn-germinating seeds in the post-hole deposits . There is no significant evidence of stress , as all the weeds are annuals of fertile soils.

Bishopstone (East Sussex , NGR: TQ 4675 0072. Bell 1977): Bishopstone is located near Newhaven in East Sussex, on a low spur of chalk overlooking the mouth of the Ouse . The site is an enclosure about one-hundred meters square, surrounded by field systems. Bishopstone is a multiperiod site, with initial occupation in the Neolithic , and with occupation occurring in Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon times. The enclosure ditch and the bulk of the excavated material is Early Iron Age in date, obtained from a small domestic occupation in the southern portion of the enclosure. There is also a small amount of Late Iron Age material from features in the northwest corner of the settlement. The central one-third of the enclosure was fully excavated, revealing the post holes for several two-, four-, and six-post structures as well as a small number of pits, all of Early Iron Age date. There were no dwelling structures identified, although their presence in the unexcavated southwest corner is assumed because of the domestic character of the debris. Excavation of the lynchets adjacent to the enclosure proved that those on the south and east sides were contemporary with the Early Iron Age settlement.

The Early Iron Age faunal sample from Bishopstone is small (N = circa 500 2 ). Cattle and sheep were the most abundant , followed by pig and horse. Little data is given about the relative ages of the cattle and sheep, except to note that most cattle were young adults. Bones of cattle were from all parts of the body , thought there seems to be some depletion of the distal limb bones; this might be an indication that hides were sent off for tanning elsewhere , but little significance can be placed on this pattern in such a small sample. Sheep bones were also from the whole body, with some skewing toward the limb bones and away from the axial skeleton. Bones of pig were virtually absent in the Early Iron Age deposits. The only remains of wild animals in the Early Iron Age features is the humerus of a seal (probably Phoca vitulina , the common harbor seal), and a whale vertebra that was used to pack a post hole. Seal have been relatively common on the south coast in the summer, and might well have been hunted on occasion. Although there were some species of whale that migrated off this part of the British coast in the past (especially the northern right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, and the minke, Balaenoptera acutorostrata), there is no consistent evidence of whaling in southern coastal sites of this period. It is more likely that the bone was collected

The floral data from Bishopstone were taken from a storage pit (Pit 11, two samples) and from two post holes associated with the four-post structure (Features 505 and 522). Only the Pit 11 samples contained any grain. The majority of the grain was identified as spelt (97% of Sample 11,92% of Sample 2) with a small component of barley (3% and 8% respectively). There is no mention of the presence or absence of chaff; however both samples together contained only four weed seeds (one Avena sp., two Papaver sp., and one Galium aparine) . The weeds are all cornfield weeds of fertile alkaline soils order Centauretalia cyani). Papaver and

2

The faunal report presents the bone auantities for the Early and Late Iron Age together, with no separation by period. It is therefore not possible to offer precise counts for this assemblage for either period.

1

The grain percentages in Bell 1977:XVI list Sample 1 as 87% spelt and 3% barley- presumably a typographical error

38

age, with no newborns, one juvenile, five young adults, and six older adults. The large number of newborns among the sheep and pigs indicates that stock were bred at the site. The sheep were also used for meat, dairy and wool. There is no evidence for the breeding of cattle in the bone assemblage , and it is possible that cattle were raised elsewhere; at Slonk Hill the cattle were used for meat, dairy, and traction. Among the pigs, there seems to be an emphasis on breeding rather than meat consumption ; the scarcity of young adults might be an indication that pigs were bred at Slonk Hill and then traded out, though the small size of this sample precludes certainty.

on the shore or taken from a beached carcass. Interpretation of the Bishopstone fauna] remains is problematic, because it is difficult to know how accurate the sample is. The very large number of teeth among the identified bones (28% of the total Iron Age cattle bones are teeth, 65% of sheep, and 68% of pig) attest to the large amount of post-depositional loss due to soil acidity. This type of loss most affects the bones of young animals and of pigs, both of which are softer and more porous than those of adult sheep and cattle . Thus, the depletion of pig bones and young individuals might have two interpretations. The first is that the site practiced a mixed livestock economy with an emphasis on cattle for meat , with some use of sheep and pigs as well. The floodplain and salt marshes below the site would be ideal for cattle , and the chalk spur on which the site is located would be well-suited for sheep. The second possibility is that husbandry was oriented more toward a consumer pattern than toward self-sufficiency. The emphasis on cattle at meat weight suggests that the stock were raised elsewhere and brought up to the site only for meat use. The scarcity of pigs together with the lack of both deer and woodland plant types suggests a lack of woodland cover in the immediate vicinity of the site, which would have made the raising of cattle more costly. The absence of teeth from young animals lends weight to the second suggestion. (see also Bishopstone LIA)

Harting Beacon (West Sussex, NGR: SU 807 183. Bedwin 1978a, 1979b): Harting Beacon is the largest of the Early Iron Age hillforts in the Southeast , encompassing an area of about twelve hectares. The site was subject to limited excavation in the late 1970s, restricted to a small area of the southwest comer where survey had indicated that cultural remains were concentrated. The excavation revealed few features- a few four-posters and postholes , but no pits or hut structures , and only a few artifacts .

The deposits were not sampled for seeds. Nevertheless , there was no indication ofarable agriculture at the site: there were no lynchets or field systems in the area , nor were the soils suited to agriculture (the immediate soils were much eroded and very thin). The fossil snails indicated a stable grassland environment , undisturbed by either arable or intensive grazing .

Slonk Hill (West Sussex, NGR: TQ 226 065. Hartridge 1978): Slonk Hill is an unenclosed farmstead site that lies on a low rise overlooking the Sussex Coastal Plain at the mouth of the Adur . Features at the site were few, partly a result of damage sustained when the site was used for a defense faci Iity during World War I. Remains of several four- and sixposters , some pits, and a gully line all date to the Early Iron Age occupation of the site. The site had been used in the Bronze Age for a barrow cemetery , and was used again for burial in the Late Iron Age. Artifacts from the Early Iron Age features included considerable evidence of industrial production, especially textile production , bronze smelting and possibly alloying , and iron-working.

Animal bone was collected from the excavated features . Eight features contained remains: two pits associated with a four-post structure , three isolated pits, and three rampart sections. Together they yielded only ninety-seven bone fragments. Nearly half of these belonged to sheep (NISP = 43; 44%) , with small numbers of pig (NISP = 25), cattle (NISP = I 8) and horse (NISP = 7). The only evidence from wild animals in the assemblage were four fragments of red deer (two bone , two antler). Although specific age data were not given , it was noted that the majority of the individuals were quite young. This supports the conjecture that the early hillforts in this area functioned primarily as stock enclosures (Drewett et al. 1988, Cunliffe 1991) or seasonal refuges during lambing and calving when the herds were most vulnerable. There is no evidence that Harting Beacon fulfilled a residential function or contained facilities for large-scale (regional) storage. On the contrary , its position is quite isolated from local arable settlements (Bedwin 1978a, 1979b).

Very few floral remains were obtained from Slonk Hill, despite the relatively good soil preservation . Only five seeds were recovered: one barley grain , three spelt grains plus one spelt chaff fragment , and one seed of Lithospermum arvense, a common cornfield weed (order Centauretalia cyani). Fauna) remains were somewhat more abundant. Sheep were the most common species (MNI = 41 ), followed by cattle (MNI = 12) and pig (MNI = 15). There was also one bone from domestic fowl (Gallus gal/us) and a fragment of red deer antler. The sheep were well-represented in all age groups , with thirteen newborn animals , seven juveniles , eleven young adults, and ten older adults ; the age data for the pigs was similar, but shows some depletion in the numbers of young adults (four newborns, three juveniles , two young adults, and six older adults). Cattle were primarily older in

4.3.3. Late Iron Age Bishopstone (East Sussex , NGR: TQ 4675 0072. Bell 1977): The Late Iron Age features at Bishopstone clustered in the northwest comer of the enclosure , most of them beyond the excavated area. Remains from this phase are therefore few, although they confirm that the enclosure

39

= 738; 57%) , followed by pig (NISP = 274 , 21 %), and cattle (NISP = 234, 18%). Tooth eruption data show that the livestock were kept both for their meat and for their secondary products . About half of the cattle mandibles with intact dentition belonged to animals of optimal meat age , and the other half to older animals kept for breeding, dairy and traction ; a small number belonged to very young animals , indicating that some breeding was carried out at the site. The pattern of the sheep mandibles was similar , though a slightly larger percentage were killed for meat ; there were several very young animals , and a large number kept for breeding , dairy and wool (the large number ofloom weight recovered from the site attests to the importance of weaving) . The pig mandibles show the pattern associated with meat production about one-third were from very young animals , and most of the remainder were from young adults .

continued in use from the Early to the Late Iron Age. Only one Late Iron Age context. was sampled for floral remains. The seed assemblage was very small, yielding only three barley grains and no other cultivated species. The two species of weed seeds ( Galium aparine and Lithospermum arvense) are both indicative of arable contexts (order Centauretalia cyani); both germinate in the autumn. The LIA bone assemblage was significantly different from the earlier material. Although still dominated by cattle and sheep , sheep had apparently increased in importance and cattle had declined, a pattern noted elsewhere in the later Iron Age (Cunliffe 1991, Fowler 1983). Pig bones were better attested from these features than earlier , and seem to be from two-year-old animals . Hors e was relativel y abundant in both phases, but dogs are present only in Late Iron Age deposit s, as are domestic fowl and cat.

Remains of wild animals made up a very small component of the fauna, including single teeth from deer and fox , two bones of a rabbit , and some unidentified bird bones .

There is a greater variety of wild animals at Bishopstone in the Late Iron Age, though the number s remain very small : red deer (Cervus elaphus , N = 1), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus , N = 7), swan (Cygnus sp., N = 4), gull (Larus fuscus or argentatus , N = 2), and (possibly) fox ( Vulpes vulpes, N = I) and fish (no identification , N = 4). The fox and gull are scavengers , though their pelts and feathers would have been desirable resources ; the deer, fish, and swan were edible.

Copse Farm (West Sussex, NGR : SU 885 150. Bedwin and Holgate 1985): Copse Fann is situated on the Sussex Coastal Plain ju st to the east of Chichester. The site lay on freshwater alluvium , surrounded by patch es of grave l and brickearth soils. Copse Fann consisted of a rectangular enclosure which surrounded a hearth , a four-poster , several pits and a possible oven . A single hut was located just outside the entrance to the enclosure . The Late Iron Age enclosure (Trench B) was one of several enclosures linked by a ditch system; three others were tested by excavation (Trenches C, D and E), and proved to be of Romano-British date. The Iron Age settlement , while small in size , clearly enjoyed a range of outside trade contacts ; among the finds were sherds ofamphorae from Italy (Dressel 1B; Bedwin and Holgate 1985:229) , quernstones from Mayen in Gennany , and bronze chariot fittings . A certain amount of domestic industry is indicated , including metalworking , weaving implements , and perforated vessels that might have been used in cheese-making (Bedwin and Holgate 1985:234).

The fauna I evidence from LIA B ishopstone suggests a shortage of woodlands (as in the earlier period) and an increased dependance on dry grassland grazing of sheep . The scarcity of pigs in the EIA and their presence only as twoyear-olds in the LIA suggests that they were brought in to supplement the meat supply . In this regard , the greater variety of wild species is interesting , though the quantities do not suggest a significant supplemental food source. (see also Bishopstone EIA)

Hawk's Hill (Surrey, NGR: TQ 1550 5540. Hastings 1965): Hawk's Hill is one of the rare excavated examples ofa North Downs farmstead. The site consisted of numerous postholes and twelve cylindrical pits. Debris on the site was domestic in character with some evidence of small-scale industry (iron slag, many loom weights , several spindle whorls , a whetstone , some ornaments) , but there were no actual house remains identified in the excavated part of the site ; an orchard had been planted on the site and excavation was limited to the areas between the trees. No floral samples were taken from the deposits , but the large number of storage pits suggests that grain was kept at the site; several of the pits had been infested with rodents in antiquity , further indication that they might have held grain. There was also indirect evidence in the form of quern s.

Floral remains were sampled from three contexts in Trench B: two from the enclosure ditch (Contexts 11 and 42) , and one posthole (Context 55). Only a small number of grains was recovered (N = 52), most of which were too damaged to identify to species . Of the identified grains, the majority were spelt (N = 18), with a number of barley (N = 4 ), bread wheat (N = 3), and possibly oats (N = 3) included. Since these samples come mainly from ditches they do not seem to be associated with storage deposits so much as refuse. Nevertheless , there seems to be a lack of evidence for cereal processing ; no chaff fragments were preserved , and only two weed seeds were recovered , too damaged to identify (Fam. Umbelliferae?). The deposits , such as they are , consist of clean grain .

The bone assemblage totaled 2592 fragments , of which 1253 (48%) could be identified . The majority were of sheep (NISP

Animal bone was collected from excavated contexts in the enclosure. A total of 1065 fragments was collected , 868

40

Preserved charcoals were identified as acid-tolerant Crataegus (hawthorn) , Fraxinus (ash), Quercus (oak) and Cory/us (hazel) , all species oflight forest or scrub. The local soils (gleyed brickearths over chalk) are very fertile , but would have been difficult to cultivate in the Iron Age because of their acidity and the very high water table. Agriculture today relies on a combination of drainage ditches and liming; the linear ditch system might be a remnant of a similar strategy in prehistory.

(81 % ) from the enclosure ditch , 121 from the pits , 74 from postholes and one from the "working area". The bones were relatively undamaged , many still retaining articular ends , and therefore a large proportion (N = 670, 63%) could be identified to species. The majority of the livestock bones were cattle (NISP = 241 , 36% ; MNI = 8, 24%) and sheep (NISP = 195, 29% ; MNI = 9, 27%). Horse were the next most abundant (NISP = 114, 17%; MNI = 5, 15%), which is an unusually high proportion of horses for a farmstead site. Pig made up a moderate portion of the total (NISP = 77, 11%; MNI = 5, 15%). Of the eight cattle represented , six were from young adult animals (optimal meat age) and two were older adults; there were no very young animals. Of the nine sheep, two were newborns, three were young adult , and four were older animals . The five pigs show a similar pattern , with one newborn , one aged , and the remaining three at young adulthood. Finally , four of the five horses were adult animals , one of them quite old; the fifth was a young animal , fewer than three years old. There are only two bones of wild animals at the site, both from carrion crow (Corvus corone) , a common scavenger.

The acid soils provided for poor preservation of the fauna) remains ; the disproportionate number of teeth preserved in the sample is indicative of this loss. The bone sample was derived from three main contexts: Feature 12 (or "Group 1"), a hearth pit ; Feature 10 ("Group 2") , a discrete rubbish tip within the ditch fill; and "Group 3", a series of trench deposits that included Feature 120 (a section of the ditch nearest the door of the hut), Feature 104 ( a section of the ditch within the drainage system) , and Feature 159 (a large subrectangular pit near the Feature 12 hearth). Feature 12 contained only a small number of bones. All were from cow (N = 3), sheep (N = 13), and pig (N = 12). The few bone elements present were primarily meat-bearing bones , suggesting that this was a food bone or meal deposit. No determination of age was possible.

The fauna] remains from Copse Farm indicate an unexceptional regime of balanced livestock husbandry. The presence of newborns suggests that sheep and pig were bred on the site . Pigs were kept mainly for meat, with the older individual perhaps kept as a breeder . Sheep, though used for meat, were also significant providers of secondary products; the importance of sheep to the Copse Farm economy is evident in the number of weaving implements and possible cheese-making vessels. The use pattern of cattle was somewhat different. In view of the good state of preservation at the site and the abundance of cattle bone, the absence of young individuals is probably genuine. This indicates that the Copse Farm cattle were probably raised elsewhere and were brought to the site for use as meat. The two older individuals might have been kept animals , providing milk or traction .

The Feature JOassemblage was slightly larger. Preservation in this feature was better than most because of chalk mixing that reduced the acidity of the soil. The bones were primarily those of sheep and cattle (N = 78 and 88 respectively) , with small amounts of pig (N = 18), horse (N = 2) and dog (N = 5). The cow and sheep bones derived from all parts of the skeleton , although there was some depletion of foot bones among the sheep . These animals were all near optimal meat age ; neither species showed remains of either very young or very old animals . Feature 120 provided the largest component of the "Group 3" assemblage , with only a few fragments from the other contexts . The sample was primarily cattle (NISP = 137, 5 I%; MNI = I 5, 43%) , with the remainder sheep (NISP = 79, 29% ; MNI = 11, 31 %) and a small collections of pig (NISP = 28, MNI = 5) and horse (NISP = 16, MNI = 2). Again, most of the sheep and cow remains were from young adult animals , with no significant representation of old or young individuals. In addition , there were three bones of wild animals: hare (Lepus capensis) which might have been intrusive , and water rail (Rallus aquaticus) , and dunlin (Calidris alpina) , water and shore birds of the Coastal Plain.

North Bersted (West Sussex , NGR: SU 925 025 . Bedwin and Pitts 1978): An interesting comparison to Copse Fann is the site at North Bersted , located on the Sussex Coastal Plain just above the alluvial beds of the Aldingboume Rife, on the outskirts of Bognor Regis. The site was broadly contemporary with Copse Farm , and lay only about seven kilometers to its southeast. North Bersted was located on a low rise of alluvial soils within the low-lying expanse of the Coastal Plain. These soils frequently waterlog in damp weather but lie above the flood line. The site consisted of an extensive series of linear drainage ditches , covering an area of at least twelve acres. One hut circle was discovered among the ditch system along with a few associated pits and post holes. The large extent of the ditch system implies that other such structures should have been located within the ditches , but none were found

At North Bersted , all three faunal assemblages derive from strongly domestic contexts , and all three show a similar picture . Cattle and sheep were the dominant livestock at the site, with a small number of pigs . All three species remains show an almost absolute restriction to meat consumption , with no indication of secondary use or that the animals were bred at the site. The lack of traction animals is further evidence , with the wet soils and the lack of storage pits that

No floral remains were obtained from North Bersted .

41

totaled 350 milliliter s in volume , of which 100 milJiliters was sampled for analysis. This subsample was denser in preserved seeds than the first, yielding a total of 1730 seeds , or 17.3/ml compared to 9.6/ml for sample H77/2/6. In addition, a larger proportion of the sample (N = 1616; 93.5%) derived from cultivated species , and a larger proportion of these fragments were kernels (N = 1482) rather than chaff. About two-thirds of the grains were wheat (N = 997) , and nearly the whole remainder (N = 467) was barley , unlike the previous sample in which barley was virtually absent. Cultivated oat was also present in small numbers (N = 115). Weeds accounted for only 6.5% of the subsample (N = 112); again, all of these were either Chenopodium album (N = 85) or Polygonum convolvulus (N = 27).

agriculture was probably not practiced at the site.

Bascombe (Surrey , NGR: TQ 005 386 . Thompson 1979): Hascombe is a small promontory fort, located in the Weald on the end of a ridge overlooking the Arun tributaries . The defenses were formed by a single bank-and-ditch , forming an irregular rectangle that enclosed 2.5 hectares. There was a single entrance on the northeast side. Resistivity and proton-gradiometer surveys located only a small number of features in the interior of the hillfort, most in the vicinity of the entrance. Excavation of these features showed some evidence of domestic activity, especially weaving implements and rotary quems , but no evidence of dense or long-term occupation. In general , features were few and lacking in domestic debris . As with Anstiebury and Holmbury (same publication), the site was characterized by a large number of sling stones , both caches of river cobbles and artificial bullets made from clay.

The dominance of grain over weeds and chaff in these samples indicates that they derived from storage rather than grain-processing waste assemblages ; the grain was probably stored in a clean state. The large amount of Chenopodium , Bromus and Polygonum included in the samples suggests that they were used as a food resource. The emmer and barley could not have grown on the local Weald soils . The weed species, though few, are generally found on alkaline soils as well (class Stellarietea mediae) . This evidence , together with the lack of evidence for long-term permanent occupation at the site, indicate that the crops were grown elsewhere , and not in the locally acidic Wealden or Surrey heath soils. A likely source for crops in this area would be the North Downs farmsteads , such as Hawk's Hill. Chenopodium and Polygonum are weeds of spring-sown crops , but the presence of Bromus indicates some autumn sowing as well.

Only one fragment of animal bone- a metatarsal of a newborn sheep-was recovered in the excavations at Hascombe . Two samples were taken for floral analysis . The first was from a very large oval pit (H77 /2/6) , roughly 13 feet long and 4 feet wide, and 2.5 feet deep. The grain deposit formed a thick carbonized layer on the floor of the pit; the bottom and sides of the pit were reddened , suggesting that the burning had taken place in situ and not as the result of a parching accident. The size of the pit and the large amount of charcoal in the deposit make it unlikely that it resulted from storage pit cleaning such as described by Reynolds ( 1979, 1981a, 1981b; and Section 2.1.7, above). The excavator envisioned a wooden chest filled with grain, thrown into a pit when it caught fire. After the burning incident , the pit was quickly filled with sand, sling stones , potsherds , rubble and other debris .

4.4. DISCUSSION: AGRICULTURAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SOUTHEAST 4.4.1. the Late Bronze Age

The sample H77 /2/6 totaled 30,600 milliliters in volume, and a 400 milliliter subsample was taken for analysis. The subsample (N = 3844) was composed mostly of cultivated species (N = 3210; 83.5%), primarily grain (N = 2335) with a large percentage of chaff (N = 875). The majority of the grain was emmer , with a significant proportion of spelt (N = 2457, both species). There were only a small number of barley fragments (N = 18), but a significant amount of oats (N = 482), nearly all of the cultivated variety, Avena sativa ; there was also a small quantity of Bromus (N = 44). Excluding Bromus , weeds made up only 16.5% of the seed assemblage; nearly all the weed seeds were Polygonum convolvulus (N = IO1) or Chenopodium album (N = 505). The large number of Chenopodium , Bromus and Polygonum seeds in an otherwise relatively clean grain deposit suggests that they were collected or retained for food .

Late Bronze Age sites with well-preserved and excavated agricultural records tend to cluster on the South Downs, specifically in Sussex. This bias occurs for several reasons: ( l) sites are easier to locate and better preserved in the light calcareous soils and preservation is relatively poor elsewhere ; (2) areas of heavy soils , such as the Weald and the clay beds of Surrey and Kent were apparently not settled in this period ; and (3) sites on the acidic gravels and alluvium were subject to greater disturbance and destruction. Thus, the history of the Late Bronze Age in this area is primarily the prehistory of Sussex. The first group of sites described in this chapter were part of a well-defined class of Late Bronze Age farmsteads that shared several similarities (see Drewett et al. 1988). They were concentrated on the chalk soils of the Downs , usually located on the upper terraces along the valley floodplains on the lighter and drier soils. Terrace soils of the South Downs

The second sample (H77 /l 2/4 ,5) came from a sub-rectangular pit roughly five feet in diameter. The pit was filled mostly with sandy fill and a small amount of debris. The sample

42

of local power). The site contains a quantity of fine pottery and some exotic goods, but not in large numbers and it could not be characterized as particularly rich. The absence in the Southeast of the conventional indicators of social powerwealthy burials, elite residential sites, etc.- might be an indication that trade through sites such as Runnymede was part of a reciprocal network between the upland farmers and the valley-dwellers. It is also possible , given the association of the rivers , especially the Thames, with fine local and imported metalwork , that trade sites in the Late Bronze Age were the central sites, and that social power was a reflection of access to the networks that linked Britain with the Continent.

tend to be fertile rendzinas and are easily worked. Because of the rapid drainage of the chalk and the scarcity of pennanent water, the terraces were better for arable and for sheep grazing, though there were ample resources for cattle in the lower-terrace alluvial soils. Settlements of this type were single ( extended) family compounds , usually two to five huts in all, accommodating approximately ten people. The huts varied in size , and were the sites of different domestic activities. The compound was usually sited within its fields and pastures, in a position that allowed access to both the upper and the lower terrace. A summary of the agricultural economies of these sites can be based on the data from Itford Hill and Black Patch. Both sites practiced mixed farming based on the cultivation of barley and emmer and the herding of cattle. Some diversification of the resource base is indicated by small-scale pig-keeping, sheep-herding and the cultivation of spelt. The weed flora, as well as the position of the lynchets that surround the sites, are sufficient indication that cultivation was local. Some modest intensification can be seen in the evidence of fallowing and two-season planting; this intensification was presumably an effort to maximize productivity and reduce labor , since the weeds do not indicate either depletion of the soil or the use of wild foods to supplement the harvest. The farmers of Black Patch and Itford Hill can be regarded as self-sufficient producers , enjoying the fruits of a healthy agricultural economy , and acquiring a small number of non-local goods.

4.4.2. the Early Iron Age In many respects , the pattern of Early Iron Age settlement in the Southeast was an extension of the Late Bronze Age pattern , in both site structure and distribution. The areas apparently without settlement in the Late Bronze Age (especially the Weald and the Surrey heaths) continued to be unoccupied. The characteristic settlement of this period was again the downland farmstead , exemplified by the sites of Bishopstone and Slonk Hill in Sussex. The agricultural data from these sites indicated a shift in preference from cattle- to sheep-herding and from barley to spelt. This shift might reflect a trend toward greater efficiency: sheep would be less labor-intensive to maintain on the Downs , and spelt is a more reliable winter crop. Both sites showed tentative evidence of a two-season planting schedule ; neither showed indications of fallowing , but it should be noted that the data from both sites were quite limited. Both sites yielded evidence of sheep and pig breeding (Slonk Hill was possibly a producer of pigs for use elsewhere) , but neither held much evidence of cattle below the age of optimal meat yield. In fact , this absence of evidence for cattle-breeding is characteristic of all the Iron Age sites discussed in this chapter, with the exception of Harting Beacon (EIA) and possibly Hawk ' s Hill (LIA).

Complementing the chalkland farmsteads was the river-edge site at Runnymede Bridge . Runnymede is one of a group of sites located at the water's edge (rivers, fens, floodplains) that occurred throughout prehistory in southern Britain ; they were located in areas not suited to agricultural production , but instead seemed to fulfill specialized roles in regional trade or resource procurement3. Runnymede Bridge , for example , seems to have been a trade site. It did not have an agricultural function , as was apparently a consumer of grain and probably also of livestock , though meat-age cattle were probably also kept at the site. The weeds included in the carbonized sample were characteristic of a wide ecological catchment, an indication of the areas involved in the trade system.

One possible explanation is that stock-breeding took place outside the settlements , at specialized sites such as the hillforts. As was noted , the Early Iron Age hillforts were abundant , but performed no apparent residential , ritual or political function. Many of these sites were structured more like stock-enclosures than like defenses , and this might have been one of their initial purposes. Sheltering the cows from predators during calving would increase the success of the year's births and greatly reduce the number of neonatal mortalities; in this connection it is important to note that Harting Beacon was not a residential or arable site, and that the fauna) remains preserved there were derived primarily from very young animals. If the early hillforts functioned only as stock-breeding enclosures for a group of communities , then the labor expended in their construction (probably not prohibitive) would reflect a measure of local (i.e. reciprocal) cooperation. Nevertheless , some effort (even if it was not large) was required to construct the hillfort , and some additional effort would be required to

A site such as Runnymede might have functioned as part of a reciprocal network (produce in return for access to a wider range of goods) or a redistributive system (trade as a source

3

Examples in this text are: the SoutheastRunnymede Bridge (LBA), Copse Farm (LIA), North Bersted (LIA); the Eastern Counties-Story's Bar Road (E/MBA), Loft ' s Farm (LBA) , Newark Road (LBA) , Haddenham (MIA) , Maxey (MIA) , Cat's Water (LIA) ; Wessex-Aldermaston Wharf (LBA) , ?Knight's Farm (LBA), Hengistbury Head (?EIA and LIA) , Glastonbury (LIA) , Meare East and West (LIA).

43

drive the livestock to the enclosure . The possibility cannot be dismissed that the (?seasonal) gathering of people and livestock from several communities fu1fi11eda social role as we)] as an agricultural one (see Section 6.4.4).

of diversification. It is possibl e that produce from the farmsteads reached the hi11fortsin the form of tribute (there was no evidence of non-local resources at the farmsteads) , and that the Coastal Plain sites acted as agents, trading the produce for luxury goods from the Continent. Copse Farm, for example, was located only seven kilometers south of the Late Iron Age hillfort at the Trundle.

4.4.3. the Late Iron Age Records from the Late Iron Age farmstead sites in this area are very scarce , and data from the two sites in this study (Bishopstone , Sussex and Hawk's Hil1, Surrey) are incomplete. Both sites seem to have been mixed farming settlements ; weed residues from Bishopstone suggest twoseason planting , but little else can be said about the arable system . Fauna] evidence suggests that livestock were bred at these sites and maintained for dairy, wool and labor as well as for meat. Nevertheless , a shift from cattle- to sheep-herdin g at Bishopstone , coupled with an increase in the use of pigs for meat and possible supplementary hunting, is likely evidence of stress .

At any rate, it seems clear that by the Late Iron Age a smal1 number of elite sites had been established , with sufficient social and economic gravity to draw in labor and resources from the sites surrounding them . There was some stratification of the surrounding settlements , apparently centered around trade and access to transport. Nevertheless , it is clear that this hierarchical organization did not extend to the entire Southeastern region, but only to the intensivel yfarmed soils of the South Downs and possibly also the areas close st to the Thames.

The two sites on the Sussex Coastal Plain , North Bersted and Copse Farm, were probabl y not agricultural producer s. Neither site was suited to arable cultivation , and no evidence for cultivation was found in the deposits ; no grains were found in the deposits from North Bersted , and only clean stored grain was obtained from Copse Farm. Nevertheles s, the grain from Copse Farm represented four species--barley , spelt , bread wheat and oats--some of which have divergent ecological requirements , suggesting that the grain arrived there from a number of different sites. Fauna) remains from the two sites were strongly indicative of meat consumption . Although there was evidence that sheep and pigs were raised at Copse Farm, the site was probably a consumer of cattle ; North Bersted was a consumer of cattle , sheep and pigs. The artifact record from North Bersted is very slight, but the economic emphasis at Copse Farm was apparently trade , and the artifacts from the site were indicative of a range of local and European contacts. It this regard the relatively large number of horse remains at Copse Farm , including a young individual (horse breeding?) , might be a clue to the economic "role" of the site. The emergence of sites with clear "central" roles in the social and economic spheres is restricted to the later Iron Age in the Southeast. The few hillforts that continued in use during this period were refortified , and excavation has shown that they were densely-filled with both residential and storage structures. It is unfortunate that none of the excavations at these hillforts has yielded sufficient fauna) and floral data for analysis. Evidence from the farmsteads and floodplain sites, however , suggests that produce was reaching the hillforts either directly from the producers , or indirectly through the medium of overseas trade . Beyond that is speculation : neither Bishopstone nor Slonk Hill contained imported goods such as those found at Copse Farm . Nevertheless , Copse Farm and Hascombe are notable among these sites for the variety of produce they contain , in their cases an indication that they drew produce from a wide area rather than evidence

44

CHAPTERS: The Eastern Counties: Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire the slopes of the chalk ridge and the Brecklands ; the ridge is capped with acidic clay-with-flints , but these deposits have eroded from the western scarp and the soils along this strip are similar to the chalk-based soils of the Sussex Downs and Wessex . The Breckland soils are a mix of sands , calcareous brown earths and rendzinas .

5.1. GEOGRAPHY The Eastern Counties are the broad southern end of the Eastern Coastal Plain, bounded at the northern end by the Wash and at the south by the estuary of the River Thames. The region is characterized primarily by its low relief and very high water table , which have left it prone to flooding for most of its history and have necessitated extensive programs of drainage and dyke-building in the last few centuries. In addition to the drains , the region is extensively dissected by rivers, especially the Great Ouse and its tributaries (the Little Ouse , the Lark , the Nar and the Wissey) that drain into the Wash at King's Lynn; the Bure, Yare , and Waveney systems that enter the North Sea at Great Yarmouth ; the Stour , the Orwell , and the Deben that drain into the Harwich Harbour ; and the Chelmer , Blackwater and Colne systems that emerge at Mersea Island. The Medway and the Thames estuary form the southern border , separating the Eastern Counties from the Southeast region.

5.2. BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE SETTLEMENT IN THE EASTERN COUNTIES 5.2.1. The Bronze Age Evidence for domestic settlement in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages is rare in this region. Much of what is known about settlement distribution is based on the occurrence of burials. The only well-defined Early Bronze Age settlement evidence comes from the Fenlands , from the sites of West Row Fen in Suffolk (Martin and Murphy 1988) and Fengate in Cambridgeshire (Pryor 1974, 1978 1980, 1984). West Row Fen is a part of the Mildenhall Common Fen , a formation of sandy ridges and hummocks rising above peat-filled depressions. The settlement at West Row Fen was an unenclosed fannstead , located on one of the sand ridges. A round house was constructed on the top of the ridge , and traces of two other structures were found on the slope. Preliminary analysis of the fauna! remains suggested a cattle-rearing economy with some use of pigs and sheep . Floral remains indicated that emmer was the main crop , mixed with some spelt and barley. The grain , however , might have been grown elsewhere , since the soils at the site were too damp and acidic for emmer. The Fengate sites were a complex of fen-edge settlements and ditch systems that dated from the Neolithic to the Late Iron Age and later. The ditch system - a dense pattern of droveways , drainage channels and livestock enclosure s- was apparently laid out in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, and continued in use through the Late Bronze Age. Bronze Age settlement traces are aligned to the ditch system , but Iron Age s~ttlements do not respect the ditch lines , which might have silted up following a hiatus of higher water level s and flooding (Pryor 1984). There were traces of Early Bronze Age settlement at the Cat's Water , Newark Road , and Story's Bar Road subsites though the features at Cat's Water and Newark Road were largely destroyed by subsequent Iron Age settlement activity (Pryor 1978, 1980, 1984) . The Story's Bar Road settlement consisted of a single house built into one section of the drainage system. The economy , like West Row Fen, was based on cattle pastoralism. No cultivated plants were found , th~ugh other species were characteristic of pasture , hedges , and acid wetlands . It is likely that sites such as West Row Fen and Story's Bar Road were used only seasonally as summer pasture for the cattle herds , and that the population retreated to higher

There are two areas of significant topography in the Eastern Counties: the chalk ridge and the Fens. The chalk ridge is a structure of modest elevation that lies just to the east of the Great Ouse rising as a northern extension of the Chilterns at the Essex-Suffolk border and paralleling the course of the river northward to King's Lynn ; included in this formation is an area of sandy soils near Swaffam known as the Brecklands . The Fens are a topographical depression , much of it lying below sea level , located mostly in the northern part of Cambridgeshire between the Nene and the Great Ouse. They encompass a roughly triangular area between King's Lynn in Norfolk , Newmarket in Suffolk and Peterborough in Cambrid geshire , characterized by wide expanses of sluggish or standing water overgrown with water weeds and rich in freshwater fish and birds. The soils of the Eastern Counties are dominated by acidic types of limited arable potential (Murphy 1991). The predominant soils in Norfolk , Suffolk , Essex and southern Cambridgeshire are the boulder clays and morainic drift deposits (Murphy 1984, British Geological Survey 1977). Northern Cambridgeshire and the coastal portions of East Anglia are covered by a mixture of sandy beach deposits and outwash sands and gravels. The river channels themselves are terraced with gravels , brickearths (a term that is generally used to describe fluvatile deposits of clay mixed with loam and loess) , and alluvial loess ; these channel deposits are often layered with peat. The addition of loess in the river-channel alluvium and in the outwash deposits on the coast tends to mitigate the acidity of the clay and gravel soils and has resulted in localized deposits of more alkaline loamy soils quite favorable for arable use (Catt 1978 ; Murphy 1984, 1991 ; British Geological Survey 1977). Truly alkaline soils are restricted to

45

sites such as Springfield Lyons (Buckley and Hedges 1987b; see below) and the two sites at Mucking in Essex (M. U. Jones 1974, Jones and Bond 1980, Bond 1988) were situated on drier ground more suited to arable production. Mucking, South Rings lay on an upper terrace above the Thames estuary ; the site was a double-ditched circular enclosure with two entrances. Mucking , North Rings lay on the same terrace, one kilometer to the north; this site was a single-ditched circular enclosure with two entrances and three huts. North Rings was slightly later in date than South Rings , and might have been its successor. Both sites contained some evidence of metal-casting (crucibles and molds) and of salt-making. Floral and faunal data were not preserved at either site because of the acid condition of the soil, but the remnants ofa field system laid out at South Rings and droveways at North Rings suggest agricultural production at the sites .

ground in the winter when the risk of flooding was greatest (Pryor 1974, 1984; Martin and Murphy 1988; Limbrey 1978; Lawson 1980). Fen-edge settlements such as these were positioned at the intersections of environmental zones , and most likely represented one component in a mobile economy that produced grain on the drier upland soils and grazed on the lush summer growth of the Fens. Late Bronze Age records represent a greater variety of site situations. The evidence in this period comes primarily from Essex and Cambridgeshire; sites of Bronze Age date in Norfolk and Suffolk are scarce , even in areas where survey has been intensive (e.g. Ashwin 1996, Davison 1990). Fen-edge sites are again well represented; this is partly because of the lack of later arable activity on these sites, and because of several major programs of excavation that focused on the Fens, notably the Fengate projects in Cambridgeshire (Hawkes and Fell 1945 ; Pryor 1974, 1978, I 980 , 1984) and the Fenland Survey in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk (Pryor et al. 1985; Hall 1987, 1992; Sylvester 1988, 1991 ). The Late Bronze Age fenland settlement at Newark Road (Pryor 1980) is discussed in detail below ; however , the most astonishing fenland discovery in recent years is the site at Flag Fen.

Very few sites have been identified on the boulder clay uplands that lie between the river valleys and make up the majority of land in the Eastern Counties. The soils in this area are heavy and wet, and more difficult to cultivate using prehistoric technology . Pollen profiles suggest that the area was still largely forested in the Bronze Age and that the practice of small local clearances continued until Roman use of the area (Murphy I 984). Broad's Green in Essex is one of the few excavated Late Bronze Age settlements on the clay (Brown I 988b ). The site was an unenclosed farmstead containing several rectangular structures; the settlement lasted long enough for some of these structures to be rebuilt. Faunal remains were poorly preserved , but indicated a livestock economy based on sheep , cattle, and pigs. Floral remains were not collected because of the haste required for rescue excavation.

Flag Fen was discovered in the course of the Fengate project , and forms one component of that planned Late Bronze Age landscape (Pryor 1991; Pryor et al. 1986). The site was an artificial island built up of wood and brush that lay in a small stretch of open water between the Fengate complex and a similar complex at Northey, 2.5 kilometers to the east. The walkway that led out of the platform to the east and west connected to aligned pathways at both Northey and Fengate (Pryor 1991: Plate 1). Atop the platform were approximately ten rectangular structures, built of mortised-and-tenoned posts and split oak planks. Much of this timberwork was preserved intact in the wet fen deposits and could be reconstructed to a substantial degree. An extension of the excavation trench along the causeway that ran westward from Flag Fen to Fengate revealed another component of the site at the Fengate Power Station (Pryor 1991). The Power Station site consisted of a post alignment , a walkway and a platform; tree-ring data indicated that it was contemporary with Flag Fen. Artifacts recovered at the Flag Fen and Power Station sites, and all along the southern side of the causeway between them, are thought to be ritual rather than domestic in purpose: deliberately-broken bronze pins , knives and swords ; smashed shale bracelets· carefully-buried pots. Although it was initially believed that Flag Fen was a settlement, it is now thought more likely that it functioned as a ritual center associated with the settlements at Fengate and Northey , perhaps a response to the rising water that was forcing abandonment of the Fens (Pryor I 99 I: 120121).

Evidence from the Eastern Counties indicates that Bronze Age settlement in some areas (notably the fens) might have become quite dense. It is notable that features such as the Fengate ditches were constructed as a unified system and were not a patchwork of small local systems linked together. Such a construction indicates a habit of cooperation if not control that encompassed a wide territorial area and was maintained over a long period of time. Nevertheless, most Bronze Age settlements in the Eastern Counties were little more than farmsteads; there is no evidence of nucleation or residential sites that can be considered central.

5.2.2. The Iron Age The transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Counties is mostly notable for continuity. Hillfort construction began in the Early Iron Age, but these sites apparently did not assume a position of socioeconomic control. The primary type of settlement , the farmstead, remained largely unchanged between the Bronze and Iron Ages .

Apart from the fen-edge settlements , Late Bronze Age sites have been located on both upper and lower river terraces , and on the boulder clay plateaus that lie between the river valleys. Lower-terrace sites such as Loft's Farm , Essex (Brown 1988a; see below) had a similar function to the fen-edge sites, but seemed less vulnerable to seasonal flooding. Upper-terrace

Settlements at the edge of the Cambridgeshire fens remain the most visible class of excavated site. At Fengate, four subsites have significant Iron Age components: Fourth Drove , Vicarage

46

occupation and a few artifacts for salt-making. Linford was a possible enclosure that contained the remains of a single roundhouse and its associated pits. The only surviving fauna] remains were the teeth of mature cattle . The very limited economic evidence from these sites suggests stock-grazing (especially cattle) and perhaps some arable. These areas would have been suited to a mixed-farming economy , taking advantage oflocalized patches ofless-acidic soils to grow grain and the lower terraces or fens for livestock.

Fann, Newark Road, and Cat's Water (Pryor 1980, 1984). The structure of Newark Road, Vicarage Fann, and Fourth Drove were similar to their Bronze Age counterparts-drainage systems interspersed with pits and occasionally the remains of structures. It is significant that the Iron Age ditch-anddroveway layout was again laid out as a single system , and the subsites represent discrete settlement loci within this unified system rather than independent settlements. Most of these Fengate occupations date to the later part of the Iron Age ; higher water levels at the end of the Bronze Age (seen as silting in the Bronze Age features) forced abandonment of the original ditch system, and although use resumed later when the water levels fell, the layout was different from that of the Bronze Age . The Cat's Water subsite was the only one of the Iron Age components that produced evidence of nucleated settlement and pennanent rather than seasonal occupation (Pryor 1984). Otherpennanent settlements atthe edge of the Cambridgeshire fens were recorded at Maxey (Pryor et al. 1985) and Haddenham (Evans and Serjeantson 1988).

In Norfolk , sites such as Harford Farm , Trowse (both Ashwin and Bates 2000) and Micklemoor Hill (Clark and Fell 1953) were sited to take advantage of drier locations above the river valleys. The sites were quite small-clusters of a few huts accompanied by pits and ancillary structures. Animal bones from Micklemoor Hill were of domestic stock (sheep , cattle and horse) as well as some of the local marsh and woodland species (deer , boar , crane , beaver). Grain residues recovered at Harford Fann and Trowse were of emmer , spelt and barleycrops that would not grow well on the acid soils around the sites. The crop weeds were species characteristic of alkaline agricultural soils (Bromus, Chenopodium album , Polygonum sp., Viciallathyrus sp.), further indication that the grain was grown elsewhere .

Iron Age sites on the lower alluvial terraces , represented by Kelvedon and Little Waltham in Essex , were again similar in their economic function to the fen-edge sites. The Iron Age settlement at Kelvedon (K. A. Rodwell 1988) was largely obliterated by later Romano-British occupation , but it was probably a ditched enclosure with a single house. No floral or faunal samples of Iron Age date were recovered , but early Roman-period evidence suggests an economy based on cattle husbandry . Little Waltham (Drury 1978; see below) began as an unenclosed nucleated settlement , succeeded by a small enclosed farmstead . The economy was probably based on cattle-herding ; the small amount of floral data obtained suggests that crops were grown elsewhere.

Although cemetery (barrow) sites and findspots of Bronze and Iron Age artifacts have been numerous in Norfolk , the character of domestic settlement is only poorly understood (cf. Ashwin 1996, Davies 1996). This is in part because conditions of preservation are very poor in the acidic gravels and clays , but also because the ground is not as amenable to aerial survey as the chalks of the southern and western counties. Recent projects of broad scope , such as the Norwich Southern Bypass survey (Ashwin and Baker 2000) , will help to fill in the details in the coming years .

Evidence for upper terrace sites comes primarily from Essex. Preservation was poor at these sites because of the acidity of the gravel soils , and many also suffered damage as a result of gravel-digging operations. Sites of fannstead scale have been recognized at Ardale School and Rectory Road (Wilkinson 1988), Woodham Walter(Buckley and Hedges 1987a), Linford (Barton 1962) and Gun Hill (Drury and Rodwell 1973) . The Rectory Road excavation was very small, and yielded only a fence line and several pits. A single floral sample (from Pit 277) produced a clean grain deposit of spelt with some emmer , barley, and brome included. The Ardale School site lay on a complex terrace of sand and gravel , chalk , acidic brown earth and loam laid down by the succession of erosion and flooding along the Thames. By the time oflron Age occupation , the site probably lay at the terrace edge , overlooking a belt of fens which probably allowed passage by small boat to the Thames itself . The Middle Iron Age phase of occupation was a series of unenclosed roundhouses , succeeded in the Late Iron Age by an enclosed farmstead . The small number of fauna! remains were primarily from cattle with a small amount of sheep , pig, and roe deer. Woodham Walter was a series of enclosure ditches , but no structures were located . Surviving fauna] remains were exclusively the teeth of mature sheep and cattle. The Gun Hill enclosure was probably also used for livestock , though earlier levels contained some evidence of domestic

Excavated settlements on the boulder clay plateaus were again rare in the Iron Age. One of the few to have been excavated is the site at Ivy Chimneys , near Witham in Essex (Turner 1981, 1999). The site lay above the River Blackwater , and consisted of a ditch enclosing four hut structures and several four-posters. There was evidence of salt-making and the remains of a possible domed oven. Few organic remains survived in the deposits. Faunal evidence included cattle , sheep , pig and deer. A small number of fannsteads have been excavated on the alkaline soils of the chalk ridge and Brecklands . The topography and geology of these areas is similar to that of other chalkland sites such as those in Wessex and the Sussex Downs , and the limited excavated evidence suggests that they maintained similar economies. The site at Hunstanton in Norfolk (Murphy 1984) yielded spelt and barley. The limited available fauna) evidence is indicative of a mixed livestock economy. In addition , marine resources from the nearby coast fonned a significant com.ponent of the site's economy , especially shellfish (mussel, cockle, oyster , scallop , and whelk) , cod and shark. The site at West Stow in the Suffolk Breckland (West 1990) maintained a mixed livestock economy based on meat-production , dairy , traction , and wool.

47

Late Neolithic /Early Bronze Age enclosure (Mahaney 1969). The Story's Bar Road site consisted of a ditch system forming a series ofrectilinear enclosures , with a possible double line of ditches to the north. At one ditch terminal was a large ringgully that possibly enclosed a house (W 1). This ditch was cut by a very large pit (W 17), and a well was located within the enclosure (83).

Hillforts of Iron Age date are quite rare in the Eastern Counties. In Suffolk, only Burgh (Martin 1988) can be considered a hill fort. In Cambridgeshire , only Stonea (Jackson and Potter 1996), Wandlebury (Hartley 1957) and possibly Borough Hill have been identified as hillforts, but there has been no extensive excavation of the Iron Age features. Of six "possible" hillfort sites in Norfolk (defined on the basis of form), only Thetford Castle has shown any evidence of Iron Age occupation (Knight 1984; Davies et al. 1991; Fig. 51). At Thetford, a rampart of apparent Iron Age date was incorporated into a Norman motte-and-bailey . Excavation of the site did not reveal surviving Iron Age features , but a small assemblage of pottery suggests limited Iron Age use of the site (Davies et al. 1991 ). Trial excavations at the other Norfolk sites (South Creake , Warham Camp, Holkham , Narborough , and Tasborough) failed to produce significant Iron Age artifacts , and these sites may be post-Roman in date (J.A. Davies 1992). In Essex , ten sites have been identified as possible Iron Age hillforts: Loughton , Ambresbury , Wallbury , Ring Hill, Weald Park, Langdon Hills, Downham Grange , Danbury , Asheldham , and Pitch bury . With the exception of Danbury (Martin 1988), little or no excavation has been carried out at these sites, and based on the evidence from Norfolk , it is by no means certain that they were pre-Roman. Nevertheless , settlement in Essex was apparently denser than settlement in other parts of the Eastern Counties, especially in the southern part of the county nearest the Thames estuary , and a greater occurrence of hillforts in this area would therefore not be inconsistent.

Samples for floral analysis were taken from the well (B3) and the pit (W 17). The well was nearly five meters in diameter and just over two meters deep. It was apparently stabilized with a wattle lining, parts of which still survived in the waterlogged fill. Infilling was gradual rather than intentional , and several layers could be distinguished. Floral samples were taken from Layer 5, a layer of sandy silt mixed with peat that contained the remains of the lining. The large pit was eleven meters in diameter and nearly two meters at its deepest point ; its section was quite irregular . Samples were taken from the lowest point , a layer of sandy silt mixed with gravel and organic matter . The seed remains from Story's Bar Road were not indicative of arable agriculture. No samples of grain were present , nor any grassland species ; this absence of grain is confirmed by the pollen profile , which also contained no cereal species . The weed flol'a from W 17 were characteristic of open damp conditions ; the most prevalent species were the sedges (Carex sp.), which prefer peaty acid conditions and a very high water table (orders Montio-Cardiminetalia and Caricetalia nigrae). The other weeds were species of hedgerow and scrub (Rubusfruticosus, Solanum nigra, Ranunculus repens; orders Quercetea-Robori- Petraeae and Querco-Fagetea) or of damp disturbed ground (Galeopsis tetrahit, Chenopodium album, Sonchus asper, Stellaria media, and Ranunculus repens; the more acid-tolerant species of the class Stellarietea mediae). Ranunculus bulbosus is also present , a species generally associated with damp grazed grassland (association Calthion palustris). The sample from 83 was dominated by seeds of blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) and elder (Sambucus niger); together they made up 91 % of the sample. These species are characteristic of acidic scrub or open woodland (order Querco-Fagetea) , and their fruits are desirable foods. They could also grow as hedges , and would form an effective barrier.

These eastern hillforts occurred mostly on the clays between the river valleys , in areas not associated with the bulk of known settlements (Drury 1980: Fig. 18). Because of the low topography of this region, most were sited on promontories that overlooked the river valleys. Many were reused in post-Roman times as settlements or forts , contributing to the destruction of evidence for Iron Age use. Although the very existence of a hillfort implies some organized direction oflabor , the lack of"centralizing" features in these sites (residential occupation, storage facilities , elite goods) argues against the strong development of socioeconomic control often associated with such sites. The overall impression of Iron Age settlement in the east is one of fragmentation. Only in the southern portion of Essex , nearest to the Thames network, is the connection to a wider region apparent.

In sum, there is no evidence for local grain agriculture at Story's Bar Road . The seed remains are indicative of species of open ground that are tolerant of disturbance , acid soils and a high water table. There is a suggestion in the high quantities of bramble and elder that the droveways and fences might have been maintained by hedges.

5.3. THE EASTERN COUNTIES: Site Records 5.3.1. Early and Middle Bronze Age

Fauna] remains were collected from features throughout the site, including 83 and W 17, and also including the enclosure ditches , the ring-gully (W 1), a second large pit (Y 4 ), and a series of smaller pits associated with the ditch system. The largest single assemblage came from Pit Y4, a large isolated pit within the western enclosure. Parts of the pit's vertical walls were still intact and had not slumped , indicating that the pit had

Story's Bar Road, Fengate (Cambridgeshire. Pryor 1984): The Story's Bar Road subsite , which lies on a low gravel terrace above the Catswater drain , is one of several early domestic settlements in the Fengate complex. Near to the site, about three hundred meters along the terrace to the northeast , lay the remains of an Early Neolithic house at the Padholme Road subsite (Pryor 1974), and six hundred meters north lay a

48

was located near the center of the enclosure , and a small rectangular building (Structure 2) was incorporated into the outer fence in the southeast comer . There were two large pits and a we11within the enclosure . Additional interior features were fence lines and partitions , including a short row of post just inside and parallel to the entrance , that prevented direct access to the interior (a similar structure was found at Mucking/North Rings ; Bond 1988). The soil is damp and acidic and the water table is quite high ; some of the archaeological deposits were preserved by waterlogging. In medieval times the area was used for sheep pasture , but in recent times liming and drainage have enabled its use for crops.

been filled quickly after digging . The bottom layer (Layer 3) was rich in animal bone. Overall , preservation of bone was quite poor because of the dampness and acidity of the soil, and the fauna) sample was quite small (NISP = 250). Cattle formed the bulk of the remains (NISP = 68% , MNI = 14). Of the fourteen individuals present , five were probably wild cattle (Bos primigenius) . These animals would have been available in the woods , and may have been used to supplement or breed with the domestic stock (Pryor 1984: 178). Pigs were the next most frequent (NISP = 24% , MNI = 14), followed by sheep (NISP = 8%, MNI = 2). Four of the pigs were probably also wild. There are fragments also of dog , horse and red deer.

Because of the acidity of the soil, animal bones were not preserved. Nevertheless , it was suggested that the site had a pastoral function based on the partitioning of the enclosure and its floodplain /saltmarsh location .

Tooth-wear data suggest that most of the cattle were killed either at optimal meat age (about three years) or kept until they were quite old (five-plus years). There are no teeth from young animals , though one unfused scapula fragment came from an individual that was quite young (part of the apparent lack of young animals might be due to the poor preservation). Most of the pigs were at meat age when killed , with one individual surviving to old age and one bone (though no teeth) from a neonate . .All elements of the skeletons of cattle and pig were represented , but because of the very small size of the sample it is not possible to define areas of specific activity . The bone all derive from generally "domestic" contexts.

Floral remains , on the other hand , were very well preserved , due to a combination of carbonization , mineralization , and waterlogging. A large number of contexts were sampled , several of which were very rich in remains. A large sample of waterlogged seeds from the we11will be discussed in detail below. None of the carbonized seeds , however , came from domestic deposits (Structures 1 and 2, or the pits) ; the richest deposits of carbonized seeds came from non-domestic contexts , especially the fi11sof the outer enclosure ditch that probably served as a rubbish dump . These contexts , all upper fill deposits from the outer enclosure ditch , can be regarded as three groups : . Context 0153 (east side) , Contexts 0192/0194/0251 (north side) , and Context 0204 ( west side) . There is little evidence that the ditches were cleaned or recut , and they were apparently allowed to fill up during the life of the site. The presence in these context s of Late Bronze Age pottery as we11as carbonized seeds confirms that the contexts were contemporary with the occupation of the site .

The economy of Story's Bar Road was clearly based entirely on pastoralism , especially the keeping of cattle and pigs . The pigs were kept for meat and the cattle for meat and dairy . The enclosures and droveways would have been set up for the management of livestock . There is very slight evidence of breeding (one bone each , pig and cow) , but this might have been minimized by the acid conditions of the soil, since young bones are less dense and therefore more susceptible to deterioration. Nevertheless , since teeth survive relatively well in acid conditions , it would be expected that the teeth of young animals would be more evident if there was a significant breeding component in the site economy. Another possible explanation , perhaps the more likely one, is that the site was used seasona11y as summer pasture , and that breeding took place elsewhere , at the winter pasture. Water levels at the Fengate sites would have been quite high during the winter , but would lower in the summer ; the meadows would then support lush vegetation for grazing. The relatively large number of older cattle and the large extent of the droveway /enclosure system make it unlikely that the occupants of the site were merely consumers of cattle raised by another community (cf. Pryor 1996).

Context O153 was the upper fill layer of outer ditch section 0152, located at the ditch terminal on the south side of the entry (see Brown 1988a: Fig. 4). This context yielded the second largest seed sample (N = 317) , but only contained only a small amount of grain residues (N = 83, 44 of which were kernels) . Most were the grains and secondary chaff of emmer , with a small amount of spelt and barley. There were also five grains of Avena or Bromus . The weed flora was very rich in nitrogen fixing plants : Medicago lupulina, Vicia tetrasperma , Vicia saliva, and Lathy rus nissiola (N = 194 for all species). The only other significant occurrence is Plantago lanceolata (N = 12), which is most often a weed of grassland , thou gh it also occurs on cultivated heavy soils. This sample , which contained mostly waste seeds and chaff with a small amount of grain , probably represented the final stage of crop cleaning . The combination of perennial weeds (Rumex sp. and Arrhenathereum elatius as well as Plantago lanceolata) with large numbers of nitrogenous weeds are signs of stress and nitrogen depletion of the soil (Warrington 1924). Spelt, oats and brome are relatively tolerant of poor soils , but emmer, which was the dominant crop , is not.

5.3.2. Late Bronze Age Loft's Farm (Essex , NGR: TL 8689 0935 . Brown 1988a) : Loft's Farm lies on the lower gravel terrace above the floodplain and saltmarsh of the River Blackwater . The site consisted of a square double-ditched enclosure , with a single entrance on the right side . A single post-built hut (Structure 1)

49

fallow ground to restore nitrogen to the soil. The remaining weeds fell primarily into two categories - spring-germinating annuals of arable ground (especially Polygonum sp.; class Stellarietea mediae), and a small number of grassland perennials (Ranunculus sp., Plantago lanceolata, Montia fontana , Carex sp., and Prune/la vulgaris ; orders MolinioArrhenatheretea and Nardo-Callunetea).

Contexts O192 IO 194 I 0251 were sampled from the upper fill of the outer ditch sections O192, 0194 and 0251; these sections were contiguous, and all three samples can be considered part of the same deposit. This was a small sample, mainly composed of cereal grains; of the total fifty-two seeds and fragments, twenty-five were grains of wheat and barley, and an additional seventeen were grains of oats and brome. Of the remainder, seven were chaff fragments and only three were weeds (two seeds of Polygonum sp. and one of horse bean, Viciafaba). This was apparently a deposit of clean grain ; the excavator suggests that the deposit as a whole represented hearth debris (Brown 1988a: 283) , and so the seeds might represent food stores. This would indicate that wheat (emmer and possibly some spelt) was the primary grain food, supplemented by barley. The presence of oats and brome grains in the deposit indicates that these were used as supplementary foods.

The well (Feature 0084) was a large pit located eighty-four meters south of the enclosure ; artifacts contained in the fill associated it with the Late Bronze Age occupation. Several layers were identified in the fills. The upper layers, Contexts 1001, I 002, and 1003 (see Brown 1988a: Fig. 13) contained large quantities of domestic debris and were probably the result of deliberate backfilling. The bottom layer , Context 1005, was a dark humic clay that accumulated while the well was in use. This layer was bisected by gravel-extraction operations ; the upper half was dry, but the lower part was below the water table. The two halves were analyzed as separate samples because of the differences in preservation.

Context 0204 , which came from the upper ditch fill of section 0203 , was the largest of the three groups and also the most varied (N = 5351 ). Grain was only a small part of the sample (4.7%) , with only eight grains of barley and 130 of wheat (emmer and/or spelt). In addition , there were I 02 Bromus grains. Excluding Bromus , weed seeds made up only 2.3% of the sample (N = 125). The great majority of the sample (93%) was chaff , especially secondary-cleaning chaff (glume bases, spikelet forks , etc). A 10% sample of the wheat glume bases (N = 306 out of 3055) and spikelet forks (N = 189/1889) was identified to species. Of these, only a small part could be identified as spelt (7% and 2% respectively), while the remainder was emmer. The majority of the weeds (57%) were Chenopodium album and the Polygonum species, especially P. convolvulus, P. /apathifolium, and P. persicaria . A significant portion of the remainder were vetches ( Vicia sp.) and the docks (Rumex sp). Polygonum and Chenopodium are nitrophilous annuals of fertile and alkaline soils , quite different from the weeds that characterized the Context O153 deposits.

Contexts 1001, 1002 and 1003 yielded only fifty-three carbonized cereal grains (wheat and a small amount of barley) and three chaff fragments . There were only two weed seeds (one of Polygonum convolvulus and one of?Bromus). Context 1005 yielded a very large assemblage of seeds. The upper part of this layer lay above the water table , and only carbonized grains were preserved. This carbonized (upper) assemblage was very small, and contained only five cereal grains , one chaff fragment, and two weeds (one each of Eleocharis palustris and Rumex spp.) The bulk of the seeds (N = 3260) came from the waterlogged lower half of the layer, below the gravel-extraction horizon. With the exception of two carbonized grains , these seeds were all preserved by water logging. There were at least fifty species of weeds in the assemblage , from several different ecological regimes. They fall into three main categories:

Taken together, the ditch assemblage indicates that the primary grain at Loft's Farm was emmer , supplemented by small amounts of spelt and barley. This is a pattern more in common with the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age than the Late Bronze Age in southern Britain (Helbaek I 952, M.K. Jones 1988a, Fowler 1983, Mercer 1981; cf. also Black Patch and ltford Hill, Sussex, above). The deposits came from disposal rather than storage contexts , and so can be considered the waste of crop processing ; the very large numbers of spike let forks and glume bases among the chaff indicated that this was secondary cleaning waste , derived from grain that had been stored in a semi-clean state . Weeds were relatively sparse in the deposits, in keeping with grain that had already been mostly cleaned; although at least twenty-five species were present , most were represented by only a single seed. Nevertheless , they represent a range of different ecological niches. A large number of the weeds were nitrogen-fixing plants , especially Medicago lupulina and the vetches (Vicia sp. and Lathyrus nissiola). The vetches grow as weeds , but are useful as fodder crops and can be grown on

50

►

annuals offertile cultivated soils (orders Bidentetalia tripartiti , Polygono-Chenopodietalia , and Centauretalia cyani) , especially Atriplex sp., Polygonum sp., Stellaria/Cerastium sp., A/opecurus geniculatus , Aphanes arvensis, Chenopodium album, C. ficifolium , and other Chenopodium species (approximately eighteen species and 15% of the total sample).

►

species of acidic wet ground and standing water (mostly order Caricetalia nigrae), especially Ranunculus ssp. batrachium , Ranunculus flammula , lemna sp., Juncus sp., Carex sp., Eleocharis sp., Polygonum hydropiper, and Mantia fontana (approximately 14 species and 30% of the total).

►

the remaining seeds were from grassland plants, including a large number of unidentified grass seeds (N = 1524) that might include some grains ; (five

A notable feature at Springfield Lyons is the two deposits of bronze-casting molds and crucibles , found at the northern terminal of the ditch on the east side (at the main entrance) , and . at the northern terminal of the ditch on the west side- that is, exactly opposite the circle from each other on the east-west axis. Together the deposits contained thousands of mold fragments , mostly for Ewart Park-type swords , forming the largest assemblage of Bronze Age molds yet discovered in Britain. Nevertheless , it seems evident that these molds were a votive foundation deposit rather than a caster's midden. They were composed solely of broken mold and crucible fragments , with no metal , scrap or any other metal-working debris that would be expected from the sweeping-up of a workshop. Nor (despite total excavation of the site) was there any metallurgical debris in the site deposits , or even any artifacts of metal.

species and over 50% of the total) . The water plants were those that would have grown in and around the well itself. The grassland plants , most of which are tolerant of damp acid conditions may well have grown on the site , perhaps a further indication that the site was pastoral in orientation . The assemblage of crop weeds is similar to that from Context 0204 and may have derived from the processing of crops on the site. It is unlikely that crops were grown at the Loft's Farm site . The acidity of the soils and the very high water table were not conducive to the production of crops. The area was used for sheep pasture in Medieval times , and was only made useable for arable in recent times through an extensive program of drainage and liming , but there is no evidence for a drainage system of this scale in the Bronze Age. The characteristic local vegetation was probably the acid grassland assemblage from the ditch sample and the wetland species growing around the well. The unsuitability of Loft's Farm for arable is reinforced by the prevalence of emmer and barley in the crop remains ; neither crop can tolerate damp or acidic soils such as those at the site. Moreover , the weeds that accompanied the crop were also partial to alkaline soils , especially the Context 0204 weeds . It seems clear that grains were brought in to Loft's Farm from elsewhere and that final cleaning took place at the site.

No faunal remains were collected from the site ; bone was not preserved in the acid soil conditions. Floral samples were taken from 163 contexts in the Late Bronze Age deposits. Preliminary results were included in the site report . Emmer was the most abundant grain , followed by spelt and barley (cf. Loft's Farm) ; nevertheless , barley was encountered in very small amounts in 88% of analyzed contexts , while spelt was pre sent in 82% and emmer in only 59%, suggesting that barle y and spelt might have been more important than the straight count would indicate. The chaff included straw fragment s as well as spikelets , indicating that primary crop cleaning took place in the settlement.

It also seems clear that , wherever they came from , the crops that reached Loft's Farm were grown under less-than-ideal conditions. The weed assemblage included both annual arable weeds and a number of grassland perennials and legumes. The perennials and legumes are indicative of some degree of soil depletion and a regime of fallowing as a remedial strateg y (Warrington 1924, Silverside 1977). The presence ofbrome is an indication that at least part of the crop (barley or spelt) was winter-sown in an effort to increase productivity (Sections 2 .1.6, 3.3.1). Brome occurred in both the waste deposits (Sample 0153) and in a possible food deposit (Sample 0194) , indicating that at times it might have been required as a supplementary food source .

There were a large number of carboni zed weed seeds from species tolerant of base-poor soils, but only a few species could be considered typical cornfield weeds (Polygonum persicaria , Galium aparine and Anthemis cotula ; orders PolygonoChenopodietalia and Centauretalia cyani ); the presence of Galium aparine might be an indication that some of the crop was winter-sown . The majority of the weed species were not arable weeds , but species of wet acidic grassland or standing water (Ranun culusflammula , Montiafontana , Eleocharis sp., Carex sp. , and Polygonum lapathifolium ; orders NasturtioGlycerietalia , Montio-Cardaminetalia and Caricetalia nigrae) ; this suggests that the soils were quite damp , with pooling in places (such as the field margins or water collecting in the ditches) , or that cultivation extended down into the Chelmer floodplain . Together the weeds and chaff are consistent with cultivation in the damp environment around Springfield Lyons .

Springfield Lyons (Essex , NGR: TL 736 082. Buckley and Hedges 1987b): Springfield Lyons is located on the upper gravel terrace of the River Chelmer , a situation dryer than that of Loft's Farm and similar to that of Broad's Green (Brown 1988). Springfield Lyons was an enclosed settlement , but unlike other enclosed sites of the Late Bronze Age, it seems that this enclosure was truly defensive. The site was surrounded by a substantial ditch nearly five meters wide ; interior to the ditch was a double palisade of thick (12-18" dia.) posts. The ditch was crossed by several causeways. There was a large gate structure at the main entrance on the east side , and there might have been smaller gateways at the other entrance s (Buckley and Hedges 1987b: Fig. 5 and frontispiece). Within the enclosure were three post-built huts; several additional postholes and pits were clustered around the central hut, and in the southwestern quadrant of the enclosure .

Newark Road , Fengate (Cambridgeshire . Pryor 1980): The Newark Road site was one of the several Bron ze and Iron age subsites that made up the Fengate complex. The site was a system of drainage ditches and droveways laid out along the Cats water drain ( cf. below) . The ditch system was laid out and constructed all at once ; there is no evidence of recutting or drift. It was probably in use for a relatively short period of time. Within the ditch system were located two round house structures and pos sibly a small rectangular structure , as well as a deep well that might have functioned as a sump.

51

Silty fill )ayers in the features indicated that the site was subject to periodic flooding , probably seasonal flooding in the winter . The soils were acidic , and there was evidence of iron-pan accretion and impeded drainage .

artifacts and the unified layout pla n), and it is possible that they were in use at the same time , or that settlemen t shifted from Had V to Had VI and VII as water levels continued to rise (cf. Pryor I 984) .

Flora) remains from Newark Road were sparse , and were not published in detail. The data are apparently similar to the findings at the other Fengate sites of Story's Bar Road and Cat's Water: that is, no grain or chaff and no assemblage of arable weeds . There were also no apparent grain-storage features at the site , and no quernstones. The sample derived mainly from weeds of standing water and acidic soils, characteristic of the natural vegetation of the area.

The floral report has only been published in summary. There was a substantial component of wetland weeds in keeping with the damp location of the site. There were also a number of grassland and arable weeds , especially Papaver somniferum (opium popp y) and Chrysanthemum segetum (com marigold). There is no mention of preserved grain or chaff, but furrows from cross-plowing were preserved in association with the earlier (unenclosed) levels at Had V, indicating that agriculture was possible during the dryer phase of occupation . Crops could also have been grown on the dryer slopes near Had VI and Had VII.

The identified fauna) sample from Newark Road was quite small (N = 585), and derived mainly from the ditche s. Since the ditch fills accrued over time, there can be no definition of specific activity areas at the site. Cattle made up the majority of the Newark Road stock (NISP = 427 ; 73%), followed by sheep (19%) , pig (5%) , dog (2%) and horse ( 1%). Although age data are tentative because of the small sample size, it seems clear that the majority of the cattle were older adults with only a small number of young or juvenile animal s. This pattern also seems true for the sheep and pigs. It should be noted however that these results are somewhat skewed by the acidity of the soil , which adversely affects the preservation of less dense bones , especially those of younger animals and pigs (50% of the identified pig bones are teeth , indicating considerable postdepositional loss.)

The faunal remains are indicative of an economy that relied both on husbandry and on the exploitation of the wetland resources . Sheep were by far the most abundant species at Had V (NISP = 620, MNI = 39) . followed by cattle (NISP = 180, MN I = 7) and pig (NISP = 40 , MNI = 3). The preliminary report does not indicate age data . The remains also revealed systemat ic exploitation of certain wild resources. Beaver were extensivel y trapped , and beaver remain s exceeded tho se of pig in abundance (NISP = 97 , MNI = 5). The beaver bones showed clear marks of butchering , indicating that they were both skinned for their pelts and eaten. Mute swan (Cygnus olor) were also hunted , both for their meat and for their eggs which were discarded in large egg-middens. In addition were pelican (Peiecanus crispus) , crane (Megalornis grus) , heron (Ard ea cinerea), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) , coot (Fulica atra) , and curlew (Numenius arquatus). All are wetland species ; the mallard would have been eaten.

Wild animals formed only a small part of the Newark Road assemblage (N = 10). Five species were represented : fox (Vulpes vulpes) , badger (Me/es me/es) , red deer (Cervus elaphus) , wolf(Canis lupus) and goose (Anser anser) . Fox and badger tend to seek out the margins of human settlement ; the wolf might also have been drawn to the settlement as a predator of the livestock. The goose would have been quite at home in the fenland habitat. All of these animals would have been useful , but none was a significant contributor to the Newark Road economy.

In contrast , the fauna! sample from Had VI contained only domestic species . Again .the most abundant species was sheep (NISP = 186, MNI = 12), followed by cattle (NISP = 73, MNI = 3) and pig (NISP = 45 , MNI = 3). Because of the few details available at present , little can be said for certain about patterns in the Upper Delphs economy . It seems that two possibilities are likely. The first is that settlement relying on cultivated resources and husbandry , originated at the fen edge in a drier period , tried to adapt as the water levels rose, and eventually retreated upslope to drier ground . In such a case, the extensive use of wild resources at Had V might be indicative of stress - the need to supplement dwindling agricultural productivity with wild resources . The second possibility is an intentional strategy of environmental diversification. The upper settlement (Had VI and VII) maintained a self-sufficient agricultural economy based on livestock and grain , while the lower settlement (Had V) was located specifically to make use of the wetlands resources , especiall y beaver, fowl, and eggs . Either way, the extensive use of wild resources , very rare in post-Neolithic sites, indicates that agriculture was marginal at these sites and that supplementary food sources were necessary .

5.3.3. Middle Iron Age Haddenham, Upper Delphs (Cambridgeshire , NGR: TL 475 760 . Evans and Serjeantson 1988): Haddenham was fen-edge settlement on the gravels of the Upper Delphs terrace , just west of the confluence of the Old West River and the River Ouse . The site was similar in character to the fen-edge sites at Fengate and Maxey . The Haddenham settlement had three components: one enclosure at the fen edge (Had V) and two joined enclosures on the adjacent slope (Had VI and VII) . Had V was initially an unenclosed farmstead , though in subsequent rebuilding an enclosure ditch , a drainage system, and a house drip-gully were added ; this has been taken as evidence of increased wetness in the local environment. Had V was linked by the ditch system to the unexcavated enclosures Had VI and Had VII , which lay on slightly higher ground . All three enclosures were roughly contemporaneou s (based on the

52

Maxey (Cambridgeshire , NGR: TF 1280 0770. Pryor et al. 1985): Maxey lies on the first gravel terrace in the floodplain of the River Welland, some 10 miles northwest of the complex of sites at Fengate. The site lies south of the Welland within a complex of features and cropmarks that encompass a Neolithic cursus and henge , and Early Bronze Age barrow/?ritual site , Middle/Late Bronze Age barrows , and several phases of Romano-British occupation and burial as well as the Middle/Late Iron Age settlement site.

= 4). These species are generally cornfield weeds (class Stellarietea mediae) with a preference for alkaline soils unlike those at the site. There were also thirty-one fragments of hazelnut shell. The scarcity of weeds and chaff suggests that cereals were not grown at Maxey but brought in from elsewhere (Pryor 1984:233 ; Pryor et al. 1985:232) . Moreover , the waterlogged and acid condition of the local alluvial soils is unsuited to agriculture , especially the growing of emmer (see Loft's Farm, above.)

The Middle Iron Age settlement took place in two phases , designated Phases 5.1 and 5.2. There was apparently no relationship between Phases 5.1 and 5.2 ; use of the features was not continuous , and there was a period of sedimentary infilling between them.

A large number of carbonized seeds (N = 533) were also collected from the well, Feature 605. Nearly one-third of these (N = 163) were seeds of the campions (Silen e sp.). There were also large deposits of Urtica dioica (N = 93) , Rumex crispus (N = 78), Polygonum persicaria (N = 61 ), Chenopodium album (N = 98), and possibly Fragaria vesca (N = 23). There were also single occurrences of Ranunculus sp., Tori/is nodosa , Sambucus nigra , Carex sp., Carduus nutans , and Circium palustre. Several of these species (Sambucus , Fragaria , Caryl/us) are shade-loving plants , and might have come from woodlands near the site or have been a component of hedges along the ditches and droves (cf. Story's Bar Road , above) ; others are characteristic of damp acidic habitats such as would be found about the well (Carduus nutans , Circium palustre , Carex sp.) The bulk of the weeds , however , are species characteristic of basic soils, typically associated with agriculture (Silene sp., Rumex crispus, Polygonum persicaria , Chenopodium album). The alkaline conditions required for these plants were not present at the site ; it is possible that they were waste deposits from crop cleaning , but the lack of chaff and grain in the sample makes this unlikely , and their source is not readily apparent. It is also notable that Rum ex, Silene , and Urtica are perennials of the class Stellarietea mediae (orders Polygono-Chenopodietalia and Centauretalia cyani) , and they well outnumber the annuals of this class (Chenopodium album and Polygonum persicaria) more commonly associated with Iron Age agriculture , indicating some depletion of the soils at the producer site. (see also Maxey LIA)

(N

Phase 5.1 was defined by a rectangular "enclosure" of drainage/boundary ditches , breached by entrances in the north and northeast. The ditch system extended well beyond the excavated area. Within the enclosure was a round hut (Structure 22) , defined by an eaves-gully and two possible door-posts. Finds in and around the structure were of common domestic debris (sherds , bones , etc). A second possible structure (Structure 23) cut across the entrance of Structure 22. The area was much disturbed and little information could be obtained about the nature of this structure. In addition , a large pit , possibly a well or sump (Feature 605) was located in the southwest corner of the enclosure. The Phase 5.2 features lay some 30 meters north of the earlier features. They consisted of more substantial drainage ditches , but did not form an "enclosure" pattern . Associated with the ditches were the remains of a clay beehive oven (Structure 19), possibly used as a kiln. Adjacent to the kiln, and probably associated with it, was a line of postholes and a rectangular gully encircling more postholes (Structure 20), perhaps a fence and shelter associated with the use of the oven . Both Structures 19 and 20 and the associated sections of drainage ditch contained a mixture of domestic debris . The gully of a third possible structure (Structure 30) was located at the northern edge of the excavated area .

5.3.4. Late Iron Age Maxey (Cambridgeshire , NGR: TF 1280 0770. Pryor et al. 1985): Any distinction between the Middle (Phase 5) and Late Iron Age (Phase 6) components at Maxey is based more on the definition of the pottery assemblage than on any clear break in use and occupation . It seems clear that occupation was continuous across this "boundary" (Pryor et al. 1985:87) , and continued on relatively unbroken into Romano-British times (Phase 7); the picture should be one of relatively undisturbed continuity for half a millennium . This phase is represented by a small section of the drainage complex , cross-cutting the eastern edge of the Phase 5.1 enclosure and continuing into the unexcavated area , where the majority of the Late Iron Age features lay.

No analysis of the faunal remains was reported for Maxey . Although the presence of animal bones was noted in features , preservation was very poor due to the damp and acidic condition of the soil. Surviving bone had been fragmented and compacted prior to excavation by gravel-extraction machinery. Floral samples were taken from seventy-three contexts (ditches , house gullies, pits , the well and the oven) , and about one-third of these yielded seeds for analysis. Sub-phases ( 5 .1 and 5 .2) were not considered separately. Grains made up about half of the seed sample; emmer was the most abundant , followed by bread wheat and a small amount of barley and spelt. Of the four types of cereal grain , only emmer chaff was recorded , all of which was secondary-cleaning debris. Only ten weed seeds were recovered , all from four species: Chenopodium album (N = 1), Vicia sp. ( = 3), Euphorbia pep/is (N = 2), and Galium sp.

There are two possible structures associated with this phase . The first, Structure 21, is a curved gully , attached at one end to a section of the drainage ditch at the other to a well (Feature

53

unenclosed (Phase 1) area of the settlement. This structure had apparently been destroyed by fire and as a result the seed residues were highly carbonized and somewhat distorted . The three samples did not differ significantly from each other , and so will be discussed together.

559). The diameter of the arc is quite large (about twenty -five . meters), suggesting that the gully was not the actual foundation of the house, but a section of ditch that drained its runoff. The second structure , Structure 24, was a very small gully (roughly four meters) that might have been a haystack. There is also a third possible structure (Structure 25); this cuts across the Phase 5.1 structures, well away from the other Phase 6 features. It contained a quantity of domestic-type debris.

The floral assemblage was quite small, containing only 211 seeds. Of these , about one-third were from cultivated species (Avena and Triticum sp.; no further identification). The weed species included Chenopodium album , Polygonum aviculare , Polygonum convolvul us, Ste/laria media , Tripleurospermum maritimum , and Ranunculus parviflora - spring-germinating annuals of fertile soils (mostly class Stellarietea mediae). These species prefer soils that are lighter and more alkaline than those present at the site (which tend to be heavy, wet , and acidic) , implying that the crop was grown elsewhere.

The Late Iron Age floral deposits at Maxey are dominated by spelt ( 16%) and barley ( 16%) rather than emmer (8% ), and so show a considerable shift from the Middle Iron Age crop remains. There is little change in the frequency of bread/club wheat (12%) ; there is also a small component of oats (4%). Unlike the previous deposits , there was no grain chaff preserved in any of the samples , and there were only six weed seeds , indicating that the grain came to the site fully clean. The identified weeds were Vicia sp., Juncus sp, and lolium perenne ; Juncus and Lolium are damp-ground species tolerant of some acidity .

The evidence from Little Waltham is very fragmentary , and no certain conclusions can be drawn. Nevertheless , the evidence suggests that the economy of Little Waltham might have been pastoral , with crops raised elsewhere and brought to the site. This is consistent with evidence discussed above from other lower terrace and fen-edge sites in East Anglia such as Maxey, Haddenham , Loft's Farm and the Fengate sites.

Changes in the composition of the cereal assemblage are more likely to be a reflection of the economic condition of the producer rather than the consumer , since it seems evident that the grain reached Maxey already processed as in the Middle Iron Age. Nevertheless , the change in the grain profile might indicate increased dampness: oats, especially , as well as bread/club wheat are more damp-tolerant species than emmer). An apparent rise in water levels during this period was also noted at Haddenham (Evans and Serjeantson 1988) and at Cat's Water (Pryor 1984). The grain might also reflect a change to winter sowing (barley , spelt , bread wheat and oats can all be winter sown) though this is by no means certain , and cannot be discussed without an associated weed sample. (see also Maxey MIA)

West Stow (Suffolk, NGR: TM 7970 7135. West 1990) : The West Stow farmstead was located roughly ten kilometers to the northwest of Bury St Edmunds, on the lower terrace of the River Lark floodplain , a situation similar to the sites at Fengate and others discussed above . The site was located on a small hill and was surrounded by a ditch system that extended out into the floodplain. Later Romano-British and Saxon use of the site has obscured the earlier features but an enclosure ditch, twenty-one pits and several postholes could be attributed to the Iron Age occupation.

Little Waltham (Essex , NGR: TL 705 126. Drury 1978): Little Waltham lies on the lower terrace of the River Chelmer , some ten kilometers northwest of the hillfort at Danbury in Essex. There are two apparent phases of Late Iron Age settlement at the site. The first was an unenclosed , apparently agglomerated settlement ; sixteen house gullies were revealed in the excavated area, though many overlapped and should be considered recuts of previous structures. The second phase was probably a small farmstead , indicated by an enclosure ditch that lay immediately to the north of the previous settlement area. The remains of only two huts were uncovered in the enclosed area; in addition to the houses , there were numerous two- and four-post structures and twelve pits.

The floral samples collected from this site have not been fully published (AML Report 2831, cited in Murphy 1984), butthey included the grains and chaff of spelt and some emmer and barley. Weeds included in the sample were primarily arable annuals (Fam. Chenopodiaceae), with a very few seeds of nitrogenous species. There is some evidence that chalk was added to the soil to reduce its natural acidity , implying that at least some crops were grown locally. The weeds are consistent with healthy arable cultivation coupled with fallowing. The fauna! sample was derived from the Iron Age pits and ditches ; no separation was made by specific context. The sample was fairly well preserved, totaling 7574 fragments , of which 2851 (38%) could be identified to species. Cattle accounted for about 50% of the domestic sample (NISP = 1390; MNI = 71 ). Age distribution is remarkably even: roughly one-third of the bones came from young individuals, including some bones of newborn animals ; one-third were killed as young adults , at optimal meat weight ; and one-third were older animals . The elements present represent all parts of the body with no notable depletions. Cattle were clearly being bred at the site, and kept for meat , dairy , and traction. Sheep

Faunal material was only poorly preserved because of the acidity and dampness of the local brickearth soils. Cattle , horse , sheep and pig were present. There is evidence for both young and young adult cattle and pigs, suggesting that breeding was taking place on the site, but no firm conclusions can be drawn from this limited evidence. Three floral samples were taken, all from Hut C 11 in the

54

primarily killed at about two years, though there were also several newborn and young animals , and many were kept beyond three years. These data are indicative of an emphasis on meat production for the cattle herds, but a more balanced use of the sheep for meat, dairy , wool and breeding.

made up the next most abundant species, at 33% of the domestic sample (NISP = 890; MNI = 56). The age profile of the sheep is similar to that of cattle, though a slightly larger percentage (40%) was killed at meat age. Pig made up only I 0% of the assemblage (NISP = 270; MNI = 18). These remains show kill-off peaks at suckling age (c. six months) and young adult (c. two years), with a few older animals who had been kept for breeding.

Wild animals made up only a small part of the Cat's Water fauna, including red deer (NISP = 1 I), roe deer (NISP = 4), otter (Lutra lutra, NISP = 8) and fox ( Vulpes vulpes, NISP = 4). Otter was probably abundant in the local fenland environment , and would have been a desirable source of pelts.

In addition to the livestock, a smal1 number of domestic fowl were kept, including chicken (Gallus gal/us), goose (Anser anser) , and duck (Anas platyrynchos). A few bones of wild animals were also found (red and roe deer, rabbit and hare); of these , rabbit (Oryctolagus cunniculus) was the most abundant (N = 21) and would have provided both meat and pelts ; nevertheless, there is little to suggest much dependence on hunting.

Bird bones were abundant in the Cat's Water fauna I assemblage , and included three species of domestic birds (fowl, Gallus gal/us; goose , Anser anser; and duck , Anas platyrhynchos) as well as sixteen species of wild birds. Eleven of these were species of water birds: pelican (Pelecanus crispus), cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) , heron (Ardea cinerea) , stork (Ciconia ciconia) , swan (Cygnus sp.) , barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis) , teal (Anas crecca), table duck (Aythya ferina) , goosander (Mergus merganser) , crane (Megalornis grus) and coot (Fulica atra). Most would have been available in the fens around the site year-round, though goosander and barnacle goose would have been winter visitors to this area , and stork was probably resident only in summer ; their presence together is evidence that the site was occupied continuously and not seasonally. The remaining species were scavengers and predators: sea eagle (Halioeetus albicella) , goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) , buzzard (Buteo buteo) , raven (Corvus corax) and rook (Corvus frugilegus). These birds would have been drawn to the site by the middens , the chicks and domestic fowl, and also by the fish in the surrounding fens.

The fauna] remains from West Stow are consistent with a profile of self-sufficient livestock husbandry , in common with samples from downland sites as well as from similar fen-edge sites of the Late Iron Age , such as Cat's Water. Although fauna} remains were rarely preserved in the fen sites because of the acid soils, the well-preserved sample from Cat's Water is indicative of meat production and is quite similar to the assemblage from West Stow . Cat's Water , Fengate (Cambridgeshire. Pryor 1980, 1984): The Cat's Water subsite lay on the fifteen-foot contour , just between the Story's Bar Road subsite and the Catswater drain ; it was the latest of the Fengate subsites, and the only nucleated settlement among them. It was probably also the only one that was occupied year-round rather than seasonally. Although the main settlement evidence is of Late Iron Age date, it was probably a continuation of a Middle Iron Age settlement.

Finally, fish bone in the Cat's Water assemblage indicates that fishing was a component of the domestic economy. Remains of pike (Esox lucius , N = 34), tench (Tinca tinca , N = 9), bream (Abram is brama , = 31 ), and carp (Fam. Cyprinidae , N = 1) were all identified ; these fish are all fenland species which live among the water weeds in slow-moving or still water.

The Cat's Water site consisted of five major structures , presumed to be dwellings (Structures 4, 5, 19, 20 and 36), and surrounded by a series of rectilinear enclosure ditches . There was much evidence of rebuilding and repair to combat subsidence and deterioration of the structures in the marshy environment.

The faunal data from Cat's Water are indicative of two important changes in the local economy , not found in the earlier-period settlements in this complex. The first is the likely year-round occupation; the second is an increase in the reliance on local wild resources to supplement the pastoral economy. Based on analogy with the sites of Glastonbury and Meare in the Somerset Levels (see Section 6.3.5) , fenland sites such as Cat's Water might also have been suppliers of wetland resources - waterfowl and possibly otter pelts-to the settlements on higher ground.

As with the other Fengate sites, the floral remains produced no evidence oflocal crop cultivation. Very few grain kernels were recovered , and none from contexts that could be associated with domestic storage. Weeds were species of damp disturbed ground and hedgerows, similar to those from the much earlier site of Story's Bar Road. Faunal remains were abundant at Cat's Water, and 5950 fragments could be identified to species. Nearly all of these fragments (N = 5746 , 97%) belonged to domestic species . The most abundant species were cattle (NISP = 2596 , 45%) and sheep (NISP = 2224, 39%) , fol1owed by pig (NISP = 393, 7%) and horse (NISP = 411 , 7%). Age data indicate that cattle mortality peaked at about three years; some individuals were older , but there were very few young animals. Sheep were

Fison Way , Thetford (Norfolk , NGR: TL 875 825. Gregory 1991): Fison Way stands on a small hill of sand and gravel at the confluence of the Rivers Thetford and Lower Ouse , a notable feature in the flat landscape of Norfolk. The site consists of a series of rectilinear ditches enclosing a small number of huts. These were in use for only a brief time, and the site was rebuilt at least once on a different pattern.

55

Pit 13 I was a large cylindrical pit associated with one of the house gullies (Feature 152); it was apparently used for grain storage . This feature yielded a large assemblage of plant fragments (N = 142). The majority of these (N = 93, 65%) were of grain , mainly barley and spelt , though a large percentage was too damaged to identify to species. The remaining identifiable weeds consisted almost entirely of Brom us mollislsecalinus (N = 19) and Polygonum convolvulus (N = 11). Both are annuals of fertile alkaline soils, though Polygonum germinates in the spring and Bromus in the fall.

The function of the Fison Way site is uncertain. It was located in an area unsuited to either arable or pastoral agriculture (see below), nor was there much domestic-type debris that would indicate residence. One pit (Pit 131) was evidently used for grain storage; there was also evidence for crafts (weaving and bronze-casting), but only on a very small scale. At the northwest edge of the site, outside the northernmost enclosure are two groupings of pits: Pit Cluster I (forty-nine pits) and Pit Cluster II ( eleven pits). These pits were not used for storage , nor did they support a structure; they exhibit no particular pattern in their layout, but they are evenly-spaced and do not intersect, indicating that they were all open (or marked) at the same time.

Pit 392 was a large isolated pit, located in an open area south of the enclosures. This assemblage was the largest of the samples, totaling 176 seeds and fragments. Half of these (N = 87, 49%) were of cultivated species, primarily barley with a mixture of spelt. The remainder were spring- and autumngerminating weeds , especiall y Bromus sp. and Polygonum sp.; there was also a significant percentage of Rumex sp., more characteristic of acidic soils than the other species identified from the site.

In the succeeding Romano-British period the Fison Way site was a ritual enclosure , formed by two concentric square ditches with three huts at the center. Several rows of thick posts were erected between the ditches , surrounding the central enclosure , likened by the excavator to a clearing in an artificial "sacred grove" . There is no apparent break between Late Iron Age and Romano-British use of the site , suggesting that Fison Way might have functioned as a ritual site in the Late Iron Age as well , though there are no overtly "ritual" deposits.

Several other features yielded seeds , but only in very small amounts. None contained information different from that found in the above samples. The small seed sample from Fison Way indicates that the site, whatever its function , was a consumer of grain grown elsewhere. None of the identified species of grain or weeds were compatible with the local Ca/luna-heath environment. The weeds indicate an arable environment ofrelatively fertile and nitrogenous alkaline soils. The presence of Bromus in three of the four samples in an indication of some winter sowing.

There were no faunal remains recorded from Fison Way. A very small amount of bone material was found, but none of it in identifiable form due to the acidity of the soil. Phosphate tests on the soil indicated very low levels of phosphates in the enclosures, confirming that they were not used to hold livestock. Po11enprofiles indicated that Neolithic and Bronze Age clearance of the area had resulted in the formation of heath by the Early Iron Age; charcoal from the site was primarily from acidic heathland species, especially Ca/luna vulgaris. Heath would have been undesirable for pasture, further indication that the site was not used for keeping livestock.

Burgh (Suffolk , NGR: TM 224 523. Martin 1988): Burgh lies on a low rise of calcareous soils overlooking the Lark floodplain , six miles northeast of Ipswich. The site is a bivallate enclosure of seven hectares, the only Iron Age enclosure in Suffolk that can be termed a hillfort.

Floral samples were taken from numerous locations throughout the enclosure, including ditches , pits (including the Pit Groups), hearths, house gullies , and "graves" (these were elongated pits original1y but incorrectly thought to be burials). Several of these features yielded substantial seed samples.

Features within the site were designated as "Groups" , based upon their location within the excavation. Group I encompassed features in the western end of the cutting , notably the large Pit 0004. This pit was roughly seven meters in diameter and three meters deep; the skull of a young man about twenty to thirty years old was placed at the bottom, and the pit was left open to silt up natura11y. The lower half of the fil] contained few artifacts , though debris was thrown into the upper layers . Group 2 was the postholes and slots of the northwest corner of the cutting; Group 3 a series of pits, postholes and slots in the center; and Group 4 the features at the east end . In general, features were concentrated in the southeastern and northwestern portions of the site; the center and the northeastern and southwestern quadrants were largely empty .

Hearth 504 was one of two features near the metalworking area to show signs of extensive burning, though it is not itself associated with metalworking or domestic debris. This feature contained a total of thirty-three seeds , only one (a wheat grain) belonging to a cultivated species. The remainder belonged to weeds , especia11y Vicia sp. and Ste/laria media, but also including smal1 amounts of Polygonum aviculare , P. convolvulus , and others. Most of these species are spring annuals offertile alkaline soils, characteristic ofarable activity (class Stellarietea mediae). Pit 1796 was one of the pits in Pit Group I; its function is not known. This feature yielded only fifteen seeds , but most of these (N = 12) belonged to barley and spelt. The three weed seeds all were of Bro mus mollislsecalinus , suggesting an autumn crop planted on fertile alkaline soils.

The artifact assemblage from Burgh was relatively small and did not signify a large or intensive occupation. Nevertheless , it contained evidence of metalworking (some iron slag and a few crucible fragments), some loom weights , and a large variety (relative to its number) of pottery types.

56

remains , and so the base of data on which to reconstruct economic practices is quite limited. Nevertheless , the area has recently been the subject of several large-scale programs of excavation and survey (e.g . the Fenlands Survey--Sylvester 1988, 1991; Hall 1987, 1992) . It is likely that much new data will emerge in the coming years that will alter substantially the present view of settlement in this region . The following notes must therefore be regarded as a tentative summary.

There is some evidence that the site was destroyed at the end of the Iron Age , and for this reason it ha~ been assumed that Burgh was a tribal center during the period of Roman invasion. A Romano-Celtic temple was subsequently erected on the site (cf. Fison Way , above ; Ivy Chimneys , Essex , Turner 1982, 1999). Floral remains were not collected at Burgh. Faunal remains collected from Iron Age features totaled 2992 fragments , nearly all of which came from Pit 0004 ; about half of these (52%) could be identified. The most abundant domestic species were cattle (NISP = 586, 39% ; MNI = 36, 29%) and sheep (NISP = 700 , 46% ; MNI = 64 , 52%) , followed by pig (NISP = 178, 12%; MNI = 22 , 18%) and horse (NISP = 51, 3% ; MNI = 2, 2%). The age data show that most cattle were killed at three-to-four years old , at optimal meat age , and only a smal I number of individuals were younger than two years old. The sheep were somewhat younger: most animals were killed after their first or second year , and only a few individuals were maintained longer. Nearly all of the pigs were killed in their second year . This age profile is characteristic of a population maintained primarily for meat ; the cattle and pigs were all slaughtered at the optimal age for meat-production. The sheep were apparently held for somewhat less than the optimal time , perhaps because of the difficulty of keeping them in the damp Burgh environment. For all three species there is also apparently some depletion ofnon-meat bearing bones (feet and distal limb bones) , reinforcing the evidence that the Pit 0004 assemblage represents meat consumption .

5.4.1. the Late Bronze Age Although earlier Bronze Age settlements are known in this area (e.g. West Row Fen, Story's Bar Road) the data are too restricted for a general summary. All that can be said with confidence is that there was a pastoral , probably transhumant , component to the Early and Middle Bronze Age economy that incorporated the use of the fenland resources . The picture of settlement in the Late Bronze Age is a little more informative . Two Essex farmstead sites of this period have been discussed in this study- the lower-terrace site at Loft's Farm and the upper-terrace site at Springfield Lyons . The arable economy at Springfield Lyons included em.mer, barley and spelt , and there was evidence of two-season planting but no apparent fallowing regime . The situation at Loft's Farm was not suitable for arable , and accordingly grain residues at the site were indicative of grain consumption rather than production . Animal bones were not preserved at either site , though the structure and location of Loft's Farm are suggestive of pastoralism . It is proposed that upper-terrac e site s such as Springfield Lyons were supplying grain to lower-t errace sites such as Loft's Farm , possibly as a reciprocal arrangement for livestock in return for grain , or for access to pasture. Unlike Runnymede Bridge , Loft's Farm does not have an assemblage of trade goods , nor is there any evidence that the site was anything but agricultural. It was noted , however , that the sites(s) that produced grain for Loft's Farm experienced some productive stress: the weed flora contained evidence of both fallowing and two-season planting , as well as perennial and nitrogenous weeds indicative of soil depletion . Also , brome was being used to augment the grain crop. This implies that the resources obtained from Loft's Farm· were not purchased with the surplus yield (e.g. Black Patch and Itford Hill) , but necessities for which scarce resources were expended .

The Burgh faunal assemblage is unusual in its content and its deposition , and as such cannot be said to represent a domestic deposit. There is, in the first place , little evidence of a domestic occupation ; although there was some industrial evidence , there were no traces of houses and no assemblage of domestic debris. The pottery was more heterogeneous than is normal for a domestic site , representing a wide range of goods . The second unusual aspect of the site was the nearly-absolute restriction of fauna) remains to Pit 0004. This pit most likely represented a ritual deposit , and the association of the fauna I remains with this feature implies that they , too , functioned in the ritual sphere . The most obvious explanation would be feasting (see Section 2 .2.6) and/or sacrifice , in which animals were brought to the site to provide meat , and their bones were placed into a designated sacrificial feature. The use of Burgh as a ritual site in the succeeding period may be evidence that it already had a recognized sacred association.

Continued use of the Fens for seasonal pasture was demonstrated by the settlement at Newark Road. Floral and fauna! data from Newark Road showed almost no difference from the earlier remains from Story's Bar Road . It is likely , based on the seasonal character of the site , that Newark Road (like Story's Bar Road) was a seasonally-used component ofan arable site in the uplands , rather than a pastoral site engaged in reciprocal trade. Fengate lies at the interface between the Cambridgeshire Fens and the limestone uplands west of Peterborough (Pryor 1984: Fig . I) .

5.4. AGRICULTURAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EASTERN COUNTIES There has been little prehistoric settlement excavation in the Eastern Counties relative to other regions , and the database is therefore uneven , largely restricted to Essex and the Cambridgeshire fens . Moreover , the generally acidic soils have allowed only poor preservation of faunal and floral

It seems that the Bronze Age farmers exploited the marked ecological difference between the upper terraces and the lower

57

terrace/fen-edge environments by making seasonal use of the fens and river edges for livestock management (cf. Fleming 1985). Extensive ditch systems , paddocks and droveways suggest that the fen-edge facilities were built for the use of a group larger than that of a single farmstead. In the absence of any of the conventional markers of differentiated status, it is likely that such small-scale regional cooperation was formed around reciprocal networks. Nevertheless , the ritual site at Flag Fen is clear evidence ofregional cooperation , and perhaps an indication that centralization in this region was not so much a political/economic force as a religious one.

succeeding Romano-Br itish period and its lack of other obvious role . The primary feature at Burgh was the large Pit 0004 , which held a human skull at its base and the remains of a large number of sheep and cattle , presumably the remnants of feasts. The predominant social relationship in the Eastern Counties through the Late Iron Age seems to have been reciprocity . There is no compelling evidence for stratification or ranking either in the artifact record or in the sites themselves . Unlike in the Southeast , sites in the Eastern Counties that fulfilled a specialized function (e.g. Fengate) seemed to act as parts of a reciprocal procurement network. It is in this context that a site such as Burgh-one of the few Iron Age sites that encompassed a communal or central function- must be considered. The site might have been the locus of reciprocal interaction between local settlement s, or it might instead have represented an initial focus for a more centralized regional integration , specificall y control ofregional specialized production and redistribution in the form of feasting and communal ritual.

5.4.2. the Middle Iron Age The sites of Middle Iron Age date included in this study were fen-edge sites , but there is ample evidence for settlement s on the terraces as well (see Section 5.2.2). The Haddenham sites were joined by a line of ditches and subsidiary enclosures , and might have been in use at the same time . If so, then it is likely that they shared a reciprocal arrangement whereby agricultural resources were provided to Had V in return for fenland resources (waterfowl , eggs, beaver) to Had VI and VII. Maxey probably shared a similar relationship with nearby arable sites; the site was a consumer of grain grown on alkaline soils, quite different from the soils of the local area. Maxey was receiving a great variety of grain (emmer , bread wheat, spelt and barley) indicating a wide catchment ; nevertheless , there was no evidence at the site for increased status or special purpose . The limited evidence from the arable sites on the terrace (such as Linford and Woodham Walter) is suggestive of small-scale production. This is essentially a continuation of the pattern seen in the Bronze Age: use of the sites by a larger-than-family group is again indicated by the extent of the ditch systems. The lack of crop specialization (eg. five types of grain at Maxey) argues against increasing centralization and in favor of smallerscale local networks .

5.4.3. the Late Iron Age Little additional data is contributed to this picture of the floodplain and fenland sites in the Late Iron Age. Three of the six Late Iron Age sites in this study- Maxey, Cat's Water , and Little Waltham-fall into this category . All were breeders of livestock (principally cattle) and consumers of grain grown elsewhere . The data for these sites represents only one part of what was certainly a multi-component productive economy, similar to the pattern of the Late Bronze Age. It is assumed that sites such as Broad's Green , Ivy Chimneys, and North Shoebury in Essex (Brown 1988b, Wymer and Brown 1995, Turner 1999, Murphy 1984) and Hunstanton in Norfolk (Murphy 1984), which lie in areas better suited to arable production , formed a complementary component. Finally , there are two sites , Fison Way and Burgh, which seem to be primarily ritual in function. Fison Way was a consumer of both grain and livestock , and performed neither an agricultural nor a residential function ; it is regarded as a possible ritual site because of its clear ritual association s in the

58

CHAPTER 6: Wessex: Dorset, Somerset, Avon, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Hampshire primarily alluvial sands , clays and loess deposited in the course of frequent local flooding ; these are interspersed with layers of peat (cf. Glastonbury , Meare). The only occurrence in Wessex of consistently acidic soils is in the valleys of the Thames and Kennet , areas where the rivers have eroded through the chalk to expose terrace deposits of sand and gravel mixed with clay-with-flints .

6.1. GEOLOGY The geology of Wessex is dominated by the broad chalk massif of the Salisbury Plain , which extends from eastern Somerset to the Surrey Weald , and southwest to the Dorset coast. To the southeast , the Plain gives way to the softer sands and clays of the Hampshire Basin , an arc oflow-lying ground on the Hampshire and Dorset coasts from Poole to Portsmouth. To the northwest , the chalk structures of the Salisbury Plain and the Berkshire Downs are interrupted by the broad erosion valleys of the Thames and the Kennet. At its western edge , the Plain falls off into a scarp , descending to a series of north-south valleys (the Vale of the White Horse, the Avon Valley , the Blackmore Vale). West of these valleys the land rises again to a ridge of Jurassic limestone which reaches from the Dorset coast near Lyme Regis northward to the Cotswo Ids at the A von-G loucestersh ire border . Between the Jurassic Ridge and the Bristol Channel the geology is dominated by limestone rather than chalk. It is dissected in an east-west direction by the ridge of the Mendips at the Avon-Somerset border and the Quantock Hills between Somerset and Devon. Lying between the Quantock and Mendip HilJs is the great expanse of the Somerset Levels , which rarely rise to more than ten meters above sea level.

6.2. BRONZE AGE AND SETTLEMENT IN WESSEX

IRON

AGE

Evidence of prehistoric settlement is relatively well documented in Wessex , both because of the calcareous soils that favor organic preservation , and because of the long history of archaeological interest in the region dominated by Stonehenge . As a rule , the extensive chalk downs were congenial to agricultural settlement , and Wessex was probably one of the more densely settled areas of Britain in prehistory.

6.2.1. The Bronze Age Although scatters of domestic artifacts of Early and Middle Bronze Age date are frequently encountered in Wessex , intact settlements of these periods are scarce , as they are throughout southern Britain. Excavated settlements of Early and Middle Bronze Age date , for example Easton Down (Stone 1933) and Downton (Rahtz 1962), both in Wiltshire , consist mostly of pits and scoops with scattered postholes and domestic debris. A Middle Bronze Age farmstead , a single hut with associated pits and remnants of a droveway system , was excavated at Rowden in Dorset (Woodward 1991). The hut was built into a chalk bank and surrounded by a stake fence and retaining wall offlint nodules . Relatively well-preserved settlements of this period have also been excavated at Brean Down in Somerset and Poundbury in Dorset. Brean Down yielded evidence of structures dating to both the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age occupations (Bell 1990). The structures were circular , built into terraces and surrounded by drainage gullies. Artifacts collected yielded evidence of both domestic occupation and workshops (especially salt-making). The Early and Middle Bronze Age occupation of Poundbury lay outside of the area enclosed by the later hill fort , on the side of the hill as it sloped down to the River Frome (Sparey Green 1987). The occupation at this period consisted of a small number of structures , but also the beginning of a linear ditch linking the settlement with the local fields ; this linear ditch would develop into an extensive land-boundary system in later periods .

Although the Salisbury Plain itself is rather dry, it is fringed by extensive river systems. The Rivers Thames and Kennet originate in this region , to flow eastward across the Midlands. The Rivers Brue and Parrett meander through the Levels and into the Bristol Channel ; this area is extremely marshy and , until the implementation of wide-scale drainage schemes in this century , usually flooded in the winter. The Avon flows out of the valley between the Salisbury Plain and the Jurassic ridge , emptying into the Bristol Channel at Bristol. The rivers that flow southward originate from springs that arise in the chalk: the Frome and Trent that drain into Poole Harbour; the Avon , Stour , and Allen systems that flow into Christchurch Bay; and the Rivers Test , ltchen and Meon that drain into the Solent at Southampton. The chalk and limestone structures of Wessex are covered with soils of primarily alkaline reaction , similar to the soils of the Sussex Downs. Development of silts on the chalk tends to be thin, and easily eroded on the slopes. Also included are primarily relict deposits of Tertiary age: localized deposits of clay-with-flints , and sarsens , blocks of sandstone which are the last remnants of an eroded silcrete horizon that once lay over the chalk. The coastal fringes of Wessex , especially the Hampshire Basin and the Bristol Coast , are covered with outwash deposits of glacial sand and gravel ; these soils tend are more acidic than the chalk-based soils nearby (cf . Brean Down , Hengistbury Head). Soils on the Somerset Levels are

This picture of earlier Bronze Age settlement in Wessex is

59

Bradley and Green 1991). It has been suggested that these sites served as foci for regional exchange networks , and that the variety of goods found within are representative of their wide trade catchments (Ellison 1980, Cunliffe 1993).

supported by several recent surveys conducted in the Wessex area: the Cranbome Chase survey (Barrett, Bradley and Green 1991 ), the Stonehenge Environs Project (Richards 1990), the Danebury Environs Project (Cunliffe and Poole 2000a-e), and the Marlborough Downs survey (Gingell 1992). Settlement traces from the Early Bronze Age in Cranbome Chase were insubstantial , usually relict artifacts mixed into later features. Middle Bronze Age sites were more well-defined; the site at South Lodge Camp , for example , was enclosed by a rectangular bank and contained at least two structures and several pits (Barrett, Bradley and Green 1991: 151-167; Pitt-Rivers 1887-1898), and the site at Down Farm contained at least three structures , and was contained by a palisade and a partial ditch (Barrett , Bradley and Green 1991: 183-211 ). The very small amount of floral and fauna) data obtained from Down Farm indicate a mixed farming economy of cattle- and sheep-rearing and cultivation of wheat and barley. In the Stonehenge area, the Bronze Age was the period of transition from a dynamic ritual landscape to an agricultural landscape bounded by the crossed lines of field systems. Although some use and even modification of Stonehenge continues into this period , most of the monuments have fallen into disuse and ritual activity is restricted to the construction of barrow cemeteries . The Marlborough Downs project also focused on the Bronze Age development of an arable landscape , this time in the region immediately north of Avebury.

6.2.2. The Iron Age Iron Age settlement in Wessex was significantly more varied and complex than that of the Late Bronze Age. Farmsteads, both enclosed and unenclosed , continued to form the main type of settlement , but accompanying these were a number of specialized sites and larger enclosures of hillfort scale. Farmsteads occurred with frequency on both the chalk- and limestone-based soils of Wessex. Examples of this type include the sites at Winnall Down (Fasham 1985) and Old Down Farm (Davies 1981) in Hampshire and Groundwell Farm in Wiltshire (Gingell 1982); these are discussed in more detail below. The Early Iron Age was also the first period of hillfort development in Wessex . As a rule, these sites were similar to the early hill forts of the Sussex Downs : they contained few features and little evidence of occupation , perhaps functioning as periodic locations for defense and stockrearing (Cunliffe 1993: 142). Early hill forts have been excavated at Sudbury in Avon (Wainwright 1970b), Balksbury in Hampshire (Wainwright I 970a, Wainwright and Davies I 995) and at Hog Cliff Hill in Dorset (Ellison and Rahtz 1987). Excavations at Balksbury , which enclosed an area of almost eighteen hectares, revealed a small number of structures clustered near the southeast edge of the rampart and a group of pits in the center. There was no clear evidence of other structures or of intensive use of the interior. There was a only small number of artifacts, mostly pottery, bone tools , and animal bones (sheep, cattle and pig). Hog Cliff Hill, which enclosed approximately 10.5 hectares, was the enlargement of a smaller Late Bronze Age enclosure. The Early Iron Age settlement consisted ofup to six structures, all located in the northern part of the site; there was no evidence of settlement or structures in the remainder of the enclosure. Artifacts included a small amount of domestic debris (mostly quems and pottery of local origin). Other possible sites of this type occur at Bozedown in Berkshire, Martinsell in Wiltshire , Walbury in Hampshire and Bindon Hill in Dorset (Cunliffe 1984b, I 993); none of these sites have been excavated.

By the Late Bronze Age, settlement structure was more substantial. The main type of settlement was still the small farmstead , large enough to accommodate the living space and equipment of approximately five to ten people , probably a single family. These sites typically contained the remains of a small number of circular huts, a number of pits , and working areas; they often began as unenclosed settlements , later surrounded by small enclosure ditches. Typical of this type of farmstead is Shearplace Hill in Dorset. Shearplace Hill was a small enclosed farmstead consisting of two houses , one interpreted as a dwelling and the other as a possible workshop, and a working floor (Rahtz and ApSimon 1962). The enclosed settlement was briefly preceded by an unenclosed settlement of similar form . Settlements also of this type, though less well preserved , occur on the terraces and gravels of the River Kennet at Aldermaston Wharf and Knight's Farm (Bradley et al. 1980; see below) and in the Hampshire Basin at Eldon's Seat , near Poole in Dorset (Cunliffe and Phillipson 1968).

Finally, the Early Iron Age in Wessex was characterized by the widespread integration of linear earthwork systems that divided the settled landscape into blocks and linked larger (?)central sites with associated smaller sites (Cunliffe 1992: 143-4). These linear boundaries were evident on a small scale in the Late Bronze Age, and might have begun (based on the evidence from Poundbury) as early as the Middle Bronze Age. One example is the landscape around Danebury in Hampshire; a long linear ditch extended eastward from the entrance of the hill fort to the edge of the Test Valley several kilometers away. Numerous small

Also of Late Bronze Age date are a very small number of enclosures of larger than farmstead scale , the precursors of the later hillforts. One such site is the settlement at Ram's Hill in Berkshire (Bradley and Ellison 1975). Ram's Hill was not a particularly large site, but it was distinguished by an extensive defensive structure (a timber-faced rampart) and by the richness and variety of its pottery assemblage. Other possible sites of this type have been located at Danebury in Hampshire (Cunliffe 1984a) , Norton Fitzwarren in Somerset (Langmaid 1971 ), Hog CliffHill in Dorset (Ellison and Rahtz 1987) and Martin Down in Cranbome Chase (Barrett ,

60

rectangular enclosures, perhaps satellites of the hill fort, were aligned to this ditch.

(Coles and Orme 1982). Glastonbury and the two Meare villages were built on artificial islands in the open water, and not on the marshy fringes of the land as in the Swiss and German lake sites. The reasons for settlement in this uncongenial environment are not clear; Coles (1987) has suggested that the Meare sites, at least, may have used for seasonal meeting, trade and ritual rather than domestic settlement. It is more likely, however, that they were located in the marsh to exploit a specialized resource niche , in a manner similar to the fen-edge sites of Cambridgeshire .

By the middle of the Iron Age, hill forts had become defensive residential structures that played a central role in organizing the agriculture, trade and industry of the local area. Many of these sites were founded on the "empty" enclosures of the Early Iron Age. They were typically five to six hectares in area with opposing entrances on the east and west sides. Such sites occurred in very large numbers (for a distribution map, see Cunliffe 1992: Fig. 5.1); excavated examples at Maiden Castle and Danebury are discussed in detail below.

6.3. WESSEX: Site Records

By the Middle/Late Iron Age transition, most of these small hillforts had been abandoned; those that remained were enlarged and refortified , usually by multivallation and the addition of maze-like homworks at the gates. Maiden Castle and Poundbury in Dorset (Wheeler 1943, Sharples 1991b; Richardson 1940, Sparey Green 1987), Yambury in Wiltshire (Cunnington 1933), Danebury and Winklebury in Hampshire (Cunliffe 1984, Cunliffe and Poole 1991; K. Smith 1977), and South Cadbury in Somerset (Alcock 1972) were all examples of these later "developed" hill forts. It is apparent that interior settlement of these sites was quite dense , though extensively-excavated examples are rare. These sites were among the few nucleated ("village") settlements in prehistoric Britain.

6.3.1. Early and Middle Bronze Ages Brean Down (Somerset, NOR: ST 290 590. Bell 1990): The Brean Down site lies on a small peninsula at the mouth of the River Axe, reaching out into the Bristol Channel just south of Weston-Super-Mare. The peninsula , formed of limestone , is a westward extension of the Mendip Hills. It is bounded by slight rises on its east and west ends , and falls off in cliffs to the north and south. The site itself was located in the narrow flat region that lies between the rises, and could be cut off from the mainland during very high tides. Brean Down was an occupation site from the Early through the Late Bronze Ages, as well as later during the RomanoBritish period. The Bronze Age occupation was separated into three phases , designated Unit 6 (E/MBA) , Unit 5b (MBA), and Unit 4'(LBA). These phases of occupation were not continuous, but were separated by periods of abandonment. Pottery styles defining each phase were quite distinct , implying absence from the site lasting several generations.

Despite the emergence of village communities inside the hillforts, the majority of Middle and Late Iron Age settlements were farmsteads, little changed in structure from the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlements of this type. Farmsteads such as these were excavated at Winnall Down, Micheldever Wood, Little Sombome , Old Down Farm, Houghton Down and Chilbolton Down in Hampshire , and Groundwell Farm in Wiltshire. A characteristic type among these farmsteads were the "banjo" or "Little Woodbury"-type enclosures; these were circular or subrectangular ditched enclosures with a pair oflinear ditches that converged at the entrance ("antenna ditches"). The reason for these features is not known, though they are commonly thought to have functioned as funnel-shaped droveways to facilitate the movement of livestock into the enclosure. Gussage All Saints , Nettlebank Copse and Micheldever Wood are good examples of this form.

Early Bronze Age ("Unit 6") remains at the site consisted mainly of the stone footings of a circular hut (Structure 57). The structure had no apparent internal supports or partitions but probably had a funnel-shaped entry. There were few artifacts associated with Structure 57, and its actual function is unknown. It is unlikely that it was a dwelling , and lack of phosphate staining in the floor sediments indicates that it was not used to stall animals. There were some traces of occupation in the immediate vicinity , and the structure might have served as a location for storage or perhaps small-scale manufacturing.

One final type of Late Iron Age settlement were the "Lake Villages" of Somerset. Three such sites-Glastonbury, Meare Village West and Meare Village East- were discovered in the Somerset Levels in the latter part of the nineteenth century , following on the discoveries of Keller and others in central Europe. Excavation in the Levels has shown that the region was a focus of activity in the Neolithic and Bronze Age, and numerous trackways were built to facilitate crossing the marshy surface (Coles and Orme 1982, Coles and Coles 1986). Rising water levels at the end of the Bronze Age forced abandonment of the area, which would have then been accessible only by boat. Settlement on a small scale resumed in the Late Iron Age after the water levels began to decline

Unit 6 yielded 882 animal bone fragments , of which 458 (52%) could be identified to species. The majority of the bones of the domestic animals belonged to cattle (NISP = 120); the remainder to sheep (NISP = 93) , pigs (NISP = 36), and dogs (NISP = 5). There is no evidence in this phase for the use of horses. The cattle would have pastured well in the salt-marshes around the site. Evidence of age structure was very sparse, but indicated that few of the livestock survived beyond young adulthood. The emphasis was apparently on the production of meat , though the presence of a number of very young animals indicates that some of the adults had been

61

Sherardia arvensis). Ne arly all are annual s of fertile calcareou s soils and could have grown locally, either as crop weeds or in ground disturbed as the result of occupation (primarily orders Polygono-Chenopodietalia and Centauretalia cyani) .

bred for a year or two . An analysis of the cattle elements represented in Unit 6 shows a significant depletion of skull bones , vertebrae , lower forelimbs (ulnae , metacarpals , carpals and phalanges) , femora, pelves , and metatarsals ; well represented were the mandibles , humeri , radii , scapulae , tibiae , astragali and calcanei. The sheep show a similarly puzzling pattern , with scapulae , humeri , radii , and tibiae being well represented . Since the meatiest parts of the carcass are missing , it is possible that these deposits represent butchery waste ; it is also possible , however , that this apparent pattern is only the result of having such a small sample .

plants of cultivated or disturbed ground (ten species): mostly seeds of the genus Chenopodium , and including nitrogenous species (Vicia/Lathy rus) and autumn-germinating species (Galium aparine,

►

grassland (four specie s): including nitrogenou s specie s (Trifolium sp.) ; these may indicate fallowing (order Molinio-Arrhenatheretea).

Unit 5b contained two structures , numbered 59 and 95 ; these were similar in construction to the earlier Structure 57, and were built of stone or on stone footings. The structures were built on a terrace and partly surrounded by drainage gullies. Deposits in and around the buildings were rich in domestic debris , as well as in briquetage vessels and stands. Unit 5 deposits yielded 4004 fragments of animal bone ; of these , 1275 (31 %) could be identified to species. Most of the identified bone belonged to cattle (NISP = 287) and sheep (NISP = 360), with small amounts of pig , dog, and horse. Age data, which were scarce , accorded with the assessments made for the Unit 6 fauna: that is, juveniles and young adults , with little evidence of older animals. Skeletal elements were fairly evenly distributed in Unit 5, without the significant depletions seen in Unit 6.

The majority of the weeds present (N = 164) were derived from the grasses (Fam . Graminae) . These were severely burned , and might have been the result of dung-burning for fuel and/or of thatching material (Bel1 1990:217). The remaining weeds , which occurred only in small numbers , were associated with the following environments:

►

species) :

The Middle Bronze Age levels ("Unit 5") represent the period of most intensive occupation at Brean Down. This unit embraced four subdivisions (Units 5a-d) , of which only one (Unit 5b) was of cultural origin.

The Unit 6 floral remains were divided into three subsamples: Sample 6a, the excavated trench running along the cliff surface adjacent to Structure 57 ; Sample 6b, the excavation unit surrounding the structure ; and Sample 6a, associated with the structure itself. The great majority of the seeds were recovered from Sample 6ct (N = 259) ; Samples 6a and 6b yielded only small numbers (N = 24 and 9, respectively). Traces of grain were extremely scarce (N = 33 for all samples together) and these were concentrated in Sample 6ct. The identified grains were of barley and emmer ; there were possibly fragments of einkorn , but no evidence of spelt. The sample contained a small amount of primary and secondary chaff , indicating both initial processing and subsequent storage of semi-clean grain.

water/shoreline plants (eight species): most were associated with freshwater marshes and banks , such as are found only a few hundred meters north of the excavated area, on the Axe estuary (especially classes Phragmitetea and Salicetea purpureae).

scrub woods or hedgerows (four primarily class Querco-Fagetea .

The small floral and fauna) samples from Brean Down were generall y indicative of local production. The animal bones indicated an emphasi s on meat production , supplement ed by fishing. The weeds associated with the grain crop derived from local contexts and were indicative of cultivation on the Down itself and exploitation of the broader catchment around the site. The small amount of grain and the evident scarcity of traction animals might indicate that grain agricultur e was still only a small part of the productiv e economy in the Early Bron ze Age.

In addition to the domestic species , a number of wild animals were identified in the Unit 6 assembla ge, includin g single bone fragments from red deer , hare , and mute swan (Cygnus olor) . The most abundant remains were those of fish, indicating a significant fishing econom y. Ther e wer e I 04 fish bones from the site, all associated with Structur e 57; these were identified as mullet (Fam . Mugilidae), scad ( Trachurus trachurus) , ling (Molva molva) , cod (Gadus morhua ), and a large number of eel (Anguilla anguilla and Conger conger). Except for ling, which is a deep -sea fish, all of the se species occur in the Axe estuary or the waters just offshore .

►

►

Remains of wild animals were less frequent in Unit 5 than in Unit 6. There are a few bones of wild cat (Fe/is sy lvestris) and a fragment of a whale vertebra ; it is assumed that this bone , like the one found at Bishopstone in Sussex (Section 4.3.2) , derived from a beached specimen. Several bones of goose (Anser anser) were recovered , as well as woodcock (Scolopax rustico/a) , lapwing ( Vanellus vanellus) , and guillemot ( Uvia aalgae). All these specie s are edible , and all would have been locally available. In addition , a small number of fish bones (N = 24) from cod , ling and sturgeon were recovered .

62

Although the excavated features were subdivided within phases (Phase Ia, lb, etc.), the floral and faunal samples were separated only by phase, and are therefore presented as Phase I (Bronze Age), and Phase II (Iron Age). Phase II material will be discussed in a later section.

The Unit 5 floral assemblage, though somewhat larger than that of Unit 6 (N = 1016), still contained a relatively small component of grain and chaff(N = 178; 17.5%). Most of these grains were of wheat (emmer with traces of spelt), and the rest was barley. The chaff was secondary, indicating a crop stored in semi-clean state.

Although the Phase I deposits at Poundbury encompass activity from the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age, most of the settlement along the slope and mill stream dates to the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. Neolithic activity was indicated by a series of shallow pits and flint quarries; there was no evidence of settlement or structures, though some of the pits contained domestic-type debris. The pits yielded samples of wheat and barley, indicating cultivation, but not in amounts large enough for analysis.

The most abundant of the weed flora were wet-ground types (N = 383), especially rushes (Juncus sp.) and sedges (Carex sp). These are accompanied by a large collection of undifferentiated grasses (Fam. Graminae) , again suggesting the burning of dung or thatching material. The remaining weeds were indicative of grassland (N = 35), and disturbed or cultivated land (N = 97), especially the Chenopodium species. Nitrogenous weeds were weII-representedamongthe grassland species and the arable weeds (especially Vicia and Trifolium ), indicating a fallowing regime. The inclusion of Galium aparine indicates a two-season planting schedule.

The Early Bronze Age occupation of the site was indicated by a hut (Structure BA4) and traces of a possible enclosure; three barrows and a linear ditch on the hilltop might also date from this phase.

The Unit 5 floral and fauna) remains were similar to those of Unit 6, and were again indicative of local production. Fewer other environments were represented, perhaps indicating a reduction in their exploitation, and a greater commitment to agricultural production. Fish bones were much scarcer, also indicating a greater reliance on domestic resources. Spelt was apparently introduced as a food crop during the Middle Bronze Age, though weeds were again indicative of local cultivation and intensification. (see also, Brean Down LBA)

Middle Bronze Age occupation was characterized by an enclosure ditch linked to a linear ditch system that took in both the hilltop and the slope. There were traces of two rectangular structures within the enclosure (BA 1 and BA3); both were rebuilt and enlarged during this period. A fragmentary lynchet to the west of the enclosure indicates that the hill slope was under cultivation at this time.

Poundbury (Dorset, NGR: SY 685 911. Richardson 1940, Sparey Green 1987): The hillfort of Poundbury is located on a terrace overlooking the River Frome, within the boundaries of the present town of Dorchester and roughly three kilometers to the north of Maiden Castle. The hillfort is trapezoidal, roughly 400 meters long and 150 - 300 meters across, with an entrance to the east. The ramparts were trenched in 1939 (Richardson 1940), but there has been no significant excavation of the interior. Excavations begun in 1966 by the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society focused on an area to the east of the rampart--the downslope and low-lying ground along the banks of the Frome and its millstream.

There are no specific features indicating Late Bronze Age occupation along the stream, although the presence of Late Bronze Age pottery suggests occupation nearby. It is likely that the focus of settlement in this site had shifted, either to another area of the slope outside of the excavated area, or to the hilltop itself, where some of the huts and possibly the initial phase of rampart construction may be of Late Bronze Age date. The fauna] sample from Phase I deposits was quite small, consisting of 1156 fragments, of which 627 (54%) could be identified. The majority of the identified bones, and especially the majority of the cattle bones, came from the enclosure ditch, and therefore primarily from the Middle Bronze Age occupation. Cattle remains made up the greatest part of the fragments (NISP = 448, 71% NISP ; MNI = 11, 48% domestic MNI). Ten of these animals were adults over three years old, and the last was a sub-adult of about two years. There was no evidence of very young or juvenile cattle in the Bronze Age assemblage. Sheep accounted for only a small percentage of the bone fragments (NISP = 73, 12%), but a much larger percentage of the domestic MNI (MNI = 8, 35%). Unlike the cattle, fewer than half of these animals were adults (three out of eight), while the remainder were subadults or infants. Pigs were represented by only a small number of fragments (NISP = 17, 3%) representing three individuals; all three were near ideal meat age.

Although this site is best known for its Iron Age hillfort and for the extensive Roman and early Christian cemeteries located therein, the hilltop and its eastern slope have in fact been the site of more-or-less continuous occupation since the Neolithic. Pre-Roman phases of occupation at the site have been defined as follows: Phase I (early prehistoric use) Phase Ia - Neolithic Phase lb - Early Bronze Age Phase le and Id - Middle Bronze Age Phase le - Late Bronze Age Phase II (later prehistoric use) Phase Ila - Early Iron Age Phase lib and lie - Middle Iron Age Phase lld through Ilg - Late Iron Age

The number of identifiable sheep and pig bones is relatively small due to the high degree of fragmentation, but they

63

rectangular stone ( or stone-footed) structure (Structure 50) was located in this unit, apparently part of a stock enclosure or boundary. No specificaHy domestic structures were identified. In addition , two gold buffer-terminal bracelets , discovered eroding out of the site in 1983 (Crabtree 1984) were associated with the Late Bronze Age deposits .

nevertheless represent all parts of the skeleton. The cattle bone assemblage , however , is unusual in that it is dominated by the axial skeleton (skulls, vertebrae , and ribs) with a notable depletion of limb bones. The bulk of the cattle assemblage was recovered from a group of six adult carcasses dumped together into the enclosure ditch. The limbs of these carcasses had been removed , but the skul Is and vertebral columns were virtually intact and had therefore not been completely stripped of meat before disposal.

The Unit 4 deposits were rich in animal bone , containing 6208 fragments, of which 2579 (42%) could be identified to species. As in Units 5 and 6, this sample was dominated by cattle and sheep (NISP = 836 and 853 respectively), with only a small amount of pig (NISP = 39), dog (NISP = 11) and horse (NISP = 15), and a single bone of domestic fowl ( Gallus gallus ). The animals were nearly all young or young adult in age. The pattern of elements recovered is similar to Unit 5.

The sheep and pig bones, though few, were generally consistent with stock-rearing husbandry , and the use of pigs for meat and of sheep for meat, wool, and dairy. The cattle assemblage is unusual , both because of the complete lack of young individuals and because over half of the assemblage seems to derive from a single butchering episode. This assemblage would represent a significant percentage of the site's produce; one possible explanation might be cattleraiding, where the thieves hastily removed the meaty limbs and dumped the heaviest part of the carcasses into the ditch (Sparey Green 1987:Mf4 , A6). More plausible explanations , especially since the cattle were all at optimal meat age , are feasting or meat storage (see Section 2.2.6). Feasting deposits are usually characterized by the relatively intact skeletons of several animals all discarded at the same time; they are usually associated with ritual or communal sites. Meat storage deposits would result if there was a systematic slaughter of livestock and the meat stripped and salted for storage or transport. This type of deposit would occur at a meat-producing (i.e. domestic) site, especially in late autumn when the herds were culled for the winter. There is considerable evidence in the Phase 2 features at Poundbury for the production and trade of salted meat (see below).

In addition to the domestic animals , there were a small number of wild animal bones , including weasel (Mustela nivalis ; NISP = 3) and wild cat (Felis sylvestris; NJSP = 4) . Unit 4 was also relatively rich in bird species, including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) , crane (Grus sp.), hawk (Accipiter sp.), redwing (Turdus iliacus) , songthrush (Turdus philomelos) , mistlethrush (Turdus viscorius) , starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and raven (Corvus corax). The hawk, raven, and starling were probably scavengers drawn to the middens ; the duck and crane are local wetland birds, and the thrushes live in woods or woodland edges. All would have been available locally, though only the duck had any economic utility. Fish bones were also present , though less abundant than in earlier deposits (N = 28), representing conger eel (Conger conger), pike (Esox lucius) , cod (Gadus morhua) , and salmon or trout (Fam. Salmonidae). These are both marine and freshwater species , and occur around the local shoreline and in the nearby rivers such as the Axe.

A small number of wild animal bones was also included in the Phase I deposits, primarily roe deer (NISP = 12, MN I = 2) and red deer (NISP = 30, MNI = 3), but including the wing bones of stock dove (Columba oenas). All three species are edible; they might have been hunted in nearby woodlands or drawn to the site as scavengers , but in any case do not represent a significant addition to the diet.

Plant remains were very scarce from the Unit 4 midden , totaling only seventy-two seeds, of which nearly two-thirds (N = 46) could not be identified. Of the remaining fragments , only four could be identified as domestic, including one kernel ofbarley , two chaff fragments (one barley , one spelt) , and a cereal culm base (indicating primary cleaning?). Weed seeds included one each from wetlands (Lychnis europeaeus), woods (Crataegus monogyna) , and grassland (Arrhenathereum elatius), as well as weeds of cultivation (Polygonum convolvulus, Chenopodium rubrum, and Vicia sp.)

Floral remains were not abundant in Phase I contexts, and consisted primarily of grains of wheat (probably spelt) and barley. A total of three wheat grains and eight barley grains were recovered, plus one barley chaff fragment. Seeds of Vicia sp. and Polygonum persicaria , as well as the lynchet to the west of the site indicate an arable component to the economy , though the large number of burnt hazelnut shells shows that it was supplemented in some part by gathering. (see also Poundbury LIA)

Although the Brean Down site does not represent a continuous settlement , repetitive use of the site allows some comparison of local economic practices over time. Such a comparison primarily reveals that economic practices changed little through the Bronze Age . Animal husbandry was dominated by cattle and sheep; pigs were always a much smaller component , and their importance decreased over time. Both sheep and cattle would be well suited to the grassland and saltmarsh habitats of Brean Down , and the proximity of the River Axe would have provided sufficient fresh water. Use oflivestock focused on meat production and

6.3.2. Late Bronze Age Brean Down (Somerset , NGR: ST 290 590. Bell 1990): Late Bronze Age occupation at Brean Down was designated "Unit 4". The deposits from this unit were primarily a midden, derived from a nearby domestic occupation. A small

64

farmstead of two structures, surrounded by clusters of pits. The large number of pits is notable given the small size of the settlement and the short period of use.

few individuals survived beyond adulthood. No significant population was maintained to supply dairy and wool, and there was also apparently a shortage of animals kept for traction. In all units, the domestic livestock were supplemented by catching fish and birds in the local area, a practice that decreased over time.

No animal bone was preserved at Aldermaston Wharf due to the acidity of the gravel soils. Floral samples were taken from the fills of each of the fortynine pits; twenty-five of these samples yielded carbonized plant remains, and seventeen of these contained cultivated cereals. The largest sample came from Pit 68, a mediumsized pit located in the northern part of the site. A layer of carbonized grain lay at the base of the pit, similar to the pitcleaning remains described by Reynolds (1979). The largest grain samples came from Pit 68 (subsample N = 1540), Pit 85 (N = 28), Pit 103 (N = 247), Pit 106 (N = 174), and Pit 111 (N = 40). The majority of this grain (roughly 85-90%) was barley, and the remainder was emmer; there was no trace of spelt. Very little chaff was associated with the grains, and very few weed seeds (33 total, compared to the 2018 grains in the above samples), indicating deposits of clean grain.

Evidence of plant cultivation at the site is more ambiguous , and the analyst has suggested that cereals may not have been grown at the site (Straker in Bell 1990:219). Certainly evidence of cereals is scarce in Units 6 and 4, but both cereals and chaff are well represented in Unit 5. In addition , the weed flora in all three units is similar: wetland, shore , and grassland weeds (all probably local to the site), and a large component of arable weeds, especially Polygonum sp., Chenopodium sp., Papaver sp., Brassica sp., Capsella bursapastoris, Urtica urens, and Stellaria media (class Stellarietea mediae, especially orders Polygono-Chenopodietalia and Centauretalia cyani). Brean Down is suitable for agriculture , and the presence oflynchets (probably Iron Age) on the top of the Down is evidence that it was under cultivation in antiquity. The arable weeds were springgerminating annuals indicative offertile alkaline soils such as those at the site. The evidence therefore suggests that springsown emmer and barley were grown locally during the Middle Bronze Age, and quite probably during the Early and Late Bronze Ages as well. Nevertheless, the extent of cultivation was probably quite small, especially given the apparent lack of traction animals. This cropping might have been supplemented by the use of edible wild seeds, such as Chenopodium , which was available in abundance. Although a wide range of habitats were represented, all were local to the site, indicating the use of the local area for a range of domestic supplies. (see also, Brean Down E/MBA)

The carbonized weeds consisted almost entirely of arable species (especially Chenopodium album, Polygonum sp., Stellaria media and Spergula arvensis; class Stellarietea mediae). Most are spring-germinating annuals of fertile ground, and all are tolerant of some acidity; the only exception is Veronica hederofolia , a fall-germinating annual. Veronica was ubiquitous in the samples, occurring in twelve of the twenty-five pits, but was virtually absent in the grainbearing samples; it cannot therefore be regarded as evidence of autumn-sowing. Although the weed flora were characteristic ofalkaline arable soils, the soils at the site were quite acidic and wet; pollen samples taken from the pond indicated a local vegetation of Calluna-heath, bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), hazel (Coryllus avelana) and other acid-loving scrub species. Since acid heathland of this type is not suited to agriculture , it is likely that the crops were not grown at Aldermaston but were brought in from outside as clean grain. The large number of pits and the high percentage of fine pottery distinguish Aldermaston Wharf from other domestic farmsteads of this period. It is possible that the site served a more specialized function , perhaps associated with its position along the river. In such a case, the abundance of fine pottery and the large grain-storage facilities might be an indication of higher status or specialized function.

Aldermaston Wharf (Berkshire, NGR: SU 605 678. Bradley et al. 1980): Aldermaston Wharf lies on a lower terrace of the River Kennet, seven kilometers from its confluence with the Thames. The site lies within a series of cropmarks of Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age date. It was discovered during gravel-digging operations and suffered some damage from that process prior to excavation.

The Aldermaston site consisted primarily of forty-nine pits, arranged into four clusters, and sixty postholes. The pits contained domestic debris, including pottery (with a high percentage of fine wares), loom weights, spindle whorls , some bronze casting equipment, and quern fragments. The postholes defined a possible fence line, with the remains of two huts (Structures 1 and 2) at the center of the distribution; the structures were in use for only a short time, and showed no signs of having been rebuilt. In addition, a large subrectangular hole (Feature I) at the south margin of the site might have been a pond.

Knight's Farm (Berkshire , NGR: SU 678 700. Bradley et al. 1980): Knight's Farm is located on well-drained but stony soil, on the lower terrace of the River Kennet, only seven kilometers upriver from Aldermaston Wharf (above). The site was similarly discovered during gravel-digging , and was heavily damaged prior to excavation.

Definition of the site is difficult due to the damage caused by subsequent prehistoric occupation and by modem gravelextraction. The site appears to have been an unenclosed

The main part of the site, Subsite KF3, contained a single ring-ditch with traces of posts inside that probably represent

65

for agriculture and the features lacked even clean stored grain deposits such as were found at Aldermaston Wharf. The preserved seeds and pollens indicate an environment of grassland and light woodland. The presence of grassland , ponds and possible droveway ditches suggest that the site had a pastoral function, perhaps as a temporary or seasonal locus of activity.

a house with an east-facing door. Two parallel lines of gullies to the east of this structure might represent parts of a droveway or boundary ditches. The site was occupied for some seven-hundred years , and was therefore relatively dense in features: as many as 120 pits, 123 postholes, and four to six ovens. Subsites KFI, KF2 and KF4 were isolated clusters of pits, showing no evidence of patterning. KFI consisted of eleven pits, a pond (Feature 6) and a short section of linear ditch. The water table in this section of the site was quite high, and the pit fills were waterlogged. KF2 contained eight pits, a posthole, and a possible pond; KF4 contained three pits and two postholes. The distribution of features most likely represents shifts in the area of occupation over time.

Ram's Hill (Berkshire , NGR: SU 315 864. Bradley and Ellison 1975, Reid 1987): Ram's Hill is a small hilltop enclosure on the Berkshire Downs. The site lies on a small chalk rise, easily accessible from several directions and commanding long views over the Lambourne Valley and the Vale of the White Horse. The site was defined by a circular ditch , enclosing an area of about one hectare , reinforced by an interior palisade and gate structures at the entrances.

Because of the acid nature of the soil, no faunal remains were preserved.

The site was first occupied in the Early Bronze Age , when the enclosure ditch was constructed. Nevertheless , excavation revealed few artifacts or features surviving from this period. The site was reoccupied in the Late Bronze Age , and the interior palisade and gates were added. Roughly 20% of the interior of the settlement was excavated, revealing the remains of four post-built houses, some four-post structures and two internal fence lines. The site is primarily remarkable for the richness of its pottery assemblage: a very large number of types (including many fine wares) was represented relative to the size of the assemblage. The enclosure was apparently enlarged in the Early Iron Age, though little was excavated from this period.

Floral samples were obtained from nine features in Subsite KF3; these features , which included one of the ovens (Feature 86) were selected because they contained a high density of charcoal in their fills. Five of these features proved to be barren of floral remains ; the other four contained a total of seven seeds between them , all of which were weeds: A triplex patula, Stellaria graminea, Silene alba, Polygonum convolvulus, Valerianella dentata and Viola sp. There were no inclusions of grain or chaff in these deposits, but these species are usually associated with arable cultivation. Atriplex patula and P. convolvulus are tolerant of some acidity, and Stellaria graminea is an indicator species of acidic soils conditions; Silene alba and Valerianella dentata, however, grow only on strongly alkaline soils, and so do not represent species local to the site.

Sixty samples were taken for floral analysis, from contexts associated with the four-posters, the pits and the houses. Few yielded preserved seeds, and none contained kernels, chaff or straw from cereal crops. Nor were there grain impressions on any of the potsherds. The recovered seeds represent five species of weeds: Atriplex sp., Chenopodium album, Polygonum aviculare, Viola sp., and Brassica sp. These are usually considered to be arable weeds (orders Bidentetalia tripartiti, Centauretalia cyani and Plantaginetalia maioris), but these could be a result of soil disturbance rather than cultivation.

Floral samples were also taken from two of the waterlogged features in KFl, a pond (Feature 6) and one of the pits (Feature 8). Both features yielded a large number of seeds (N = 2383 and 3695 respectively). However, as in KF3 , no cereal grains or chaff were included among the remains. The weeds were primarily from species associated with ponds and damp ground, mixed with some woodland/scrub , grassland , and a small number of weeds of disturbed ground, including several species of arable weeds (Chenopodium sp., A triplex patula and Stellaria media; for the complete list, see Bradley et al. 1980: KF, Table 2).

The faunal assemblage from Ram's Hill was quite small , totaling 239 identified fragments. During the Late Bronze Age cattle and sheep were nearly equally represented (39% and 31% respectively). There was only a small number of pig (9%) and dog (9%) ; there were no horse remains in the assemblage.

The apparent absence of cereals from the floral profile of the Knight's Farm site was further corroborated by a pollen profile taken from the pond in KF3 (Bradley et al. 1980:279). Less than I% of this sample could be identified as cereal pollens; the bulk of the sample was made up mostly of grasses, shrubs and broad-leaved herb from an open environment.

The age data for the Late Bronze Age livestock, though scanty, is indicative of a producer economy. The cattle are represented by both young individuals and older individuals, but are virtually depleted of young adults at optimal meat age. All of the pig remains and nearly all of the sheep remains come from young animals; a few sheep had reached young adulthood , but there were none that could be attributed to older adults. Although a great deal of confidence cannot be

An evaluation of Knight's Farm is difficult in light of the poor state of organic preservation at the site, and the severe damage caused by gravel-digging. It is unlikely that the settlement served an arable function - the soils are unsuitable

66

constructed of large posts , rebuilt at least twice. Within the enclosure were the remains of six to eight circular huts (not all contemporaneous) , smaller post structures , several fence lines and twenty-seven pits. The interior features were clustered in the northwest, southwest and northeast quadrants of the enclosure , leaving open the southeast corner and a broad central corridor running southwest-to-northeast from the entrance.

placed in these figures, they suggest a role for the site as a supplier of livestock.

6.3.3 Early Iron Age Winnall Down (Hampshire , NGR: SU 498 303. Monk and Fasham 1980, Fasham 1985): Winnall Down is a small Dshaped enclosure on the chalk upper terrace overlooking the River ltchen and two kilometers northeast of Winchester . The site was discovered by aerial photography in 1974, in advance of a proposed expansion of the M3 motorway.

Animal bones were well represented in the site, and were collected from all site contexts . The Phase 3 assemblage totaled 3308 fragments , of which about half could be identified. The majority of the bones belonged to sheep (NISP = 589) and cattle (NISP = 699), with a smaller number of pig (NISP = 123) and horse (NISP = 165). There was no significant wild animal assemblage. The cattle remains were primarily from older animals; seventeen (74%) of the twentythree mandibles with preserved dentition came from animals over five years old. In contrast , most of the sheep bones came from young animals, some newborn. Of twenty-two sheep mandibles with intact dentition, only eight (36%) belonged to adult animals , and thirteen (59%) belonged to animals one-year-old or younger. Pig bones generally belonged to younger animals , but were not present in sufficient numbers to determine their ages. The age profiles indicate that sheep were primarily used for wool , dairy , and breeding ; the large number of youngsters is indicative of neonatal loss and culling to free up the milk supply. The cattle were only rarely used for meat , and apparently were butchered only after several years' use for traction , breeding and dairy . The small amount of data for the pigs is consistent with meat production.

The Winnall Down enclosure in only one part of a multiphase site complex. The Easton Lane site, which was originally assumed to be a separate settlement , turned out on excavation to be an extension of the Winnall Down settlement (Fasham, Farwell and Whinney 1989; see MIA, below). Although the sites have been published separately (and are here discussed separately), they in fact represent components of a single settlement whose locus of occupation shifted slightly over time. The sequence for the main occupation phases has been defined as follows: ►

LBA: Winnall Down unenclosed hut cluster

►

EIA: Winnall Down D-shaped enclosure and occupation

►

E/MIA: Easton Lane unenclosed northwest of EIA enclosure

►

MIA: Winnall Down unenclosed occupation on site of former EIA enclosure

occupation ,

Segregation of cattle bone elements suggests that the carcasses were processed in stages. Midden deposits , especially those in the enclosure ditch and in the large Pit 3111 associated with House G, contained mostly articulated vertebrae and limb bones derived from butchering activity. The absence of tarsals and phalanges suggests that the hides had been taken elsewhere for tanning. Horse bone apparently received similar treatment. The absence of sheep bones from among the deposit of horse and cattle bones in Pit 3111 suggests that the larger and smaller animals were butchered differently: the meat of large animals was stripped from the bone before use and the bone discarded in butchery middens , while the sheep and pig carcasses were cut apart and the bones therefore distributed with the meat. The large number of bones in Pit 3111 suggests a systematic period of butchering rather than more occasional deposition at use. A deposit of bones almost entirely of lambs in Pit 2431 , also near House G, corroborates this , and illustrates the concentration ofbutchering activity in the northwest quadrant of the site. The Pit 3111 and 2431 deposits might be evidence of herd culling (the "winter kill") (cf. Poundbury , MBA ; see also Section 2.2.6).

In addition, Winnall Down/Easton Lane was one of three similar settlement enclosures, lying 100-150 meters apart and linked by ditches or droveways. These three enclosures lay within a matrix of ancient lynchets and smaller enclosures (Fasham 1985: Fig 2). The enclosure at Winnall Down was excavated in its entirety; no excavation was carried out at the associated enclosure sites. The main period of occupation at Winnall Down dated to the Early and Middle Iron Ages , but overall use of the site had begun in the Late Bronze Age and continued into Roman times. The Late Bronze Age settlement consisted of a cluster of four post-built hut circles (not all in use at the same time) , a fence line and a small number of shallow pits . Based on its form and its chalk-terrace location , it is assumed that the Late Bronze Age settlement was a farmstead of the ltford Hill type (Burstow and Holleyman 1957). Nevertheless , few artifacts were associated with these structures, and few floral and faunal remains were recovered to evaluate this assumption. The Early Iron Age (Phase 3) occupation of the site was characterized by the sub-rectangular enclosure ditch ; a single entrance on the western side lay directly over the Bronze Age occupation area. The entrance was closed by a gate

Only three samples from Early Iron Age contexts yielded carbonized seeds. Barley and wheat (species indeterminate) were present , as well as seeds of Bromus sp., Chenopodium

67

the site, Phase 6 the Roman period , and Phase 7 was Saxon. The Early Iron Age phases (2 - 4) will be discussed in this section, while the Middle Iron Age phases (4/5 and 5) will be discussed below.

sp. and Atriplex sp . In Pit 3744, weed seeds outnumbered grains by a ratio of seven-to-one , suggesting a deposit derived from crop-cleaning activities (and therefore indicating that Bromus and Chenopodium were not needed for food). Few conclusions, however, can be drawn from this very small sample. (see also Winnall Down MIA, Easton Lane MIA)

Phase 2 (LBA/EIA transition, 8th c. BC): Only three features could be attributed to this phase (Pits 937, 2492 and 2493), though it is likely that the enclosure ditch was also dug at this time. The features were dated by their pottery.

Groundwell Farm (Wiltshire, NGR: SU 157 889. Gingell 1982): Groundwell Farm is a double-ditched banjo-type enclosure. It lies on the slope of a low ridge, on limestone capped with clay. The dense clay soils impede drainage , and as a result the water table is too high (especially in the winter) for pit storage or arable farming. Within the enclosure were traces of four huts (all probably successive rebuildings of the same structure), a few pits and four-post structures , and some droveways. Occupation began in the Early Iron Age and probably lasted until the Middle Iron Age, with evidence of later use during Romano-British and Medieval times. Six phases of occupation were defined based on the rebuilding of the house structure . Of these , only Phases 2 (ElA) and 5(MIA) yielded any significant artifacts or features ; the others were only sparsely represented , though they are evidence of some continuity of use within the enclosure.

The Phase 2 features apparently formed part of a midden deposit , and therefore contained quite a large bone assemblage (N = 1820). Of these bones , 1314 (72%) could be identified; 765 of these belonged to domestic livestock , while the remaining 549 were identified as intrusive toad and rodent remains. The great majority of the livestock bones belonged to sheep (NISP = 663 ; 87% of domestic sample) , followed by cattle (NJSP = 40, 5%) and pig (NISP = 21, 3%). Most of the sheep fragments (N = 449) came from a single deposit - Pit 937, which was apparently used for the disposal of butchery waste , and contained the partial skeletons of at least eleven individuals. Four of these individuals were neonates, and the other seven were subadult or young adult ; there were no older animals .

No floral remains were obtained from the Groundwell Phase 2 deposits.

There were no floral remains identified from Phase 2 deposits.

Phase 2 features contained 2233 fragments ofanimal bone, of which 860 (39%) could be identified. Most of these bones came from features associated with the structure (House 1). The majority belonged to sheep (NISP = 462; 54% of the identified sample) , followed by pig (NISP = 263 ; 31 %), cattle (NISP = 11O; 13%), and horse (NISP = 20). No age data were determined for this small assemblage. The large percentage of pigs is relatively unusual for a site of this period in southern Britain, and indicates the presence of extensive damp woodland in the valley below the site, while sheep could have grazed on the higher ground above the site. The scarcity of cattle cannot be explained on environmental grounds, since the valley would be suitable for cattle as well as pigs. (see also Groundwell Farm MIA)

Phase 3 (Early Iron Age, 7th c. BC): Phase 3 was the first intensive occupation phase at Old Down Farm. During this phase the enclosure ditch was redug, making it into a more substantial feature. One large double-ring house was built near the entrance , and there were traces of a second house nearby. Twenty-three pits were distributed throughout the enclosure. Artifacts from this phase were primarily domestic , including pottery , a bone comb , a loom weight , two spindle whorls , and a bronze pin. Phase 3 pits yielded 4003 bone fragments , of which 1250 (31 %) were identified as belonging to domestic species. Sheep (NISP = 340; 27% of domestic sample) , dog (NISP = 354 , 28%) and cattle (NISP = 302, 24%) were the most abundant species , followed by horse (NISP = 162, 13%) and pig (NJSP = 92, 7%). The large number of dog bones can be attributed to the burial of five complete individuals.

Old Down Farm (Hampshire, NGR: SU 356 465. Davies 1981 ): Old Down Farm is an enclosed farmstead site, located just northwest of Andover, on a spur of chalk that rises above a tributary of the River Anton. The site consisted of a subrectangular ditch enclosing an area of about 1.2 hectares. The entrance to the site was on the northwest side, and there was a small subsidiary ditch enclosing the west corner. The interior was a complex of pits, postholes and small ditched partitions , and included the remains of several house structures. Artifacts from the site were domestic in character: pottery, spindle whorls, loom weights , quernstones , and a small number of bronze and iron tools.

Little age data is given for this assemblage , other than for the sheep . Twenty mandibles had intact tooth rows suitable for aging; five of these were from infants, four from young animals of about one year old, and eleven (55%) came from animals at ideal meat age. A small number of wild animal species were preserved in the Phase 3 deposits , each represented by a single bone fragment: red deer, fox, grey lag goose (Anser anser) , pheasant (Phasanius colchicus) , mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) , and

Seven phases of occupation were recorded at the site. Most could be attributed to the Early and Middle Iron Ages (Phases 2 - 5); Phase 1 described a brief period of Neolithic use of

68

ridge , just above a small brook formed by a tributary of the River Allen. The site is a roughly circular enclosure, with an entrance on the eastern side flanked by two pairs of antenna ditches. The site lies on chalk subsoil , overlain with patches of clay-with-flints.

house sparrow (Passer domesticus). The deer and pheasant are evidence of nearly woodland; the deer, mallard, goose and pheasant are all edible; and the fox would have provided a valuable pelt. Though all of these species would have been economically useful (except for the sparrow , which is a commensal), they are only present in small numbers and would not have formed a significant component of the local economy.

Three periods of occupation have been recognized at Gus sage (Phases 1-3), roughly corresponding to the Early , Middle and Late Iron Ages. Phase 1 will be discussed in this section, and the succeeding phases will be discussed in subsequent sections.

Five contexts from Phase 3 were examined for floral remains. They yielded wheat (species indeterminate) but no barley or oats. The wheat made up 58% of the seed assemblage , weeds (no identification) made up 39%, and the remaining 3% was chaff.

Phase 1 was characterized by the construction of the circular ditch , enclosing an area of about three acres , and a single pair of antenna ditches flanking the entrance. The entrance itself was defended by a gate. At the center of the enclosure were numerous postholes , many the remains of four-post structures. Encircling the four-posters was a ring of 128 pits; the pits spread right up to the western perimeter of the enclosure , but avoided the northern , eastern and southern edges entirely , leaving these areas empty. Artifacts from this phase were indicative of small-scale domestic industry , especially weaving , and included a few glass and shale ornaments and iron tools.

Phase 4 (Early Iron Age, 6th-4th c. BC): Seventeen of the pits and four of the buildings at the site can be dated to Phase 4. The enclosure ditch had been allowed to fill up without recutting during Phases 3 and 4, and pottery of Phase 4 date was found in the upper ditch fills.

Phase 4 deposits yielded 1869 bone fragments , of which 517 (28%) were identified as domestic livestock. Cattle bones were the most frequent in this phase (NISP = 248; 50% of domestic sample) , followed by sheep (NISP = 161, 31 %), pig (NISP = 53, 10%) and horse (NlSP = 42, 8%). The high percentage of cattle bones is attributable in part to a halfcarcass (N = 122) buried in Pit 2664. Very young calves and lambs are represented in the assemblage, as is at least one very old cow. Eight intact sheep mandibles provided age estimates for four infants , two yearlings, and two two-yearolds.

The bone assemblage from all three periods at Gussage was quite large, totaling 15,500 fragments. No further count is offered other than to note that the Phase 1 sample was the smallest of the three , and Phase 2 the largest. Based on the minimum count of individuals for Phase 1, sheep were the most abundant species (MNI = 50), followed by cattle (MNI = 28), pig (MNI = 13) and horse (MNI = 9).

Wild animal remains again formed an insignificant percentage of the total sample. There were three fragments ofred and roe deer antler, and one mallard bone.

Determination of ages at death were based on fusion data as well as on tooth-wear. For the cattle , the two methods were at odds ; the fusion data indicated that the bulk of the animals were killed at young adulthood , while the tooth-wear patterns indicated that this age group was the smallest (see Section 2.3). Nevertheless , both data sets indicate numerous animals at all three age stages Uuvenile, young adult , older adult). A similar age pattern was noted for the sheep , as well as a similar discrepancy in the data. Pigs were mostly killed at optimal meat age, but there were numerous older and younger individuals as well. For all three species , the sample of young animals included newborns and even fetuses , demonstrating that stock-breeding took place within the enclosure.

Seven samples were examined for floral remains , and four of these contained preserved seeds. Cereals (mostly spelt , with some emmer and a very small amount of barley and oats) made up 43% of the seed assemblage; 28% was cereal chaff and 30% were weed seeds. Little can be said about the production of cereals at Old Down Farm because the data are so sparse. The domestic character of the site, the good agricultural soils and the presence of weeds and chaff in the floral samples are all evidence of arable production. The faunal remains are characteristic of a meat-producing economy , apparently with little emphasis placed on wool or dairy since so few animals survived past optimal meat age . It is notable , however , that each phase is characterized by a "ritual" deposit: the burial of eleven sheep in Pit 93 7 (Phase 2), the five dog burials in Phase 3, and the half-carcass of a cow in Pit 2664 (Phase 4). (see also Old Down Farm MIA)

The Phase 1 sample also contained the remains of domestic goose (Anser anser) as well as several wild species , including red and roe deer , hare (Lepus capensis), polecat (Mustela putorius) , mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) , jay (Garrulus glandarius), buzzard (Buteo buteo), and dace (Leucis cus), a small freshwater fish. All species were represented by only a small number of bones , and none occurred in any abundance . The jay and buzzard are scavengers that would have been drawn to the site's middens , but the other species were edible; the hare and polecat also bore desirable pelts. Nevertheless , the wild species would not have represented a

GussageAIISaints(Dorset , NGR: ST998101. Wainwright 1979): Gussage Al I Saints Iies on the eastern slope of a chalk

69

located within the excavated area , though many of these overlap , and the occupation probably lasted for a considerable period of time.

significant economic asset. Seventy-eight features from aJI three periods were sampled for floral remains , seventeen from Phase 1 contexts. All of the sampled features were pits with cylindrical or barrelshaped profiles (for a list of contexts, see Wainwright 1979: Table XL VI). Spelt and barley were present in roughly equal quantities , with small amounts of oats ; none of the wheat remains could be identified as emmer. It is noted that spikelet parts were present , indicating that the grain was stored in a semi-clean state . The Phase 1 samples seemed to derive mainly from storage contexts, as there were few weed inclusions. Three deposits (Pits 296, 202, and 286) contained only barley, and two (Pits 382 and 520) contained only wheat. Two pits held mixed grains: Pit 297 contained barley , spelt, legumes (Viciafaba and V. tetrasperma) , oats (Avena sp.), and brome (Bromus sp.) ; Pit 400 contained barley , spelt , oats and brome. The inclusion of brome and oats in apparent storage contexts suggests that they may have been kept as food crops. Brome is generally a weed of winter crops , indicating that the spelt and possibly some of the barley were autumn-sown .

Few fauna) remains were preserved at Hengistbury because of the acidity of the soil. None of the surviving bone fragments dated to the Early Iron Age deposits. Floral samples were taken from a randomly-chosen 10% subsample of contexts . Results were reported by phase rather than by feature type. The Early Iron Age cultivated assemblage consisted of the chaff and grains of barley, emmer , and bread wheat , with a small amount of wild (?) oats 1• No information is offered on the relative abundance of these species . Chaff and weed seeds dominate the samples, indicating that the majority of the material derives from secondary-cleaning activities rather than from storage contexts. The weeds included in the Early Iron Age deposits mainly represent arable species , especially Stellaria sp., Poly gonum sp., and Chenopodium sp. (mostly orders PolygonoChenopodietalia and Centauretalia cyani). Nearly all species present are spring-germinating annuals of fertile ground ; most are tolerant of some soil acidity, and a few (Spergula arvensis , Stellaria graminea , Raphanus raphanustrum , and Rumex acetose/la) are indicator species of acid soils. These flora are consistent with the acid nature of the local soils, and are similar to the modern plant population of the site. The weed profile also testifies to the health of the local agricultural system, despite the acidity of the soil. None of the "famine" grasses (brome and Chenopodium) were needed to supplement the harvest; nor was there evidence of systematic fallowing or soil depletion in the form of grasses , nitrogenous weeds or perennials. Nevertheless , the ecological requirements of the grains found at the site are not quite compatible with the weed flora; it is possible that the floral profile from Hengistbury represents a combination of local cultivation and consumption of grain grown on more alkaline soils. (see also Hengistbury Head LIA)

Although the livestock age profile seems normal for mixeduse husbandry (breeding , meat , secondary products) , there is some indication of stress in the arable economy. The presence of oats and brome in the grain-storage features indicate that these were used to supplement the food crops. The presence of Vicia in the deposits is suggestive oflegumes that grew up among the grain crop , probably a relic of fallowing. (see also Gussage All Saints MIA and LIA) Hengistbury Head (Dorset, NGR: SZ 180 905 . Cunliffe 1987): Hengistbury Head lies on a small peninsula in the Solent , enclosing Christchurch Harbor at the confluence of the Rivers Stour and Avon. The Head itself is composed of sands and clay, rising to a long hill of gravel on its southern side (Warren Hill). At present , the outer (Channel) margin is gravel cliffs and sandy dune beach and the inner (harbor) margin is brackish saltmarsh and mud flats, and acidic sandy soils covered with bracken and bramble . Warren Hill is covered with acidic heath.

Houghton Down , Stockbridge (Hampshire , NGR: SU 341 361. Cunliffe and Poole 2000e): Houghton Down is an enclosed farmstead on Chatgrave Hill, just outside the town of Stockbridge and within reach of the Test valley to the east. The Down had been known since the 19th century as the site of a modest Roman villa; more recent aerial photography revealed cropmarks of a substantial ditched enclosure beneath the villa. This enclosure was excavated as part of the Danebury Environs project in 1994.

Artifacts obtained byearlierexcavations (Bushe-Fox in 191112 and St. George Gray in 1918-1924) and by local collectors indicated that Hengistbury was a site of prehistoric activity from the Mesolithic onward. The main occupation of the site, however , took place in the Iron Age. The most notable feature of this period of occupation is the Double Dykes, a defensive earthwork of Early Iron Age date. The Dykes are a pair of bank-and-ditch ramparts that run in a north-south direction from the harbor to the Channel, cutting off the approach to the Head just below the Stour-Avon confluence.

The Houghton Down enclosure measures approximately 200

The main area of occupation (Site 1) lay on the harbor side of the peninsula in an area known as Long Field. The site lay in a small valley of sand and gravel, sheltered from the ocean by Warren Hill. Thirteen houses of Early Iron Age date were

1

The text mentions the presence of spelt as well, though this species is not included in the tabulation (Cunliffe 1987: Table 44).

70

for milk, meat , breeding and wool. Although all parts of the skeleton were preserved, there seems to be a depletion of limb bones (esp. forelimbs). The age data for cattle show a relatively small number of young animals (and apparently no neonates) , the peak ages at death being at the young adult (c. 4-5 years) stage and adult (c. 6-7 years); only one older individual was identified. The cattle bones also show a modest depletion of limb bones. The cattle were kept for milk and labor , and were used for meat only after these purposes were fulfilled. The importance of cattle for traction is attested by the high incidence of arthritic remodeling in the bones of the hindlimbs. The data for pigs is sparse because of their relatively small numbers. However , there were several fetal/neonatal remains , and a further quarter of the ageable specimens were younger than one year ; most of the remainder were killed by their third year and there were no old individuals .

meters by 120 meters , oriented north-to-south; the main oval is surrounded to the south and west by smaller enclosures probably representing paddocks, fields and droveways. Prior to excavation, a magnetometer survey was taken of the entire enclosure complex ; this revealed areas of significant cultural disturbance in the southern part of the main enclosure and in the center, along the east-west axis. The northern part of the enclosure contained a dense scatter of pits and several linear features; the outer enclosures showed little evidence of disturbance. Two excavation trenches were laid out in the southern part of the site to encompass both the main Roman structure and the areas of greatest subsurface disturbance . Two periods of occupation were recognized from the excavated features-an Early/Middle Iron Age occupation (c. 800 - 300 BC) and a Late Iron Age/Roman occupation (c. l 00 BC - AD 400). Both phases appear from the evidence to be lengthy and continuous ; the site was apparently unoccupied during the 200-year hiatus between them.

The faunal data from Houghton Down fit generally into the regular pattern of livestock husbandry. Sheep were being bred at the site, and ewes were maintained only as long as they could breed and yield milk; this is similar to the pattern seen elsewhere in the Iron Age (eg. Danebury). The depletion of limb bones (especially in view of the fact that phalanges were adequately represented) might have been caused by the use of bone for tools (bone combs , awls, bodkins were all found on the site) ; it is also possible that more extensive excavation would have revealed activity patterns to account for the loss- for example , "table" areas in another part of the site in which the limb bones (sheep and cattle) were more prevalent. The absence of young cattle suggests that the stock were bred (or at least calved) elsewhere ; nevertheless , the presence of older (traction) animals shows that cattle herds were maintained on or near the site , and that a model based on meat consumption is not sufficient. Pigs were clearly also bred on site, and supplied meat to the residents ; the absence of older animals (breeders) may be a reflection of the small size of the sample.

The main feature of the Early/Middle Iron Age occupation at Houghton Down was the oval enclosure ditch, some 3-4 meters wide. It was apparently kept clear for a while, and then in the later phases of the first occupation allowed to silt up gradually. The ditch was backed by a fence line or palisade on its inner side. Within the excavated area of the enclosure at least six post-built houses were identified ; given their relative positions , they were not all in place at the same time, but all date to the earlier part of the occupation sequence. In addition , there were nine four-post structures identified , 18 possible two-posters , 29 storage pits and several quarry holes. Several hollows interpreted as tree-root holes also contained Iron Age traces , indicating that the trees were cleared when the hilltop was occupied. The artifact assemblage was domestic and unremarkable--querns , weaving combs and spindle whorls; several iron tools ; a small number of personal ornaments of bronze and shale. Faunal remains were well-preserved in the chalk-based soils . Over 12,000 fragments were recovered , of which 5510 (46%) could be identified. 3569 of these came from the earlier occupation phase. Sheep were the dominant livestock in this phase (NISP = I 792 , 50%; MNI = 49) , followed by cattle (NISP = 779, 22% ; MNI = 14); pig made up only a small part of the total (7% ). There were a small number of horse and fowl bones ; dogs were rather better represented , but this is because there were several dog burials recovered . There was no significant sample of wild animal remains , nor were there any fish bones despite the proximity of the river. Since occupation at the site was apparently continuous from the Early to the Middle Iron Age, it was not possible to divide this assemblage into subphases of any utility, so the whole early phase is here considered as a unit.

Floral samples were taken from numerous contexts representing all subphases of the early occupation . However , adequate remains were only encountered in the Early Iron Age deposits (14 samples) ; a single sample from the earliest subphase (the "Early Early Iron Age") yielded data , but none of the Middle Iron Age features were productive . The sample from the earliest pit contained mostly secondary chaff of spelt , possibly with some emmer (but none was securely identified) ; weeds were primarily annuals of agricultural ground , though there was a large percentage of nitrogenous and grassland weeds in this sample , as well as autumn-germinating weeds. The samples from the main EIA deposits came from pits in the vicinity of the various structures ; nevertheless , there is no clear functional association between the pits and structures , and pottery and stratigraphic evidence suggests that the pits post-date the structures. The grain samples from the pits were all apparently waste deposits of chaff and weeds with some grain mixed in. Spelt was the primary grain , followed by barley ;

The sheep ranged in age from newborn to about 8 years old. Perinatal mortality was high (about 50% of the sample) , indicating that breeding took place at the site; another deathpeak occurs at the end of the second year as the flocks (males) were culled for meat , and a final peak occurs at 6-8 years as the breeding ewes aged. Sheep were evidently kept

71

sca le domestic occupation

there was also a small amount of emmer chaff, and possibly also rye . The presence of primary chaff (culm nodes and bases, awn fragments) from the wheats , barley and possibly rye indicates that the site was a producer of grain . Although the most abundant weeds are annuals of fertile soils , some weeds are indicative of productive stress-the presence of nitrogenous and grassland weeds ( esp. Medicago-type , Plantago sp. and Ranuncu/us sp.) suggests a fallowing regime , and the occurrence of nitrogenous weeds with perennials (esp. Ranuncu/us sp. and Rumex sp.) suggests that this might have been an effort to maintain soil fertility (in this regard, the possible inclusion of rye might be further evidence of the depletion of the soils) . The large numbers of Bromus sp. and Ga/ium aparine seeds indicates a two-season planting schedule; nevertheless , the inclusion of these Bromus seeds in an evident waste deposit indicates that this was not needed as a supplementary food source.

►

►

►

Phase 4: Early Roman ; Iron Age features allowed to silt up, construction of ditches and droveways to the north and south of enclosure.

Only Phases 1 and 3 yielded floral and fauna) data in quantities sufficient to discuss. Phase 3 will be discussed in the Late Iron Age section, below . The Early Iron Age features at Nettlebank Copse contained two possible houses (identified on the basis of doorway postsettings), four two-posters , 28 pits and a possible oven. The features were apparently enclosed , since they cluster and conform to the area defined by the later ditch , but no specific evidence of this enclosure feature was discovered . This occupation was apparently very brief , possibly as little as a single generation (c. 25-30 years). Apart from pottery (plainware) , the only artifacts recovered from these features were some quern fragments , spindle whorls and bone needles.

Late Iron Age features did not yield remains in sufficient quantity to warrant a separate analysis . The faunal remains were similar to those from the earlier period , with the exception that younger cattle and older sheep were better represented. The small number of floral samples from the Late Iron Age also show a similar pattern to the earlier subphases . Spelt is again the most abundant grain; barley is present in smaller amounts, and traces of both emmer and rye were identified but none of the free-threshing wheats. The weed profiles were similar , indicative of two-season planting and fallowing. Although both rye and perennial weeds are still present, they had not gained significantly in abundance , suggesting that efforts to maintain the soils were generally successful overtime. (see also Bury Hill LIA, Danebury MIA and LIA, Nettlebank Copse EIA and LIA)

There were 4760 fragments of animal bone recovered from Phase 1 features , of which 2217 (47%) could be identified to species. Of these , sheep were the most abundant (NISP = 1183, 53% ; MNI = 47) , followed by pig (NISP = 431, 19%; MNI = 6) and cattle (270, 12%; MNI = 9). Horse and dog were present in smaller numbers. Evidence for wild mammals is ambiguous-one of the dogs might have been all or part wolf , and there were a few fragments of goose (Anser anser) which could have been wild or domestic.

Nettlebank Copse, Wherwell (Hampshire , NGR: SU 341 393. Cunliffe and Poole 2000d): Nettlebank Copse is a "banjo"-type enclosure , located on the downs some 2 km northeast ofDanebury . It lies on a low chalk spur at the head of a dry valley leading down to the River Test , some 4 km distant. The site consists of an oval enclosure about 60 meters across and enclosing an area of about .25 ha. The enclosure opens to the east into a long ditched corridor , whose ends splay out into the familiar "antenna" form; additional ditches and droveways join these antennae to the north and south of the enclosure. Nettlebank Copse was first identified during the course of aerial photography by Crawford and Keiller, and was photographed in greater detail as a part of the Dane bury survey (Palmer 1984 ); it was excavated in 1993 as part of the Danebury Environs Project. Because of its small size, Nettlebank was excavated in its entirety.

About half of the sheep remains came from older animals (68 years) , the majority of which were females. Most of the remainder were quite young - newborns or younger than one year old. There were few remains that could be attributed to animals at optimal meat age. The sheep were therefore bred on site, and youngsters culled in the first year to maintain the milk supply. The older ewes provided milk and wool (the few recovered artifacts were mostly related to weaving) , and were killed at the end of their breeding life. The depletion of two-year-olds suggests that they were driven off to supply meat elsewhere , or that sheep were not maintained specifically as a source of meat (a similar pattern is seen at Winnall Down). There were relatively few cattle remains that could be assigned to age categories, but the majority of these were mature adults , with relatively few immature individuals and no evidence of newborns. Despite the paucity of evidence, it seems clear that cattle were not bred at the site, and the animals brought there were used more often for milk and traction than for meat. The pigs , on the other hand,

The Nettlebank enclosure was in use more-or-less continuously thorough the Iron Age , though the character of the site changed considerably over that time . Four phases were identified in the use of the site: ►

Phase 2: Middle Iron Age , c. 310-270 BC ; enclosure and antenna ditches dug, no significant evidence of occupation Phase 3: Late Iron Age , c. 100 BC - AD 100; ditch recut following a period of abandonment; abundant artifacts but no significant structural evidence

Phase 1: Early Iron Age , c. 400-300BC ; small-

72

artifact assemblage of any phase at the site, including evidence of iron smithing , iron tools, spindle whorls, loom weights , pins and awls, and a small "hoard" containing two linch-pins , a gouge, and two currency bars (Pit 2420).

represent almost exclusively a meat-bearing population. Most of the animals were killed in their second and third year; there is no significant evidence of newborns and no animals were older than 3 .5-4 years, indicating that pig-breeding was not a component of the site economy.

The Phase 5 faunal assemblage was the largest from the site, totaling 5833 fragments , of which 2004 (34%, excluding intrusive rodent and toad bones) could be identified to species. These were primarily from sheep (NISP = 1047, 52%) , with only small amounts of cattle (NISP = 401, 20%) , horse (NISP = 251, 13%), and pig (NISP = I 80, 9%). Sheep bones varied in age: of fifty-four individuals identified, thirty-two (59%) were newborn or less than one year old, three (5%) were between one and two years , sixteen (30%) were about two years old (optimal meat age) , and three were older adults (three or more years). Nearly half of the recovered sheep bones came from three deposits: a lamb burial in Pit 386; a deposit of seven nearly-complete carcasses in Pit 563; and two butchered carcasses in Pit 2595. The Pit 563 assemblage contained the remains of six lambs, two of which were newborn, and one aged sheep; these carcasses were nearly intact-there was no evidence that they had been butchered for food, and the deposit was undisturbed. The cattle and horse bones were also concentrated into deposits rather than scattered, possibly from the practice of stripping the meat from the large carcasses (cf. Winnall Down , EIA).

Nettlebank Copse is located on a chalk spur at the head of a long dry valley, a terrain that would have supported neither woodland for pigs nor meadows for cattle, but would have been ideal for grazing sheep. It is evident from both the absolute numbers and the age profiles that the livestock economy was focused on sheep-raising, and that cattle and pigs were brought in from another location, possibly farther down the valley toward the river. It may be that the depletion of sheep at meat age represents a trade-sheep to the lowlands in return for cattle and pigs-or simply that sheep were not exploited for meat, and those that did not die young or need to be culled were kept until their breeding utility ended. Floral samples were taken from the pits, the possible oven feature (P263) and one of the quarries. The main crops were spelt and 6-row hulled barley; a small amount of emmer was identified , and possibly traces of rye. The material in the pits is indicative of crop-cleaning-primary and secondary chaff, weeds and grains. Much of the primary chaff was not identified to species, so it is not possible to comment on differences in storage and processing between the crops. The sample from Pit 263 (the oven) has very few weed seeds , and may represent grain lost while parching. Although grains are abundant all the samples, chaff and weeds make up the majority of all of these deposits , indicating that most derive from the cleaning process and not storage contexts. The number of grains included in the waste could be considered further evidence of the producer status of the site ( cf. M. K. Jones 1985). The weeds are primarily annuals offertile soils , as expected in a producer assemblage; however , a significant number of autumn-germinating plants and nitrogenous and grassland species indicates a strategy of fallowing and twoseason planting. The inclusion of perennials (esp. Rum ex, which occurs in abundance) might be evidence that some effort was required to maintain the fertility of the soils . A small component of wet-ground species (E/eocharis sp., Carex sp., Montia fontana) is consistent with areas of impeded drainage (trampled places, ditches), but insufficient to indicate the consistent exploitation of wetland resources , which would have been at some distance from the site. (see also Bury Hill LIA, Danebury MIA and LIA, Houghton Down EIA, Nettlebank Copse LIA)

A small number of bones from wild animals was recovered , including thirteen .bones of red deer (ten of these antler) , several bones from a single fox, and one bone from a hare. Five bird bones were recovered: three from scavengers (two raven , Corvus corax; one unidentified corvid) , one from a mallard (Anas p/atyrhynchos) and one from a ?pochard (Aythyaferina). The deer , hare and ducks would have been eaten , but none would have made a significant economic contribution. Floral samples were obtained from twenty contexts. Spelt was again the predominant grain , mixed with some emmer ; barley and oats were present in small amounts. Unlike previous phases , cereals made up a relatively small percentage of the total floral assemblage (38% grains , 5% chaff) , while weed seeds made up the remaining 57%. Most weed species were indicative of arable contexts: species of Polygonum , Rumex , Lithospermum , Brassica, Galium, and several members of the Compositae (Anthemis , Tripleurospermum , Chrysanthemum etc.) Most could be identified only to genus , and it is therefore difficult to reach specific conclusions about their ecological contexts; nevertheless, they are generally indicative of a fertile arable environment; the presence of Galium suggests two-season cropping, and Vicia might be indicative of fallowing. It seems that the features represent a combination of semi-clean storage deposits and several deposits of cleaning waste (weeds and chaff). Two of the samples (several seeds adhering to a pot in Pit 979 , a large deposit in Pit 2420) were relatively pure deposits of Brassica (mustard). Brassica is useful as an early-sprouting green vegetable and as a

6.3.4. Middle Iron Age Old Down Farm (Hampshire , NGR: SU 356 456. Davies 1981 ): Evidence of Middle Iron Age (Phase 5) occupation at Old Down Farm consisted offifty-eight pits. There were no house structures that could be attributed to this phase , and the enclosure ditch had silted up nearly completely by that time. Nevertheless, the Phase 5 deposits contained the richest

73

supply. (see also Groundwell Fann EIA)

seasoning , as well as a medicinal herb traditionally used for poultices and liniments (Hartley 1979). Since numerou s plants would be required to yield such a quantity , it is likely that the Pit 2420 sample was deliberately co11ected.

Easton Lane, Winchester (Hampshire, NGR: SU 498303. Fasham , Farwell and Whinney 1989): The site at Easton Lane lies immediately to the northwest of the excavated Dshaped enclosure at Winnall Down. Easton Lane was excavated a few years after Winnall Down , as part of the survey in advance of the construction of the M3 interchange. It was originally thought to be an associated settlement , but was found to be an extension of the original settlement whose focus of occupation shifted over time (Fasham 1994). Therefore , although the two sites were published separately and discussed here separately , are in fact no more than different phases of the same ongoing settlement.

The floral and fauna) remains from Old Down Fann from Phase 2 (LBA/EIA) through Phase 5 (MIA) are indicative of a mixed fanning economy reliant upon wheat , barley , oats , sheep and cattle. Husbandry in all phases seems to have focused on the herding of sheep , and the wide variation in relative percentages is a reflection of depositional factors more than economic practices . There were no significant inclusions of wild animal or plant species , and no other indications of stress or the need to supplement the cultivated produce. What is notable at Old Down Farm, however , is the recurrence in each phase of concentrated bone deposits. The deposits in Phases 2 and 5 (Pits 937 , 2595 , and the other concentrated deposits of horse and cattle bones) are evidenc e of meat-processing-either feasting , or more likely, the salting of meat for storage (see Section 2.2.6 ; cf. also Poundbury , MBA and LIA) . Other deposits were not associated with butchering , and apparently represent ritual behavior: the dog burials in Phase 3 and the half-carcass of a cow in Phase 4 (Pit 2664). The "sheep burial " in Phase 5 (Pit 563) might also be a ritual deposit , but the large number of unused carcasses also strongly suggests the killing of diseased animals. (see also Old Down Fann EIA)

The Easton Lane phase of occupation was unenclosed , occupying the space to the north and west of the EIA enclosure ditch (this is Phase 3 in the four-phase occupation sequence defined for this complex - see Winnal1 Down EIA). The settlement consisted of some nineteen gully- or post-built structures, laid out along a north-south ditch line that had been in place since the Middle Bronze Age . These structures fell into four main clusters , representing four large gully-built houses (CS2404 , 11.5m dia.; CS 2408, 15 m dia. ; CS2208, I 0.25m dia. ; and MS5622 , l 0.5m dia.) and their associated outbuildings. An "empty" zone , an apparent causeway that ran parallel to the old ditch line, divided the settlement area into two zones , each containing two enclosures.

Groundwell Farm (Wiltshire , NGR: SU 157 899. Gingell 1982): The Middle Iron Age (Phase 5) deposits at Groundwell Fann are associated with the final rebuilding of the house, designated House 4.

Artifacts from the Easton Lane occupation phase were unremarkable domestic objects-plain pottery , spindle whorls and loomweights and small amount if iron slag. These were comparable to the materials found in the EIA and MIA phases at Winnall Down.

The Phase 5 contexts yielded 3322 bone fragments , the largest of the datable assemblages. Of these, 1427 (43%) could be identified to species. Pig (NISP = 570, 40%) and sheep (NISP = 560, 39%) formed the majority of the assemblage, with cattle (NISP = 233 , 16%) and horse (NISP = 49, 3%) in lesser amounts. These numbers represent an apparent increase in the importance of pigs over sheep in the Middle Iron Age at Groundwell Farm; the relative percentages of cattle and horses was basically unchanged. A smal1 assemblage of bird bones could also be attributed to this phase. Most were of scavengers (Buteo buteo, NISP = 3; Corvus corax, NISP = 1), although one bone of crane (Megalornis grus) implies that the nearby water resources were exploited.

Fauna! remains from this area were few (NISP = 254) with most of the fragments derived from pits and structures; these showed considerable evidence of exposure (gnawing and erosion) , suggesting that they had lain around before finding their ways into features, and that there were no primary midden deposits among the excavated portion of the site. Most of the bones were of sheep (NISP = 56) , cattle (NISP = 44) and horse (NISP = 26); only three fragments could be attributed to pigs. The ratios , especially the scarcity of pigs, is similar to the contents of the much larger sample from Winnall Down , but no further analysis could be made . Carbonized seeds were collected from two pits of MIA date (Pits 4983 and 4928) , just to the east of the features clustered around structures CS2408 and MS5622. They formed the only significant deposit of carbonized seeds (N = 870) from the Easton Lane features. The deposits consisted mostly of the chaff of spelt and barley, and a large number of associated weeds. The presence of straw nodes and culm bases among the chaff and the almost complete absence of grain seeds (N = 13) indicates that these were deposits of primary cleaning debris .

Age data for the livestock were not given , other than to note that the pigs were generally quite young and the sheep mostly older. Several of the sheep jaws and teeth from this phase showed pathologies consistent with poor nutrition , perhaps accounting for the decline in the sheep population between the Early and Middle Iron Age phases of occupation . The increased importance of pigs as a source of meat corresponded to this decline in the sheep ; the relatively young age at which the pigs were slaughtered indicates that some effort was being made to alleviate the stress in the meat

The weeds made up only 13% of the total floral sample (N =

74

animals at optimal meat age. The pigs, on the other hand, were nearly all slaughtered at their second year: only three of the twenty-three preserved mandibles were from young animals, and only six had reached full adulthood, though none were very old.

116); most were annual species of alkaline agricultural soils, especially Bromus sp. (N = 41) and Galium aparine (N = 41 ), reinforcing the impression that the grain was grown on the local calcareous soils. In addition, there were a small number damp-ground and standing-water species (Carex sp., Eleocharis palustris, etc.) such as would grow along the ditch lines and in areas of poor drainage in the fields. The strong presence of Galium and Bromus also indicates that a portion of the crop was autumn-sown. The presence of grassland and nitrogenous weeds indicates some fallowing, but the scarcity of perennial weeds indicates that systematic soil depletion was not a problem. Indeed, since the Galium and Bromus were found in waste deposits, it is clear that they were not required to supplementthe food supply. Overall, the samples from Easton Lane, though not large, corroborate the evidence gathered from the Winnall Down features oflocal production with some effort at intensification (two-season planting , fallowing), but no significant indication of stress. (see also Winnall Down EIA and MIA)

The segregation of cattle and sheep bones noted in Phase 3 was again evident in Phase 4. Pits that contained waste bones from horse and cattle carcasses (which had been stripped of meat) were generally located on the outskirts of the site (butchery middens) , while sheep bones were more abundant nearest the huts (cooking remains). The age profiles of the sheep and cattle are interesting in that they show a severe depletion of animals at optimal meat age, a trend already seen in the sheep in the Early Iron Age. It is clear from the large number of neonatal and yearling deaths that the livestock were being bred at the site, and a significant number were being kept for breeding, traction , wool and dairy , although these were ultimately used for meat as well. The absence of two- and three-year-olds suggests that Winnall Down was producing livestock for trade or redistribution.

Winnall Down (Hampshire, NGR: SU 498 303. Monk and Fasham 1980, Fasham 1985): The Middle Iron Age (Phase 4) settlement at Winnall Down was unenclosed , but lay over the site of the D-shaped Early Iron Age enclosure. The eastern part of the bank-and-ditch was apparently still visible and the features of Phase 4 (and subsequent phases) were aligned to it; the ditch had silted up or been deliberately filled in on the west side, however, and several Middle Iron Age structures straddled the old enclosure line. This represents the last phase of use of the Winnall Down/Easton Lane complex.

There were only a small number of wild animal bones in the Winnall Down deposits. Fourteen fragments of red deer (Cervus elaphus) were recognized , nearly all of which were antler; and two fragments of hare (Lepus capensis). There were also sixteen bird bones , representing five species: mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) , lag goose (Anser anser), grey heron (Ardea cinerea) , thrush (Turdus sp.) , and duck (Anas sp.) ; mallard , duck , and goose were edible. The very small economic contribution represented by this assemblage suggests that the meat supply at Winnall Down was adequate despite the provision of meat to other sites , and that significant supplementation by hunting was unnecessary.

Nine huts were attributed to the Phase 4 settlement ; several of these overlapped , and no more than six could have been in use at any one time. All of these structures were located in the western half of the settlement area. In addition to the huts, there was a large rectangular ditched structure , sixteen four-posters, and over eighty pits; the majority of the pits and four-posters were confined to the eastern half of the site, aligned with the old enclosure ditch.

The Phase 4 floral assemblage was significantly larger than that for Phase 3; ninety-three Middle Iron Age features yielded carbonized remains of plants. Most of these features were pits located in the southeast comer of the site. Cultivated grains were relatively unimportant in the Winnall Down samples , with barley accounting for only 16% of the seeds and spelt for 9%. Only three samples were richer in grain than in weeds: Pits 5789 , 5597 , and 7372 yielded relatively clean grain deposits in their lower fills, suggesting that these features were used for grain storage prior to their ultimate use as middens. Chaff preserved in the deposits included straw fragments , basal and straw nodes , indicative of primary cleaning.

A total of 6572 animal bones were collected from Phase 4 contexts, of which 3582 (55%) could be identified . These samples were collected from the full range of site contexts: pits and scoops, the ditch, hut gullies, and postholes. Sheep were the most abundant of the livestock (NISP = 1307, 36%) , followed by cattle (NISP = 838, 23%). Pig formed only a small percentage of the remains {NISP = 259, 7%) , as did horse (NISP = 244, 7%). The cattle were represented by older individuals; of thirty-six mandibles with complete dentition, twenty-four (67%) belonged to animals over four years old, and some considerably older. Ten (28%) belonged to younger animals (five of which were neonates) , and only two (5%) fell into the range for optimal meat yield. The remains of the sheep showed a similar lack of young adults: of the ninety-six mandibles with complete dentition , fifty-six ( 5 8%) belonged to very young animals and thirty-three (34 % ) belonged to older adults; only seven (7%) belonged to

The remaining seed samples from Winnall Down were dominated by weeds , especially the seeds of Bromus (12%), the legumes (22%) , and the Chenopodiaceae (especially Chenopodium sp. and A triplex sp., I 0%). The relatively high percentage of fall-germinating species (Bromus sp., Galium aparine, and Cerastium sp.) indicates that a significant portion of the crop was autumn-sown. The presence of the brome and Chenopodium seeds in the waste rather than the

75

drawn to the site as scavengers on the produce or middens. The deer were useful for hides and meat as well as antler ; the others would have provided high-quality furs. The birds were identified as ma11ard (Anas platyrhynchos) , woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) and crow (Corvus sp.) The crow was probably also a scavenger; the duck and woodcock are edible.

storage contexts, however , shows that these species were not significant food resources . The most common family of weeds (22% overall) was the legumes, especially black medick (Medicago lupu/ina) and the clovers (Trifo/ium sp.) The general absence of perennial species, however, and the presence of several grassland species ( including Plantago, Cerastium) indicate a fallowing regime but not progressive soil depletion. Most of the weeds were indicative of fertile soils (class Stellarietea mediae). Some intensification of production is indicated , with two-season cropping and fa1lowing to maintain the soil fertility . (see also Winnall Down EIA, Easton Lane MIA)

Floral samples were taken from each layer of 50% of the excavated features , for a total of 640 samples; 85% of these samples contained carbonized seeds 2 • In addition , two pits from Phase 2 (Pits 293 and 298) were sampled in their entirety for comparison . The most common grain at Micheldever was spelt , occurring in 48% of sampled contexts , and dominant in 25%. Barley was of similar importance , occurring in 41 % of features, and dominant in 16%. Bromus was also present in large quantities (32% presence , 12% dominance). There were only small amounts of emmer and oats. The analyzed samples were composed mainly of secondary chaff and weeds, and most of the grains present were poorly formed or unfilled ; thus the samples from the pits were waste deposits derived from final cleaning . In this regard , the large amount of bro me was being cleaned out as a weed, not retained as a food resource.

Micheldever Wood (Hampshire, NGR: SU 527 370. Monk and Fasham 1980, Fasham 1987): The site at Micheldever Wood is located on a chalk ridge capped with clay-withflints , about 2.5 miles north of Winna]] Down, with whose Phase 4 (MIA) it is broadly contemporary . Micheldever Wood is a "banjo" enclosure-a circular ditched enclosure flanked by two linear ditches ("antennae") which converge to form a funnel leading into the entrance. The antenna ditches are widely believed to function as stock-management structures.

The weed flora indicate some intensification in the crop growing strategy at Micheldever. A number of the weeds were spring-germinating cornfield weeds of fertile ground (especial1y Polygonum convolvulus , Chenopodium album, Valerianella dentata, Chrysanthemum segetum, and Hyoscyamus niger; class Stellarietea mediae) , indicating that some of the cereals were spring-sown. There was also a group of autumn-germinating weeds ( Galium aparine, Lithospermum arvense, Cerastium sp. , and Bromus sp.), indicating that part of the crop was winter-sown. In addition , there was also large number ofnitrogenous plants (Medicago lupulina, Trifolium sp., and Vicia sp.) and grassland plants (Plantago sp., Rumex sp., and Cerastium sp.) suggesting a systematic regime of fallowing. Some effort was being made to maintain the productivity of the arable system , but the general absence of perennials and the preponderance of species that prefer fertile soils argues against serious soil depletion.

Although the site was in use from the Early Iron Age (Phase 1) until the Roman period (Phase 5), only the Middle Iron Age (Phase 2) features were indicative ofany intensity ofuse or occupation. The circular enclosure ditch and the antenna ditches were constructed during this phase. Other Phase 2 features included nineteen pits , a possible hearth (f 487) and a dewpond (F789) tentatively assigned to this phase. There were no houses identified, but the domestic nature of the debris (pottery, animal bones, weaving implements , tools , etc.) is suggestive of domestic occupation. A total of 5927 bone fragments were recovered from Phase 2 contexts, of which 2473 (42%) could be identified to species. Sheep made up the majority of these remains (NISP = 1147, 46%), fol1owed by cattle (NISP = 836, 34%); pig and horse were represented by only a small number of bones (NISP = 326 and 87, respectively). In addition to the livestock, there were remains of domestic fowl (Gallus gal/us; NISP = 4).

Little Somborne (Hampshire , NGR: SU 389 328. Neal 1981): Little Som borne was discovered during surveys taken in advance of construction of the British Gas Corporation feeder pipeline across Wessex . The site was an oval-shaped enclosure lying on the side of a low chalk rise. The entrance to the enclosure lay to the east , and a palisade on the inner side of the ditch defended the interior. A long straight ditch Jed out from the entrance eastward ; traces oflynchets outside

Of the sixty-four sheep mandibles with preserved dentition, nearly half(N = 33) came from animals at optimal meat age. The presence of very young animals (N = 20) and old animals (N = 21) indicates that sheep were bred at the site, and that they were kept for dairy and wool as wel1 as meat. Age data were not provided for the cattle remains. Analysis of the bone element distribution indicated that there was no significant depletion of body parts, and no particular pattern of butchery or food-bone assemblages.

2

The seed data were presented as a single sample, with no distinction between phases. However , since the great majority of excavated features were dated to Phase 2, the assemblage can be treated safely as representative of the Phase 2 occupation.

A small number of wild animal and bird bones were included in the Phase 2 deposits: red deer, fox , stoat , and hare. All would have been locally available , and all would have been

76

the enclosure are aligned to this linear ditch.

environment, but the alignment of the lynchets along the linear ditch and the suitability of local soils are both indications of a local arable economy. The inclusion of . brome in the stored crop indicates that part of the crop was autumn-sown; even if the brome was eaten, it does not occur in large enough numbers to have been a significant supplement to the diet.

A wide corridor was excavated through the center of the site, taking in about one-third of the interior. Within this area were located the remains of two huts, eight four-post structures, and several two-posters, pits and gullies. Artifacts included a general domestic assemblage of pottery, weaving tools (loom weights, spindle whorls), a quern, a stone spearhead, and the remains of a possible oven. Excavation revealed traces of an earlier, unenclosed occupation on this site, as well as subsequent Roman-period use.

Gussage All Saints (Dorset, NGR: ST 998 101. Wainwright 1979): The Middle Iron Age (Phase 2) settlement at Gussage was continuous with the Early Iron Age settlement. During this phase, the enclosure ditch was redug along the original plan, and a second pair of antenna ditches was dug at the entrance. The entrance gate was reconstructed. The Phase 2 settlement filled up the western, eastern, and northern margins of the site, the areas that were left empty in Phase 1. There was almost no spatial overlap between the features of the two phases, suggesting that some of the earlier structures might still have been in use. A round house was constructed in the northwest comer of the enclosure, and traces of a second hut were recorded along the west edge. These features were very shallow, and it is possible that other such evidence of settlement has been destroyed by plowing. Artifacts from this phase included a small number of iron tools and bronze ornaments, bone tools, weaving combs, loom weights, spindle whorls, and a bronze balance-arm scale.

Faunal remains (N = 1666) were derived mostly from the pits, though a small number were recorded from the ditch and the palisade trench. Cattle and sheep were the most abundant species (NISP = 268 and 256, respectively), followed by dog (NISP = 120), horse (NISP = 47) and pig (NISP = 45). The small amount of age data provided indicates that most of the sheep and cattle were fully adult, but there was a small sample of very young animals; this information suggests (with caution) that there might have been some depletion of two­ and three-year-olds. Data on anatomical elements was likewise sparse, but suggests that representation was uneven: cattle bones were mostly meat-bearing long-bones (humerus, femur, scapula), while sheep bones are mostly non-meat­ bearing bones (radius, tibia, metatarsal). In this context, it is likely that these deposits represent butchery waste, with the meat stripped from the cattle bones before use, and the sheep disjoined (compare Winnall Down, EIA and MIA). The use of very old and very young animals for food, and the virtual absence of individuals at optimal meat age suggests that the livestock were bring bred at the site, but that meat animals were being sent out, leaving only older and younger (less optimal) animals for their own use. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the local meat supply was being supplemented by hunting. The only bone from a wild animal was a single fragment from a rook (Corvus frugilegus), probably a scavenger at the middens.

Nevertheless, despite the fairly modest evidence for settlement, Phase 2 at Gussage is notable for a large-scale industry in cast bronze chariot-fittings. The majority of this material came from Pit 209, a large cylindrical pit near the entrance that was apparently used as a trash dump for the metal-workshop area. The pit contained an extraordinary amount of debris, indicating production on an industrial scale: tuyeres, hearth-matrix fragments, bone tools for fashioning molds, iron engraving tools, numerous pieces of bronze and iron scrap, an ingot of tin-bronze, six-hundred crucible fragments (representing over thirty reconstructed vessels), and 7000 to 10,000 clay mold fragments, representing several hundred individual molds. The molds were all to make parts of the fittings for two-horse chariots, including bits, terrets, strap unions, and linchpins. Fittings of this type were high-status items, and would have been traded out from Gussage to elite individuals. It is remarkable that none of the actual bronze fittings were found at Gussage, despite complete excavation of the site. The terret-rings produced at Gussage were referable to the "Arras" ("Lipped"), the "Mill Plain", and the "Simple" types (Spratling in Wainwright 1979). Similar Lipped terrets have been found at Glastonbury (Bulleid and Gray 1911-1917: Plate XLIV), Hod Hill (Wainwright 1979), Bury Hill (Cunliffe and Poole 2000a) and Danebury (Cunliffe and Poole 1991 : Fig. 7.5). Simple-type terrets have been found at Danebury (Cunliffe and Poole 1991: Fig. 7 .5) and possibly at Hengistbury Head (Cunliffe 1987: Ill. 111). Such finds are very scarce; even in the large hillforts chariot trappings are a rarity, and there are no chariot-burials in the south

Two samples were taken for floral analysis, both from Pit 290, a cylindrical pit that lay outside the door of one of the huts. The sample represented two fill layers: Layer 3 72, a deposit of charred grain lying at the base of the pit; and Layer 3 71, which lay above it. Layer 371 yielded a total of 410 grains; of these, 353 (86%) were wheat (spelt with a small amount of emmer), fifty-seven (14%) were barley, and ten seeds were brome (2.5%)3 • Layer 372 contained 1835 grains, of which 69.2% were wheat (spelt with a small amount of emmer and bread wheat), 29.5% were barley, 1.3% brome, and one seed of Crepis capi/laris (smooth hawk's beard), a weed typical of grazed meadows (association Cynosurion cristati). Both layers included a quantity of secondary chaff, indicative of a crop stored in a semi-clean state. The absence of weeds precluded any further analysis of the growing

3The numbers as published exceed 100%; nevertheless, the error is not sufficient to alter the results

77

comparable to those in Yorkshire. It is nevertheless clear that such finds as have occurred were associated with wealthy sites and hillforts, as expected.

lithospermum arvense (mostly class Stellarietea mediae ). All grow in fertile, neutral-to-basic soils such as those at the site; all but Rumex are annuals. Agrostemma and lithospermum are autumn-germinating species, indicating a two-season planting schedule. The legumes might be evidence of fallowing and/or of an attempt to supplement the fodder supply.

The faunal remains for Phase 2 show a slight increase in the importance of sheep (MNI = 81) over cattle (MNI = 27) compared to Phase I counts; pig (MNI = 18) and horse (MNI = 7) were also present. The age data suggest that more cattle were kept until optimal meat age when compared to Phase I ; newborns were still present in large numbers, but there were a relatively small number of older adults. The age data for sheep were similar to those for Phase 1. An apparent decline in infant mortality is noted, but there is still a good representation of very young and old animals despite the emphasis on young adults. The pig age data show a similar decline in neonatal deaths. There were relatively few old sheep and cattle, indicating that dairy did not form as important a component of the site economy. Nevertheless, d pite the emphasis on meat production, the presence of so many newborn animals shows that stock were bred at the enclosure, and there is no evidence to suggest that stock were being traded into Gussage.

The floral and faunal remains from Gussage are interesting because they are generally indicative of a self-sufficient economy. Certainly stock-breeding was being carried out in the enclosures (banjo-enclosures have typically been identified with stock husbandry) and the floral remains were generally indicative of an arable economy. The only feature that distinguished Gussage from other small farmsteads was the spectacular deposit of metal-casting debris. It would be assumed that craft production on such a scale would be supported from outside, by the "clients" for whom the castings were produced, but there is no evidence for this at Gussage. It is possible that the casting work was seasonal, carried out during the lulls in the agricultural schedule. Nevertheless, it is notable that there was no apparent "return" and the bronze workers do not seem to have been profiting from their labor in a visible (material) way. There is no evidence that they were receiving food, nor was the site notable for imports or luxury items. A significant amount of other domestic labor (weaving and farming) was being carried out in addition to the bronze-working. (see also Gussage All Saints EIA and LIA)

There was no significant increase in the use of wild animals during the Middle Iron Age. Red and ro• \leer were hunted in small numbers; badger and fox would v ~ provided pelts. The bird bones contained the remains of d n ~sticduck (Anas platyrhynchos) and fowl (Gallus gal/us), ~ well as several species of wild duck (Anas penelope , Mel 1;tta nigra). The presence of crane (Megalornis grus) along with the ducks suggests that waterfowl were trapped in the nearby brook. Rook(Corvusfrugilegus), raven (Corvus corax), and buzzard (Buteo buteo) might have been drawn to the site to scavenge on the middens or to raid the poultry chicks· .:1icksand eggs were a likely attraction for the fox and badg .. as well. The hedge sparrow (Prune/la modularis) . d goldfinch (Carduelis cardue/is) indicate the presence l hedgerows or open scrub near the site.

Maiden Castle (Dorset, NGR: SY 324 377. Wheeler 1943, Sharples 1991a, Sharples I 991b): Maiden Castle is the largest and most complex of the Iron Age hillforts in Britain. It stands on a low rise known as Hog Hill, a few hundred meters north of the River South Winterbourne, a tributary of the Frome. In its final form the hillfort was trivallate, and encompassed eighteen hectares. It had entrances at the west and east, both protected by an elaborate maze of outworks.

Thirteen features from Phase 2 were sampled for floral remains. The sampled features were all pits, including several samples from different strata of the casting Pit 209. Several of the pits seem to have been storage pits and contained deposits of pure grain: Pits 215, 429, and 724 contained only wheat (mostly spelt with some bread/club wheat); Pit 351 contained only barley; Pit 439 contained only weed seeds; three other features (Pits 432,437 , and the lower levels of 209) contained a mixture of weeds and legumes (Viciafaba and V. tetrasperma). The grain samples included secondary chaff, indicating the storage of semi-clean grain. The upper layers of Pit 209 contained a large deposit of wheat with a small amount of barley, oats and brome mixed in, and no other weed species. The presence of brome in an otherwise clean deposit is indicative of its use as a food crop; nevertheless, the very small amount (Pit 209 is the only occurrence) implies that brome was not used in abundance.

The underlying structure of the Maiden Castle area is chalk, bearing high-quality arable soils but overlain in patches with argillic brown earths. Manorial maps show that this area was intensively farmed in earlier centuries, and surviving crop marks and lynchets show a similar intensity of use in prehistoric times, especially in the area just north of the hillfort between the South Winterbourne and the Frome. The site of Maiden Castle has been in use since the Neolithic, and the following phases have been defined: ►

Phases 1 and 2: a Neolithic causewayed camp,

incorporating some pre-enclosure features ►

Phases 3 and 4: a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age

barrow and possible occupation site ►

The identified seeds represent only a few species: Brassica, Atrip/ex patula , Rumex crispus, Agrostemma githago, and

78

Phase 5: Early Iron Age hillfort - a univallate structure on the eastern part of the hilltop,

bone fragments from Phase 6 contexts , of which 4507 (approximately 40%) could be identified to species . The great majority of these were of sheep (NISP = 3009 ; 67% of identified sample) ; the remainder were ofcattle (NISP = 950 , 21 %) and pig (NISP = 405 , 9%) , with only a small number of horse and dog bones (NISP = 72 and 66 respectively).

encompassing 6.5 hectares ; the fortification reused the ditch line of the causewayed enclosure ►

Phase 6: Middle Iron Age hill fort - extension of the hillfort to its present form, tripling its interior size ; two additional ramparts were added and the original (inner) rampart made higher , and the entrance mazes constructed ; evidence of dense occupation in the interior

The age data for the sheep showed that a large proportion (c. 60% based on tooth-wear analysis survived into older adulthood (5+ years). A large percentage (25% based on tooth-wear) came from very young or newborn animals , but a relatively small number of the remains (c. 20%) were at optimal meat age. The cattle bones show a similar age pattern . It is possible that sheep and cattle were being sent out to supply other sites with meat. The pig bones showed a typical meat -production profile , with most animals killed off by the end of their second year ; the number of sucklings was reactively small , suggesting an emphasis on maximizing the efficiency of meat production.

►

Phase 7: Late Iron Age hillfort - contraction of activity to the eastern part of the fort, just inside the east gate ; the inner rampart was refurbished , though the outer ramparts were left in disrepair

►

Phase 8: Early Roman - not characterized ; possibly a continuation of Late Iron Age use or a small Roman occupation

►

Phase 9: Late Roman/ Anglo-Saxon - construction of a Romano-Celtic temple ; later used as a Saxon burial ground

►

Phase 10: Medieval - furrows indicate extensive cultivation of the hilltop , and possibly a small occupation

The sheep were notable for the number of pathologies present , especially deformities of the teeth and jaws indicative of nutritional stress (Sharples 1991b: 151; Richardson et al. 1979). The analyst suggested that this was the result of overstocking and insufficient fodder , especially during the winter months . Malnutrition would reduce the herd's output of meat and wool , as well as its fertility.

This analysis will focus on the Middle Iron Age (Phase 6) occupation. Most of the trenches of the recent excavations were concentrated in the central and western parts of the site in the area of Middle Iron Age use, and Phase 5 and 7 remains in this area were negligible 4. Phase 6 was the most intensive period of occupation at the site, and its remains dominated the features and collected samples.

There is little indication , however , that this stress affected the meat supply. Sheep and cattle were being kept in large numbers into old age rather than killed systematicall y at meat age. Moreover , there is little evidence for hunting to supplement the diet. Wild species are represented by only three deer bone fragments (excluding antler) and three bones of hare in the whole of the Iron Age assemblag e.

Although a relatively small portion of the interior was excavated , magnetometer survey showed that the interior was densely filled with pits and features , organized into sectors separated by "lanes" . This arrangement is similar to the interior plan of Danebury (see below). Moreover , pits excavated both in the 1940s and the 1980s proved to be very large in capacity. The overall picture of Maiden Castle in the Middle Iron Age is one of dense settlement and large-scale storage . There was also significant evidence for industrial production in this period , including bronze-casting , iron smithing and weaving . Iron, bronze , salt, and some types of pottery were imported into the site, possibly via Poole Harbour (cf. Hengistbury Head) .

Samples for floral analysis were taken from a stratified random subsample ( I 0%) from four conte xt types , defined as follows: Pits (including pits associated with structures , nineteen contexts ; for contents see Sharples 1991a:Mf6:A 2-3): The pits were the most abundant samples , both in terms of seed volume and in species diversity . Grains represented in the pits were barley , emmer , spelt, bread/club wheat , and oats (probably cultivated oats; see Helbaek 1952). Spelt was the most abundant species . The deposits from the pits were similar in content - mostly weed seeds and chaff . Of the total 6127 fragments from these contexts (for lists, see Mf6 :B4ff), 2720 (44%) were secondary chaff(glume bases , spikelet forks , and intemodes) and 3167 (52%) were weeds. Only 240 fragments (4%)were grain kernels , indicating that the deposit derived from cleaning activities rather than storage.

Fauna) remains were collected from a 50% subsample of all context types. This subsample yielded approximatel y 11,000

4

Although the Wheeler excavations were concentrated on the eastern (EIA) area of settlement , significant floral and fauna] data were not presented in that publication.

The weed flora were dominated by the spring-germinating annuals , especiall y Stellaria media and Chenopodium sp.

79

(class Stellarietea mediae). There was little indication of stress: perennials , weeds of marginal soils and nitrogenous weeds were scarce, indicating that fertility was fairly high. There was also very little evidence to indicate fallowing-only a small number of grassland species and nitrogenous plants. There was evidence for autumn sowing , however, in the presence of Galium aparine and a large amount of Bromus, generally weeds of autumn crops.

The analyzed floral samples derived primarily from waste deposits-chaff and weeds cleaned out of the crop during final processing. Most of the chaff was secondary, indicating that it derived from the final cleaning of semi-clean grain stores rather than the initial cleaning of a newly-harvested crop . It should be noted that there were numerous large "storage"type pits at the site , but that none of these fell into the area under recent excavation (cf. Wheeler 1943).

In sum , the evidence from the pits indicate a healthy arable economy based on the chalk soils . Crops were sown in the spring and autumn , but there was no significant evidence of stress in production. Since the pit deposits contained almost entirely waste products , it is clear that these were midden s and not storage facilities. That the edible weeds (Chenopodium , Bromus, etc.) were found in the waste deposits is evidence that they were not needed as supplemental food resources.

It is also notable that the weed flora of Phase 6 is indicative of production on optimal soils . Although there are localized patches of heavier and more acidic (i.e. more marginal) soils in the area, no weed species partial to these soils turned up in the samples to indicate their use. Moreover , as the analysts point out, cultivation was associated with soils and weeds typical ofard cultivation (C. Palmer and M. Jones in Sharples 1991b: 139), and none of the species that compete well in the more intensive plow cultivation of heavy soils ( especially Centaurea cyanus, Agrostemma g ithago and Anthemis cotula) were present.

Linear features (gullies and ditches ; see fiche Mf6:A2): Two samples were taken from these contexts , Contexts 6497 and 6510. Fragments totaled 197, of which six were grain kernels and 123 (65%) were chaff. The remainder was weeds , primarily Bromus and Chenopodium . These samples were similar in character to those in the pits, and support the same general conclusions .

This image of abundant arable production is in contrast to the evidence for stress in the fauna! remains. The availability of arable resources might have been one reason that the apparent nutritional decline of the herds had not yet resulted in a decline in the meat supply. Danebury (Hampshire, NGR: SU 324 377. Cunliffe 1983, 1984a, 1993; Palmer 1984; M. K. Jones 1985; Cunliffe and Poole 1991): Danebury is a small hill fort in Hampshire , located on a chalk rise bounded by the Rivers Test and Anton and the Wallop Brook . The site is roughly circular in plan , about 300 meters in interior diameter , enclosing an area just over five hectares. In its present form , the site has three main ramparts , with an additional length of bank-and-ditch surrounding the southern edge. The main entrance is on the east side and is defended by an elaborate homwork; a linear dyke extends eastward from the entrance for nearly a kilometer , and is bounded at intervals by smaller enclosures.

Occupation layers (Period 6 Contexts 5263, 6380, 6382; see fiche Mf6:A2): A total of 941 seeds were obtained from the dwelling floors. Of these , 565 (60%) were chaff and twentysix were grain kernels , and the remainder were weeds. The primary weed species were Avena , Bromus and Chenopodium, supporting the general conclusions reached above. It is notable that again oats and brome were waste rather than food crops. Other extensive features (soils layers , banks and chalk spreads not included in the above categories ; ten contexts , see fiche Mf6:A3): These contexts yielded a total of 590 fragments , of which 50 (8%)were grains and 398 (66%) were chaff. The weed flora were similar in character to the above samples.

Danebury is arguably the most extensively-excavated hillfort site in Britain 5• Excavation at the site was carried out over a twenty-year period , from 1969 - 1988. In all, some 57% of the interior was excavated , at the entrance , along the rampart edges , and in a broad swath running north to south across the center. In addition , 25% of the interior has been designated an "archaeological reserve" - an area of comparatively wellpreserved stratigraphic deposits that is to be kept free of trees and burrowing animals, and not subject to excavation for at least fifty years. The remaining 17%, at present under timber , has not been designated.

The floral samples from the Middle Iron Age features at Maiden Castle are indicative of a healthy arable economy , with fertile soils and little evidence of depletion. The presence of a small number of grassland and nitrogenous species might be evidence of fallowing , but not on a large scale (cf. Micheldever Wood , above). The lack of stress is also attested by the seeds of oat and brome found among the waste deposits; if these resources were required for food, they would not have occurred in the waste deposits in such abundance . Nevertheless , the large number of species included in the deposits suggests that the production was not entirely local , and that Maiden Castle was receiving grain grown by the surrounding farmstead settlements (see Section 3.2.2).

5

A possible exception is Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire , which has been excavated nearly in its entirety, but has not yet seen significant publication (Dixon 1977, 1988).

80

that the unexcavated areas would have shown that a similar density prevailed throughout the interior space. The interior of the hillfort in the Early and Middle stages also shows a clear organizational plan. A surfaced road led from the east gate to the southwest gate, effectively cutting the interior into two zones . The southern zone was largely residential in character , with houses, storage pits and four-posters throughout ; many of the houses had been rebuilt , attesting to the duration of occupation. The northern zone was more complex , with houses and storage pits located around the periphery near the rampart , while the central area just north of the road was apparently reserved for storage and held a very dense assemblage of storage pits and four-posters.

A small number of Neolithic worked flints and potsherds mixed into the Iron Age deposits at Danebury indicates early use of the hilltop , probably for flint-mining. A small undisturbed flint-working site was discovered outside the ramparts during the 1987 season , as well as some flints in the turfline sealed by the ramparts. No other primary features of this early date have survived the extensive Iron Age disturbance of the hilltop. Bronze Age activity is indicated by a Beaker-period burial located within the central excavated area, and by a hoard of bronze implements , including razors , axes, chisels , pins, a spearhead, and a rapier , all dating to the seventh and sixth centuries BC (Cunliffe 1984a:II:337) . In addition , early radiocarbon dates ( circa seventh century BC) derived from some of the pits suggest that a small Bronze Age settlement may have preceded the Iron Age occupation.

Preservation of animal bone at Danebury was quite good and a total of 241,530 fragments was recovered for all stages . Most of these fragments came from the pits, postholes and trenches , but a small number was recovered from deposits that built up behind s the ramparts. 152,325 (63%) of the fragments could be identified .

These traces notwithstanding , systematic occupation of the hilltop dated to the Middle and Late phases of the Iron Age, specifically the period between about 550 BC and AD 50. This Iron Age occupation has been divided into four stages, termed Early, Middle , Late and Latest. These stages have been correlated with ceramic phases (based on the site stratigraphy) and chronological (radiocarbon) dates in the following manner: ►

Early Phase Ceramic Stages I -3 (550 - 450 BC)

►

Middle Phase Ceramic Stages 4-5 (450 - 300 BC)

►

Late Phase Ceramic Stages 6-7 (300 - 100 BC)

►

Latest Phase Ceramic Stages 7-8 ( 100 BC - AD 50)

The Early and Middle stage deposits yielded a total of63 ,837 bone fragments . Sheep were by far the most abundant species represented in this sample , totalling 14,983 fragments (56% ofNISP ; MNI = 313, 63% of domestic MNI) . Cattle were the next most abundant (NISP = 5590 , 2 1%; MNI = 69, 14%), followed by pig (NISP = 3956, 15%; MNI = 82, 16%) and horse (NISP = 731, 3%; MNI = 20, 4%) . Sheep bones were not only the most numerous overall , but also the most ubiquitous . All element s of the skeleton were represented and there was no evidence for the depletion of specific body parts. The age profile was consistent with the broad utilization of sheep : about one-third of the animals died before the end of their first year (includin g a large number ofnewborns) , about one-third were killed at optimal meat weight, and the remaining one-third were kept for four or more years and in some cases as many as eight years . It was noted that the neonates were not used for food since their skeletons were intact and not butchered ; this high concentration of newborns on the site is an indication that ewes were brought back into the enclosure for lambing and not left out at pasture. The kill-off pattern is consistent with the maintenance of a self-sustaining population , and the use of the stock for breeding , milk, meat, dung and fleece. This reliance on sheep-herding is consistent with the chalkland surroundings of the site, which is generally covered with dry grassland and lacking abundant sources of water.

The Early and Middle stages, which correspond roughly to the Middle Iron Age , will be discussed in this section. The Late and Latest stages will be discussed below, in the Late Iron Age section. The earliest part of the rampart system at Danebury was probably the outermost (the "outer rampart") , a narrow ditch that formed more of a demarcation than a defensive barrier. This ditch had a small opening on the west side, and a larger opening with outturned terminals on the east. That this ditch might have enclosed a palisade or some other form of Late Bronze Age occupation is suggested by the discovery of the bronze hoard . The "inner rampart" , which opened to the east and southwest , was constructed in the Early Stage (ceramic periods 1 - 3). By the end of the Middle Stage the inner rampart had been rebuilt and a hornwork added to the southwest gate . An additional rampart (the "middle rampart") , enclosing only the southern arc between the gates , was added at this time.

Compared to the sheep, the cattle account for only a small part of the bone assemblage. Nevertheless , they were present throughout the site and in all types of features , rivalling the sheep in ubiquity . As with the sheep , there was no significant depletion of bone elements and no particular concentrations of food or butchery waste. The data for ages at death is not as evenly distributed for the cattle as for the sheep , instead representing a bimodal distribution with a relatively large number of young deaths (especially neonates) , and then only a few deaths until the animals reached four years or more.

Features of all kinds were densely represented throughout the excavated areas at Danebury , and it is reasonable to assume

81

(duck , goose , widgeon , teal and goosander) , some of which might have been from domesticated individuals , and a large population of scavengers, especially raven. All the species are represented in the local area , but none represent a significant economic component.

This pattern might signify that some animals were culled for meat while the majority were kept for milk , manure and traction, or it might indicate that the site was sending meat out for trade or distribution (cf. Maiden Castle). The cattle would have been more laborious to keep than the sheep, since they would have had to have been led down to the meadows along the Wallop (2 km distant) or the Test (3.5 km) for adequate grass and water . Depressions within the interior of the hillfort, which might have been dewponds , would also have supplied water for the herds.

The profile of the domestic livestock is indicative of successful husbandry . Dependence on sheep optimized the local terrain , which was dry and of poor quality , but more distant local resources (woods , water meadows) were well within the range ofuse. The livestock represented a balanced economy of meat , wool, dairy, manure , and labor , and despite the young age of the pigs there was no significant evidence of stress. The remain s of the wild animals bear out this conclusion - the lack of wild fauna as a significant portion of the fauna! remains indicates that hunting was not an activity necessary for supplementing the available food supply.

Pigs were the least abundant of the livestock , though not significantly less abundant than the cattle . In common with the sheep and cattle , there was no significant loss of bone elements and no strong evidence of activity areas . The age data for the pigs is somewhat different from the usual pattern of pig mortality . Nearly halfofthe pigs were killed during their first year (about half of these as neonates). Most of the remainder were killed before reaching full maturity , and only a very few survived to old age . The very high number of neonates precludes the possibility that pigs were being bred elsewhere and brought into the site for meat. The nearly complete absence ofindividuals at or above optimal meat age suggests that pigs were being sent out from Danebury as meat supplies to other site or that there was some stress in the pigkeeping economy. It is possible that Danebury was supplying pigs to other sites as part of a redistributive system, but it is not particularly likely. Unlike cattle and sheep , pigs cannot easily be herded and driven , and they do not like to walk long distances. Pigs are also inexpensive to keep and they breed rapidly, so it unlikely that farmsteads would need to rely on an external supply to maintain their stock. One likely reason for the depletion of pigs at Danebury is the decline in readilyavailable woodlands near the site; charcoal burning , timber cutting for house and rampart construction and intensive sheep and cattle grazing would all have contributed to the depletion of woodland. It may be, given the abundance of sheep and cattle and the high value of timber , that there was no economic sense in optimizing the pork supply. The downward trend in both the age and the number of the pigs continued into the Late Iron Age (below).

Floral remain s were also abundant at Danebury . In the first ten years of excavation floral samples were collected on a judgement basis from context s that seemed rich in seeds and charcoal (including many "pure" grain deposits ). In 1978 a strategy was implemented to collect a 10% random stratified sample of all contexts , though pure deposits continued to be collected whenever encountered (Cunliffe l 984a:483 ; Cunliffe and Poole 1991 :439). Data for the floral analysis were presented from fifteen layer and pits contexts of early- and middle-phase date (Cunliffe 1984: Table 56). Preserved seeds were most abundant near the entrances and in features in the west and south districts (Cunliffe and Poole 1991: Figs. 9.8 and 9.9). The sampled contexts were quite numerous , and the published species analysis defined a representative sample and not the entire database (Cunliffe and Poole 1991 :439). The quantified species data show that the Danebury floral deposits were dominated by seeds and chaff of cultivated grains . Of the total 4353 seeds and fragments counted , 2736 (63%) belonged to cultivated species. The main crop represented was wheat (nearly entirely spelt with only a small percentage of emmer); the secondary crop was barley. Chaff was associated with each of these contexts , sometimes in great quantities . In each case the chaff was from secondary cleaning , indicating that the grain reached the site in a semiclean state, and that primary cleaning took place elsewhere.

Very few bones of wild animals were found at Danebury. In the Early and Middle phases only 782 (or just under 3% of the identified assemblage) belonged to wild animals . Red and roe deer were represented by only a handful of fragments each (NISP = 13 and 6, respectively) , though antler from both species was a common resource . In addition , there were forty-one bones of badger , all from three contexts , and 182 bones of fox. Both animals will inhabit the edges of human settlement, and both are pests, raiding for eggs and chicks as well as refuse . Although fox and badger have high-quality pelts and deer supply meat , there is no evidence of systematic hunting of any of these species , or that they formed a significant economic component.

Based on the relative abundance of grains , chaff and weed seeds in each sample , the contexts could be divided into three types (cf. also M. K. Jones 1985, Cunliffe 1984a:493-5):

storage deposits: dominated by cereal grains with a relatively small percentage of chaff and weeds ; especially samples 450 , 514, 1098, and ? 1022. Samples 554 , 1048 and 1109 may also belong to this group , but the samples were so small (N = 16, 12 and 13 respectively) that little can be said for certain .

In addition to the mammals , there were 484 bird bones , deriving from eighteen species, in the Early and Middle phase deposits . The species represented included edible water birds

82

6.3.5. Late Iron Age

secondary-cleaning waste: dominated by weeds and chaff with only a small amount of grain; especially samples 1012, I 060 and 1131. Sample 1012 was especially rich in chaff , and 1131 was especially rich in weed seeds; it is likely that they represent different activities within the cleaning cycle.

Gussage All Saints (Dorset , NGR: ST 998 101. Wainwright 1979): The Late Iron Age (Phase 3) settlement at Gussage continued to make use of the circular enclosure ; nevertheless , the ditches were not recut or cleaned out as in earlier periods , and the arrangement of features within the enclosure bore no relationship to that of the earlier phases. Two subsidiary ditched and gated enclosures were built within the main enclosure , along with a number of smaller ditch or fence lines. There were 184 pits associated with this phase and fifty-three burials , but no structures have been identified.

household waste: the remaining samples ( 1031, 1045, I 092 , 1101, 1058, and? l 022) are characterized by having no clear dominance of any component , but are composed of roughly equal amounts of all three. It is likely that these derive from the sweeping of house floors and other debris of household use rather than a component of the grain-cleaning process (Cunliffe 1984a:492).

The domestic artifacts from Gussage were similar to those from earlier phases: pottery , quems , weaving tools (spindle whorls, loom weights , weaving combs) , bone and iron tools , and a large number of bronze fibulae. There is a notable amount of bronze-casting debris from Phase 3 features , mostly associated with Pit 857 (located near the Phase 2 Pit 209) ; this indicates some continuity of metalworking in this quadrant of the site , though the scale of production is much less than the Phase 2 industry.

Nearly forty species of weeds were included in the seed assemblage. Half of the species were characteristic of the chalky soils around Danebury , or were colonists of calcareous arable land (for list see Cunliffe 1984a: Tables 56 and 58). Most of these arable species were annuals of fertile soils, attesting to the health of the Danebury farming system. Both spring- and autumn-germinating species were present (including large numbers of Galium aparine and Bromus seeds), indicating a two-season cropping strategy . Nitrogenous weeds (clovers and vetches) were present only in very small quantities , suggesting that there was no systematic effort of fallowing or nitrogen replacement of the arable.

The faunal remains from Phase 3 were characterized by a sharp decline in the number of pigs (MNI = 17) and a corresponding increase in the number of cattle (MNI = 56). Sheep were still the most abundant species (MN I = 1 I 5). The decline of pig-keeping might have been a result of the progressive clearance of forest attendant upon large-scale metallurgy.

Further evidence for the lack of stress in arable production is the absence of edible weeds and famine foods in the storage samples. The largest collections of these species (including species of Bromus , Avena, Chenopodium and Papaver) were associated with the cleaning deposits , indicating that these weeds were not preserved for food use.

The age data for the livestock suggest that the age at death of the cattle had declined somewhat. Although neonatal mortality seems to have declined , continuing the trend seen in Phase 2, the proportion of yearlings is somewhat higher . This pattern is apparent among the sheep and pig remains as well, suggesting that the meat-production economy is under some strain: the supply of two- and three-year-olds was apparently not sufficient to maintain the meat supply , possibly because the pressure on the fodder supply caused a decline in fertility , or because the stocks were reduced to increase arable (see Section 3.3. l ). Nevertheless , the age profiles were still indicative oflivestock breeding at the site, rather than trade of animals from outside , and one deposit (Pit 61) even contained the skeleton of a cow that had died while calving (Wainwright 1979: 156).

In addition, there were two smal I groups of weeds not associated with fertile chalk-based soils (see Cunliffe 1984a: Table 58). The first is a group of weeds characteristic of wet ground (especially Mentha sp., Ranunculus repens, Carex sp., Poa sp. and Eleocharis sp.). All are present in very small numbers, with the exception of Poa, which makes up nearly 5% (N = 122) of sample 1012. With the exception of Carex all are characteristic of basic soils, and may indicate the use of croplands along the damper alluvial soils nearer the rivers. The second anomalous group is a group of plants characteristic of acid soils , especially Carex and Rumex acetosella. Both can occur on acidic wet soils (such as riverbanks) ; Rumex can also grow on dry acidic soils but it cannot grow on chalk. M. K. Jones (I 985 and in Cunliffe 1984a:488-9) notes that such ecozones occur in the Danebury catchment, especially along the rivers, but in no immediate proximity to the hillfort. Thus , the occurrence of dampground species , particularly those that prefer acid soi Is, might indicate the presence of crops at the site that had been grown at some distance away (M. K. Jones 1985). (see also Danebury LIA)

Floral remains were collected from forty-three features dated to Phase 3; most were pits , but also included were a gully section and several postholes. Spelt was again the most important crop, supplemented by only a small amount of barley. Oats and brome were present in relatively large quantities compared to earlier phases , as were legumes . There was apparently more mixing in Phase 3 deposits , and therefore characterizing the samples is more difficult. A small number of samples contained pure grain , and are considered to be storage features (wheat only- Pits 61 , 172,

83

position as the MIA pit, two small pits and a hearth.

476 and 518; barley only- Pit 23; both wheat and barley- Pit 60); two of these (476 and 518) were within the northern subsidiary enclosure, and the others were scattered throughout the main enclosure. Eight pits contained only weeds, and might be regarded as waste deposits (Pits 155, 290, 306 , 330 , 358, 367, 418 and 422); these were clustered outside the southern edge of the northern subsidiary enclosure or at the eastern edge of the main enclosure . The majority of pits had mixed assemblages of grain, legumes , oats, brome and weeds (Pits 45,139 , 288,302 , 328, 347,371,380,381 , 587 , 678 and 684); these showed no particular spatial associations. Only one of these features (Pit 45) was a mixture of brome and grain; the others were generally associations of wheat with brome , legumes , and mustard (Brassica sp). It is likely that these samples were indicative of both fallowing and two-season planting . The increase in legumes (mostly vetches , though including edible beans and peas) might signify fallow crops grown to replace the nitrogen in the soils ; vetches are also good fodder crops , which would have been useful given the stress in the livestock population . The inclusion of bro me is an indication that part of the spelt crop was autumn-sown , while the storage feature s which held no brome might represent spring crops. The mixed brome and grain deposit in Pit 45 is an indication that this weed was being used in some measure to supplement the grain supply.

The Phase 3 fauna from Nettlebank was derived mostly from the ditch sections, since there were few other features attributed to this phase. The fragments totaled 9299, of which 4172 (45%) could be identified to species. Sheep were again the most abundant (NISP = 1649, 40%; MNI = 70), followed by cattle (NISP = 1101, 26% ; MNI = 24) and pig (NISP = 538, 13%; MNI = 33). The relatively large MNI for pigs is due to the apparently disproportionate survival of mandibles (compared to other elements) in the deposits. There were a small number of horse and dog bones. The sheep remains were primarily from older animals (6-8 years old) , with less evidence of breeding and culling ; this suggests a change in the use of the site away from stock breeding to stock management. A similar pattern is seen in the cattle remains, though this is not a difference so much as an intensification of the earlier pattern . The age profile of the pigs remains is broadly similar to that of Phase 1, again representin g a meat source ; there were , however, fewer very young animals . Wild animals were better represented in Phase 3 than in Phase 1. The articulated remains of two foxes were found, both of which had apparently been skinned first; these were interpreted as votive deposits , though since fox are not edible there would have been no reason to disarticulate the discarded remains. Red deer was represented solely by antler fragments , and so represents a manufacturing rather than food resource. The remains of hare were found , along with several edible birds , including goose (Anser Anser or Anser albifrons) , red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) , pigeon (Columba livia), and several scavenger and raptorial species (kite , kestrel , jay , raven , starling). The goose and merganser are winter migrants, and the kite a summer migrant, attesting to multi-season use of the site. The merganser , however , resides near water and so would have been obtained at some distance.

In keeping with the Phase 2 data , the floral and fauna! residues from Phase 3 indicate continued stress in the productive economy , both as a shift to two-season cropping and a decline in the number oflivestock kept over the winter. (see also Gussage All Saints EIA and LIA)

Nettlebank Copse, Wherwell (Hampshire, NGR: SU 341 393; Cunliffe and Poole 2000d): Use of the Nettlebank enclosure continued through the Middle and Late Iron Ages. The enclosure and antenna ditches were dug during the Middle Iron Age (Phase 2; c. 3 10-270 BC). The enclosure ditch apparently followed the line of the Phase I boundary , and a gate was built where the enclosure opened out into the droveway corridor. Despite the effort expended to construct the ditch, however , there is no sign that the site was occupied at this time . Only one internal feature (Pit 275) could be attributed to this phase ; this was located near the back wall of the enclosure , directly opposite the gate, a location that might have been significant. No faunal remains were analyzed for this feature. Plant remains consisted mostly of wheat and barley chaff (primary and secondary) and common crop weeds, with very little grain.

Floral remains were collected from a number of pits , ditch sections and quarries. As with the Phase l samples , these were rich in grain, but contained mainly chaff (primary , secondary) and weeds . Barley increased in importance in all features ; one sample (from ditch section Fl55 /24) consisted of 82% barley grains, and probably represented the remnants of a clean grain deposit. The other samples , while rich in barley , were richer still in waste products . Oats were encountered in greater frequency in the Late Iron Age deposits , but there is no evidence that these were cultivated. In other respects these samples were the same as the Phase 1 deposits , in that they presented evidence of two-season planting and fallowing ; the soils were apparently fertile , but again with some occurrence of perennial weeds.

After the construction of the enclosure the site was apparently abandoned for 200-250 years. Reoccupation in the Late Iron Age (Phase 3, c. 100 BC-AD 100) involved reconstruction of the enclosure ditches. Although the Phase 2 ditch had been allowed to silt up, it must still have been visible because the new ditch followed its line almost exactly . Again there is no evidence of residential occupation ; features dated to this period include a large pit (Pit 276) located in nearly the same

The function of the Nettlebank Copse enclosure is uncertain . Unlike similar banjo-enclosures at Gussage All Saints and Micheldever Wood, there was no significant residential component. The remains at the site are fairly unremarkable ,

84

and fairly uniformly throughout the interior. There was a broad lane ( defined on the plot as an absence of disturbance features) that ran from the eastern gate across the enclosure to the western margin ; there might have been a western gate at this location , though more recent disturbance has destroyed it (cf. Hawkes 1940). Significantly , the survey prior to excavation did not pick up the (shallow) enclosure ditches later revealed by excavation , so the seeming absence of similar features in the remainder of the plotted area may be an inaccuracy in the scanning method rather than a genuine absence. Although a small number of the artifacts derive from common domestic activities (querns , loom weights , pottery) , there is a significant number that relate to woodworking (adzes , files, billhooks) and a notable number of horse and chariot fittings (bridle bits , terrets , linchpins , strap-links , cheek-pieces), suggesting a special purpose for the site.

and do not signify a ceremonial function as the excavator suggested - grains were subject to initial as well as final cleaning , and the animal bones are not characteristic of feasting residues ( cf. Section 2.2.6). At any rate, its function remained remarkably consistent over a long period of time, and considerable effort went into the maintenance of the ditches . It is possible that the site formed a component in a multi-part or multi-site strategy of niche exploitation involving the dry chalk uplands and the damper , heavier soils of the valley. (see also Bury Hill LIA, Danebury MIA and LIA , Houghton Down EIA, Nettlebank Copse EIA, Micheldever Wood MIA)

Bury Hill, Upper Clatford (Hampshire , NGR SU 346 436 ; Cunliffe and Poole 2000a): Bury Hill was excavated in 1990 as a part of the Danebury Environs Project , in an attempt to understand the role of the hillfort in the surrounding territory. Bury Hill is a small hillfort that lies some 7 km north of Danebury , commanding the valleys at the confluence of the Rivers Anton and Anna. The hillfort at Balksbury (Wainwright 1970a) lies only about one kilometer to the north on the other side of the Anna. The hilltop is made of chalk , covered with a layer of clay-with-flints ; the rivers flow through beds of gravel overlain with alluvium. Although the ground falls off steeply northward toward the Anna, the southern and western slopes are more gradual. Toward the east there is a considerable stretch of level ground before the downslope to the Anton Valley ; aerial survey has shown that this area to the east of the enclosure was densely settled as well , but it is not yet clear whether this settlement was related to the hillfort occupation or not.

Floral remains , sampled from the BH2 pits, reinforce this picture of non-domestic activity. The samples are characteristic of a consumer pattern- grain stored in a semiclean state, containing a mixture of grain, secondary chaff and weeds. The grains were primarily spelt and 6-row hulled barley, possibly with a small amount of emmer as well. The deposit was relatively clean of weeds ; those that remained were mostly spring-germinating cornfield weeds (Brassica sp., Atriplex sp., Polygonum sp.) ; autumn-germinating and nitrogenous weeds were scarce. Animal bone was not particularly well-preserved in the clay soils of the site. Of 5541 fragments recovered , only 966 (17%) could be identified to species. As a result , some of the smaller mammals (sheep/goat , dog and especiall y pig) were likely underrepresented. Nevertheless , the sample was notable for the very large proportion of horse bones - nearly 50% of the identified (NISP) sample , for an MNI of 64 animals. In comparison , cattle accounted for 16% of the sample (MNI = 25) and sheep for 33% (MNI = 40). The sheep tended to be relatively young , and very few old individual s were identified. The presence of very young lambs suggests that stockbreeding took place within the hillfort; the general absence of older individuals as well as the scarcity of weaving implements indicates that wool (and presumably milk) production were not carried out here. The age data for the cattle are similar , though there is a better representation of older animals ; breeding as well as milk production seem to have been components of the cattlerearing economy. The horses spanned a wide age range , from around 1 year old to about 15; there were no very young animals, ruling out the possibility of on-site breeding , and most died at 5-7 years old. The large number of canine teeth suggests that the majority were males.

The fort was constructed in two phases. The earlier phase ("Bury Hill 1") dates to the Early Iron age and consists of a single bank, probably reinforced with a palisade , enclosing an area of some 10 hectares. The site was refortified at the end of the Late Iron Age Gust at the end of the Danebury occupation sequence) by the construction of a substantial double bank; this new rampart ("Bury Hill 2") was built within the circuit of the older rampart and enclosed a smaller area , about 5 ha. The double rampart had a gate on the eastern side, and possibly another one opposite. Although excavation was limited to fairly small interior sections of each structure , magnetometer survey was made of the entire interior of both the inner and outer enclosures. Both the excavation and survey proved that the earlier enclosure (BH I) showed little evidence of disturbance and was never a site of residential occupation. Nevertheless , some effort was made to construct and then maintain the rampart and the substantial timber palisade. The excavated portion of Bury Hill 2 showed numerous pits as well as several small ditched enclosures. Evidence for structures within these enclosures , however , was not strong ; there was little structural daub in the deposits , and no postholes. There was also no significant evidence of auxiliary structures such as two- or four-posters. Magnetometer survey showed that pits were scattered densely

Evidence from both the fauna) and artifactual finds at Bury Hill make clear that the site served a special purpose ; however, the extent of excavation was really too limited to present a clear picture . The best evidence suggests that the hillfort was not a residential site oriented toward agricultural production - the crops were stored in a clean or semi-clean

85

twisted strands with loop terminals ; fragments of a gold torque made of six twisted strands with a plain disc terminal ; a silver-gold alloy handle attachment, probably made in northern France ; bracelets of bronze , shale and glass ; glass beads; bronze horse ornaments and bridle parts ; and coins (3326 Celtic (Durotrigan and Armorican) and I 07 Roman) .

state, having been processed elsewhere; the livestock were exploited for a relatively narrow range of uses. The best guess is that the site housed a small resident population, and functioned mainly for the rearing of sheep and cattle, and for the maintenance and ?training of horses. (see also Dane bury MIA and LIA, Houghton Down EIA, Nettlebank Copse ElA and LIA)

The large number of imported and high-status goods at Hengistbury testifies to the importance of the site as a trading post in the last century BC. In this connection , it is important to note the well-constructed road that ran along the beach and the efforts made to stabilize the shoreline for the loading of boats .

Hengistbury Head (Dorset, NGR: SZ 180 905 . Cunliffe 1987): The second significant occupation of Hengistbury Head took place in the Late Iron Age, just before the period of Roman contact. Two phases of this occupation have been recorded, designated "Late Iron Age-I" (circa 100 - 50 BC) and "Late Iron Age-2" (50 BC - AD 50) .

The small amount of fauna! remain s from Hengistbury fell mostly into the Late Iron Age deposits (N (LIA- I) = 66; N (LIA-2) = 245) . The great majority of these bones were of cattle (NISP (LIA-I) = 50; NISP (LIA-2) = 205) ; pig , horse , and red deer were represented by only a handful of bone s in each phase (see Cunliffe 1987: Table 43) . There was no evidence for young animal s among these bones , though this determination might have been biased by selective preservation of older (denser) bones in the acid soils. A number of the cattle molars fell into the optimal meat age range , but little can be said conclusively from this small amount of data. However , in the light of the grain evidence (below) , it is possible that Hengistbury Head was receiving livestock for consumption (or export?) rather than maintaining its own herds in the Late Iron Age.

Features of LIA-I date consisted of pits and quarries; there was some evidence for structures in the northwest portion of the site, but it was fragmentary and poorly defined. Residues in the features showed evidence in this period for saltmaking , and bronze- and glass-working . More important , some effort had been made to consolidate the shoreline to the northeast of the occupied area with a thick (one meter deep ) layer of gravel. Pottery from the LIA-1 occupation included locally-made crude and fine wares , along with vessels from southwest Britain ("Glastonbury" ware) , wheel-made pottery imported from Brittany (Armorica), and Dressel 1A amphorae from Italy (which probably reached Hengistbury via Brittany; Cunliffe 1987:309). These vessels were present in large numbers , accounting for a minimum of forty-one amphorae and 553 Armorican vessels.

The grain assemblage from both Iron Age phases included barley , bread wheat, emmer , and some oats (wild or cultivated) ; no information is given on the relative abundance of the cultivated species. Associated with the barley , emmer and oats was a quantity of secondary chaff, indicating that the grains were stored semi-clean ; bread wheat, which is freethreshing , would have been stored clean , and no chaff was found in the deposits . In common with the Early Iron Age deposits at Hengistbury , the Late Iron Age floral residues are mostly weeds and chaff, indicative of crop-cleaning waste rather than storage. The LIA-2 deposit , however , is more indicative of functional variety: several appeared to be of clean grain , and others were mostly waste , indicative of contexts that represent storage as well as middens.

The second phase of Late Iron Age occupation (LIA-2) was continuous with the LIA- I occupation, but was distinguished by the construction of a palisade defense that enclosed much of the excavated area . The palisade was rebuilt at least twice along similar lines; an entrance was located in the northwest comer and a road along the shoreline , paved in places with gravel, led up to the gate. Although little of the occupied area was included in the excavation , there was considerable evidence of manufacturing , including bronze- and ironworking, glass-working , salt-making , and weaving. The pottery assemblage from LIA-2 contexts was different from the LIA-I pottery. There was a sharp decline in the occurrence of Dressel I A amphorae and the introduction of Pascual I amphorae , signifying a decline in the importing of wine from Italy in favor of wine from Spain, perhaps necessitated by Roman disruption of the European trade routes. In addition, the imported fine pottery from Armorica was replaced by pottery from the west of France, and there was an increased emphasis on locally-made fine wares of "Durotrigan" origin.

Comparing the weed species , there were only small differences between the LIA- I and LIA-2 assemblages. There might have been a slight increase over time in the presence of scrub heath vegetation, indicative of deteriorating soils on the headland (Cunliffe I 987: Table 44) ; the area is covered with heathland scrub at the present time. There was a significant increase in heathland species over the Early Iron Age seed sample, indicating progressive degeneration of the local soils over the period of occupation (especially Calluna vulgar is, Genista anglica , and Ulex sp.; primarily association Calluno-Genistion). Further evidence of the deterioration of the soils lies in the appearance in the Late Iron Age assemblage of nitrogenous species and perennials that favor

There were also a number of luxury goods of Late Iron Age origin from Hengistbury that could not be attributed to a particular phase or feature. Most of these were obtained by earlier excavation (Bushe-Fox I 915) or by local collectors working the eroding coastline: a gold bracelet of three

86

enclosure near the gate, and this may have been the residential site of a small population. Finds collected include a small number of household goods, ornaments , tools , and weaving implements ; none of these goods are rare , but they indicate that the site was well-connected with the local routes that traded toward the coast (including an olive oil amphora from Spain). During this period also, the Phase I settlement on the eastern slope was abandoned and a narrow ditch was dug along the terrace edge, possibly to enclose livestock.

marginal and acidic soils (Genista anglica, Ulex sp., Cardamine sp., Veronica serpyllifolia, Rumex acetosella, Plantago lanceo/ata , and Eleocharis pa/ustris. Within the weed flora there is another group, representing plants of basic soils that are not tolerant ofacidity , especially the agricultural weeds Valerianella dentata, Rumex crispus, Polygonum /apathifolium, Chenopodium ficifolium , and Anthemis arvensis (orders Polygono-Chenopodietalia and Centauretalia cyani); and the grassland plants linum catharticum and Caltha palustris (class MolinioArrhenatheretea). It is unlikely that these plants would have grown on the acidic soils of Hengistbury Head ; it is more likely that they represent plants grown inland on the chalk soils, probably as arable weeds. This suggests that the crops consumed at Hengistbury in the Late Iron Age were grown elsewhere and were traded or brought in to the site. The bread wheat, emmer and barley, especially, would not grow well on the acid soils (though attempts to grow grain on the local soils in the EIA might be one explanation for the very rapid deterioration evident in the weed profiles). The oat crop would have been more tolerant , and might represent some local production . It is also notable (and this is true for both Early Iron Age and for LIA-I and LIA-2 samples) that nearly all of the arable weeds present in the Iron Age deposits are spring-germinating , indicating that the crops in this area were spring-sown throughout the Iron Age. In this connection it is significant that the crop plants do not include spelt, usually an autumn-sown crop.

The hillfort continued essentially unchanged through the Middle Iron Age (Phase IIB-D) . The ditched enclosure on the slope , however , became more substantial; settlement was again taken up at this site with the construction of two huts (Structures IA6 and IA7), and continued until the end of the Middle Iron Age (Structures IA3 and IA8) even after the enclosure ditch had filled in. In the Late Iron Age (Phase IIE-G) , an effort was made to refortify the hillfort ; a second bank-and-ditch was added along the east, west and south sides, and a homwork added to the main gate. The two hut sites on the slope continued to be occupied , and showed signs of having been rebuilt several times (Structures IA2, IA4, IA5, IA9 and IA 10). There was possibly also an additional area of settlement to the south of the excavated area , in use at the end of the Iron Age . A fragmentary dyke to the southeast of the site might have been part of a linear-dyke system linking Poundbury to Maiden Castle. It was also in the Late Iron Age that the eastern slope became a locus of burial activity , a function that would be the main use of the site in Roman and post-Roman times.

Finally, the abundance of emmer and the absence of spelt is puzzling: emmer , the most common variety of wheat in Bronze Age Britain , was virtually replaced by spelt in the Iron Age. The chalkland farmsteads in Wessex , sites such as Old Down Farm , Gussage All Saints, Winnall Down, Micheldever Wood , Little Somborne and Poundbury , which would be the type of site likely to produce grain for Hengistbury, were producing spelt and little or no emmer. One possible explanation is that the grain at Hengistbury were not only brought in from Britain but also from the Continent. Emmer was still grown in quantity in France and Holland during the Late Iron Age (Barker 1985) and might have fonned one component of the trade system that gave Hengistbury its importance. In this regard , it is significant that Hengistbury has yielded the first British record of Anthemis arvensis (com chamomile) , a common weed oflate prehistoric crops in Continental contexts , but frequent in Britain only after Roman times (Cunliffe 1987:324). (see also Hengistbury Head EIA)

As with Phase I, the Phase II floral remains were not analyzed by subphase . Nevertheless , most of the samples were derived from the pits and ditches , placing them within the Middle and Late Iron Ages, contemporary with the Phase 6 and 7 occupations of Maiden Castle. A total of sixty-four floral samples were analyzed , sixty-two of which contained identifiable remains. Nearly all of these derived from pits or gullies associated with the Late Iron Age occupation of the slope. The grains recovered at Poundbury were mainly barley and spelt, with a small amount of emmer and bread/club wheat. The wheats were apparently more abundant than the barley , but because of the very small number of grains per sample , there was no clear evidence of dominance. Some of the pits were apparently used for storage , as weed and chaff occurrences were low, and others were more mixed , indicating processing waste deposits. A similar pattern was evident in the house-floor samples , suggesting that some derived from grain-processing activities , while others were the result of grinding or food preparation. It is also clear that two stages of cleaning were represented : some samples contained only secondary chaff and weeds , while others contained basal and culm nodes characteristic of primary chaff (for a list of contents by feature , see Sparey Green

Poundbury (Dorset , NGR: SY 685 911. Sparey Green 1987): By the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition , the focus of settlement at Poundbury had moved away from the eastern slope and the river terrace and toward the hilltop. The univallate hillfort enclosure was constructed during this period (Phase IE/IIA). Although the interior of the hill fort has not been excavated , cropmarks indicate a small number of ?hut structures were located in the eastern part of the

87

1987:Mf5, 06-14; Mf6 , Al-12).

"ritual" deposits like many of the sheep infants).

At least thirty-five species of weeds were represented in the Phase II samples; however, only about half this number occurred with any frequency, including Bromus sp., Trip/eurospermum maritimum , Polygonum sp., Vicia sp., Lithospermum arvense, Stellaria media, Medicago/ Trifolium sp. and Galium sp. Nearly all of these weeds are of arable type, and most prefer neutral or basic fertile soils such as those which occur near the site (class Stellarietea mediae, especially orders Polygono-Chenopodietalia and Centauretalia cyani). Nevertheless, the common occurrence of Bromus and Galium indicates that part of the crop was winter-sown ; and the presence of nitrogenous species ( Vicia, Medicago/Trifolium) suggest fallow. The lack of perennials and the preponderance of weeds that prefer fertile soils argue for fallowing (including the likelihood of growing vetches and clover for fodder crops) rather than soil depletion. Finally , although brome occurred in large quantities, it was only in association with weeds and chaff and not contained in clean storage deposits ; thus it was being cleaned out as a weed and not reserved as a supplemental food, further indication of the lack of stress in the arable system.

The pig bones presented only a small sample for ageing , but they ranged from newborn to full adult. The horses were mostly adults , but there was evidence of two young individuals ( one yearling , and one two-year-old); this is relatively unusual, and contradicts Harcourt's assertion (in Wainwright 1979) that horses were rounded up from wild populations rather than bred in pre-Roman times (compare Chilbolton Down (Schadla-Hall 1984) and Meare East, below) . The age profile of the sheep indicates the use of the livestock mainly for meat, with no significant population maintained specifically for dairy or wool. There were sufficient newborn sheep to attest to breeding at the site , though evidence for the breeding of cattle is tenuous . In this case , it seems that the majority of the sheep were being kept until they had reached adulthood and been allowed one or two breeding seasons . Cattle , if bred at the site, were being maintained for secondary products rather than meat. This type of stockkeepin g is resource intensive , since it requires that a large number of individuals be maintained through the winter , and especially in the case of cattle , given supplemental shelter and feed (in this connection , note the importance of fodder crops in the weed sample). Attempts to reduce the cost of this strategy could account in part for the rise in the importance of sheep at the site between the Early and Late Iron Ages , since sheep can be kept in winter pasture with relatively little additional tending, . shelter or fodder. Economic specialization , specifically the production of salted meat, could be linked to the rise of Poundbury as the dominant regional site and a center of population and resource control. There are several lines of evidence that support this conclusion . The first is the age profile of the sheep herds , indicative of meat production. Many of the limb bones were found still articulated , suggesting the stripping of meat in quantity rather than daily consumption. In addition , briquetage vessels , both for salt-making and salt transport , were found in abundance at the site. And finally, residue analysis from a small number of Iron Age vessels showed traces of amino acids derived from animal proteins (meat) plus the presence of salt, indicating that the vessels had been used to store salted meat (Sparey Green 1987: 132 and Mf4:G9-13) .

The Phase II faunal sample consisted of 2849 bone fragments, of which 1734 (61 %) could be identified. The most abundant of these were the ovicaprids (NISP = 910 , 52%; MNI = 76, 64% of domestic MNI). Of these seventysix individuals, seven could be specifically identified as goats and five as sheep, suggesting that goat might have been more common at Poundbury than was usual (see Section 2.2.2). Cattle was present in much smaller numbers (NISP = 432 , 25%; MNI = 15, 13%), a reversal ofthe situation in Phase I. Pigs (NISP = 120, 7%; MNI = 14, 12%) and horse (NISP = 173, I 0%; MNI = 10, 8.5%) were present, though in fairly small numbers. A bone from domestic chicken (Gallus gal/us) was also identified. The ovicaprids ranged in age from fetal to adult, though the majority were adults around three years old ; there were apparently no animals of advanced age. This suggests that the emphasis in the use of sheep was on meat production . All elements of the skeleton were represented; however , many of the neonatal skeletons occurred as discrete burials , indicating that these individuals may have been natural mortalities or ritual offerings , but they were not used for food. In complement, the bones that showed significant signs of butchery were from fully adult individuals.

Wild animals made up only a small part of the assemblage , including red deer (MNI = 2), roe deer (MNI = 8), hare (MNI = 1) and several birds including mallard , wigeon curlew , gull and raven. The deer indicate the proximity of woodland (compare to EIA), though they might have been drawn to the site to raid the crops . Wigeon (Anas penelope) and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) would have been resident , especially in the winter , around the Frome and its marshes. Curlew (Numenius arquatus) and gull (Larus canus) could have been drawn in from the coast , especially in the winter , as scavengers ; raven would also have been a scavenger. (see also Poundbury E/MBA)

The age sample of the Poundbury cattle is really too small to be meaningful-of the fifteen identified individuals , only eight could be assigned to an age class. Of these eight , six were adults over four years old , one belonged to an infant, and only one to an individual at meat age. This sparse data set indicates a depletion of cattle at meat age. The single infant might represent breeding on the site or its vicinity (perhaps less visible because they were not contained in

88

Danebury (Hampshire , NGR: SU 324 377 . Cunliffe 1983, 1984a, 1993; Palmer 1984 ; M. K. Jones 1985; Cunliffe and

Wild animals form an even smaller proportion of the faunal remains in the later stages than they did in the earlier stages , totalingjust 1025 fragments , or just 1.4% of the total NISP. Red deer is better represented than earlier (NISP = 237) but still represents an insignificant contribution to the economy. Roe deer (NISP = 10), fox (NISP = 127) and badger (NISP = 1 1) were again identified in small numbers.

Poole 1991): The Late and Latest stages of occupation at Danebury were distinguished from the earlier stages by a large-scale reorganization of the interior space and by an elaborate restructuring of the ramparts. The inner and outer ramparts were once again rebuilt. The southwest entrance was closed off and the middle rampart was extended around eastward to form a hornwork defending the main eastern gate .

The assemblage of bird bones (N = 622 , or I% ofNISP) was again dominated by scavengers and waterfowl (Cunliffe l 984a:528-9 ; Cunliffe and Poole 1991 :480). It seems clear from both the wild mammal and bird remains that hunting was largely a pest-management strategy and that any economic benefit deriving therefrom was opportunistic.

Despite the closing of the southwest gate , the road across the center continued as the major thoroughfare, proved by the fact that it was resurfaced several times . This road system was elaborated in the later stages of occupation , with two additional roads crossing the southern zone and two roads paralleling the curve of the rampart in the northern zone. Residential occupation continued along the periphery of the southern rampart , but the remainder of the southern sector was given over to pits and to four-post storage structures arranged more or less in rows along the new roadways. The northern periphery also continued as a densely-occupied residential area , while the area just to the north of the main road held a series of ?shrines , storage structures , and a few possible houses.

The animal husbandry economy of Danebury in the Late Iron Age was essentially unchanged from that of the Middle Iron Age. Fauna) evidence depicts a self-sustaining economy based on specialization of sheep. The decrease in the keeping of pigs may be evidence of woodland depletion , and the corresponding formation of grassland would benefit the sheep herding . The modest rise in the use of cattle for meat is most likely a reflection of the loss of pigs for this purpose and not an indication of overall stress. Data for the floral analy sis was presented from eleven pit and layer conte xts from later-stage deposits (Cunliffe 1984a: Table 56). One of these conte xts, Pit 1078, was an especially large and rich deposit of carbonized grain estimated to hold 170,000 grains , 75,000 chaff fragment s, and 70 ,000 weeds ; it could not be sampl ed in its entirety and could only be subsampled (Cunliff e 1984a: Table 59). As noted in the earlier section , these tabulated samples represent only a small part of the collected floral database (Cunliffe and Poole 1991 :439).

Late- and Latest-stage fauna! remains totaled 164,395 fragments. Sheep were again the most abundant and ubiquitous species , accounting for 44 , 182 of the identified bones (62% ofNISP ; MNI = 1252, 72.5% of domestic MNI) ; this is a slightly larger percentage of sheep than in the earlier stages. The percentage of cattle remained roughly the same (NISP = 14,308 , 20% ; MNI = 189, 11%) , though the proportion of pig dropped slightly (NISP = 7500 , 11% ; MNI = 207 , 12%). The element distribution and age data for sheep are basically the same in the later stages as for the earli er stages and the trimodal age distribution of the earlier sample is repeated in the later sample.

Like the early-stage floral deposit s at Danebury , the late-stage deposits were dominated by domesticated species ; of the 2467 fragments tallied , 1630 (66%) were grain s, and the combination of grain and chaff accounted for 84% (N = 2071) of the total. The grains were primarily wheats ( spelt , with a small amount of emmer and some bread/club wheat) and some barley. Chaff formed a substantial component of nearly all samples (see below) ; in most cases , this was secondary chaff indicating the storage of semi-clean grain. The exception was the large Sample 1078, which contained primary as well as secondary chaff , indicating that at least some initial grain-cleaning took place on the site .

Continuity in use and management throughout the duration of site use also obtains to cattle husbandry , and the conclusions reached in the previous section continue to be true. The age data again present a bimodal distribution with kill-off peaks at infancy and old age ; there is however , a slight rise in the number of three-year-olds in the sample , indicating a slightly increased dependency on the use of cattle for meat. The importance of pigs in the Late Iron Age economy at Danebury is slightly less than earlier , and this decrease corresponds to the increase in the importance of sheep and cattle. The age data continue to show an increased emphasis on young animals and less evidence of older individuals. If access to woodland was a problem in the Middle Iron Age, then it can be expected that the problem was more severe in the Late Iron Age. The decrease in pigs and the corresponding increase in sheep may be an indication of the progressive depletion of woodland as the local timber resources were consumed , unable to regenerate in the shallow chalkland soils .

Using the criteria laid out in the earlier section , the samples were again characterized by their relative percentages of chaff , weeds and grain (M. K. Jones 1985; Cunliffe 1984a:493-5) . Only two samples could be identified as storage ; these were Samples 1974 and the rich Sample 1078. Only Sample 547 and possibly the very small Sample 458 could be identified as cleaning waste. The remainder were less well-defined , falling into the category of possible household refuse .

89

In common with Meare East and West (below), Glastonbury was characterized by an extraordinary number of wellpreserved artifacts , especially tools associated with textile and metal production. A partial list of recovered objects includes: 274 bronze artifacts (mostly personal ornaments but including some chariot and harness fittings); 109 iron tools (mostly agricultural; only seven items can be considered weapons) ; 56 querns ; 755 antler and bone tools (including a small number of ornaments , fittings and one dice box) ; 32 objects of Kimmeridge shale (most of them bracelets); 32 beads of glass and amber; and sherds from over 4000 ceramic vessels (an estimate based on proposed reconstruction). Evidence of textile production consisted of94 bone or antler weavin g comb s, 42 loom weights , 232 spindle whorls , and 70 wooden bars that might have been parts of loom frames. Bronze-casting artifacts included 3 7 crucible fragments, 13 fragments of casting waste , and 50 small objects of lead or tin (weights , rings , etc). In addition to these , the damp and tannic environment of the site allowed for the preservation of hundreds of wooden artifacts , including tools, vessels , wheel part s, plows, structural members from houses, and boats . It should be noted that despite the abundance of locally-made pottery (especially "Glastonbury Ware") there was no evidence for pottery-making on the site, either in the form of kilns or of wasters.

The weed flora from the later samples were similar in nature to the earlier samples. Most of the weeds reflect a healthy two-season arable economy, with little evidence of fallowing and a strong representation oflocal ecozones. The inclusion of small numbers of weeds characteristic of damp and acidic environments indicates continued use or access to the resources of zones along the river at some distance from the site itself. Nevertheless , the very large Sample l 078 showed some significant differences from earlier-stage samples. Although the sample was relatively clean , weeds made up 20% of the total assemblage. Nearly all of these weeds were seeds of the edible grasses Bromus and Avena , with a small addition of Galium. Moreover , while brome was common in the waste deposits of the earlier stages , it was not as common in the later , suggesting that this plant was being used as a food resource in later times. In addition , the preponderance of brome and the presence of Galium are indications that a significant portion of the crop was being autumn-sown. Although neither trend is proof of serious deficiencies in the arable economy at Danebury (especially given the lack of fallow and nitrogenous weeds), both are suggestive of increasing stress toward the end of the occupation of the site, and a need to increase productivity. If, as proposed, the grain was being supplied , at least in part, by the satellite settlements of the hill fort, then this is evidence of productive stress on the part of the producer sites, and possibly therefore evidence of a tribute or coercive relationship between Danebry and its satellites . (see also Danebury MIA)

Animal bones were present in large numbers at Glastonbury ; the largest concentrations occurred at the margins of the site outside the palisade--presumably a midden area--though there was also bone debris within and between the house mounds. It is unlikely, however , that collection was systematic or complete , and it is certain that the analysis was not:

Glastonbury, Somerset Levels (Somerset , NGR: ST 485 405. Bulleid and Gray 1911-1917 , Coles and Orme 1980, Coles 1992): Glastonbury was the first of the three Somerset "lake villages" to be excavated by Arthur Bulleid and Harold St George Gray. The site was discovered in 1892 following a deliberate search by Bulleid to locate British lake villages comparable to the discoveries made in Switzerland by Keller (Keller 1866).

"Remains are so numerous that it is impossible to indicate the total number ofindividuals represented. Several hundredweights of bones were gone through in the storehouse and in the Museum at Glastonbury , and a careful selection was made of the more striking varieties in the different species." (BoydDawkins in Bulleid and Gray 1911-1917:649)

The site was a crannog, a triangular platform approximately 1.5 hectares in area, built up from the marsh with wood and brush and capped with a layer of clay. The platform was surrounded by a wooden palisade that projected out on the eastern side to form a landing stage or pier for canoes. Water apparently flowed around the site on all sides and there was no dry land connection between the platform and the surrounding land, differing from the Swiss sites, which were built over the marshy edges of lakes .

Based on the comments of the analyst , sheep were the most abundant of the domestic species (probably by a significant majority) , followed by cattle. The animals ranged in age from juvenile to adult; no mention is made of newborns , but this might not have been considered a significant distinction. Pigs were "fairly numerous" , and ranged in age from sucklings to animals of breeding age. There was a small number of horses , all adults. The cattle and horse remains were primarily foot bones and skulls , an assemblage typical of hide-processing 6 •

Atop the platform were eighty-nine raised clay floors , the substructures of post-and-wattle houses ; the mounds were formed by the successive rebuilding of the clay floors necessary to combat subsidence. There were probably a total of twenty such structures in use at one time, representing the house compound s of five-to-seven family groups ; the population of the site was estimated to be about one hundred people (Coles and Orme 1980).

6

The peat bogs are a natural source of tannin . There were also deposits around the platform of willow (which was locally available) and oak (which was not , and had to be carried in); both are rich in tannin and were widely used in the medieval tanning industry .

90

The presence of a large number of sheep is interesting because the situation of Glastonbury is wholly unsuited to their maintenance. The nearest that sheep could have been kept would have been the Polden Hills , a few kilometers to the south of the site ; breeding away from the site enclosure could be inferred if there was an absence ofneonates , but this cannot be determined for certain with the present evidence . Cattle could have been grazed in the marshes and meadows near the site. In both cases , there seems to have been broad use of the livestock for meat , wool and dairy. Pigs could live well on the site , and the presence of sucklings indicates that they were probably kept in the house compounds . The relative importance of these resources (i.e. the ratio of younger to older animals) cannot be determined.

(especially Mounds V, XVIII , XXVII , LX , LXII , LXIV , LXV and LXX) yielded large quantities of seeds from what were probably household grain stores ; many of these deposits were contained in cache-pots , since the structure and dampness of the platform were not conducive to the use of pits for storage .

Ten species of wild animals were included in the Glastonbury assemblage. Together , however , they represented only a very small number of individuals . Red and roe deer were represented by quantities of shed antler , but only a small number of other bones . There were three tusks thought to belong to wild boar , but no other bones in the midden were referable to this species ; given the possibility that wild and domestic pigs were interbred , these teeth might have been a product of the domestic stock (see Section 2.2.3). It is clear that neither deer nor boar were systematically hunted or contributed a significant addition to the food supply. Other species represented were fox ( Vu/pes vulpes), wild cat (Fe/is sy/vestris) , pine marten (Martes martes), polecat (Muste/a putorius) , weasel (Muste/a niva/is), hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) , otter (lutra /utra) and beaver (Castor fiber) ; only the otter was present in significant numbers . Otter , beaver and hedgehog are all edible , but none is a significant food source. All except hedgehog would supply high-quality pelts. These animals would all occur near the site, either as inhabitants of the marshy environment (such as otter and beaver) , or as commensals and scavengers at the edges of human settlement .

Forty-seven species of weeds were also identified in the house-mound deposits . About half of these were plants associated with the local marshy and acidic environment (especially waterlilies , pondweeds , rushes , sedges and irises). The remainder were weeds of cultivation associated with drier , more alkaline soils ; these can be assumed (in the absence of more precise context) to be the weeds associated with the cultivation of the crops- Polygonum sp., Brassica sp., Stellaria media, Aethusa cynapium and Chenopodium sp. ; class Stellarietea mediae) . These plants are nearly all annuals ofalkaline to mildly-acidic fertile soils ; there was no significant percentage of perennial s or nitro genous plant s to suggest soil depletion or a fallowing regime. It is also noteworthy that there was no evidence in the seed assemblage of the common fall-germinating weeds Ga/ium aparine , Bromus secalinuslsterilis, Cerastium ho/osteioides or Veronica hederofo/ia 7• The immediate surroundings of the Glastonbury site were entirely unsuited to grain agriculture , being acidic and very wet , and crop s would have been grown at some distance ; in addition , this area was subj ect to widespread winter flooding prior to the larg e-scal e draina ge programs of the early twentieth century , precluding the plantin g of a winter crop.

In addition to the grain deposits , three fragments of "buns " or small bread loaves were recovered. These were made from a mixture of whole-grain wheat and barley , wild oat , brome and orache (Atriplex patu/a). According to the analyst , these were not leavened bread so much as a mixture of grain kneaded together with honey (Reid in Bulleid and Gray l 9111917:629; J. Renfrew 1973; Helbaek 1952).

In addition to the mammals , twenty-four species of birds were identified at Glastonbury . Nineteen of these were water birds , especially species of duck that would have inhabited the marshes around the site. The others were scavengers and raptors , drawn to the settlement by the middens and rodent s. The birds included both summer and winter visitors to the area , as well as species that dwelt there year -round , confirming that occupation at the site was full-time rather than seasonal. Some of these birds were found in abundance (especially Anas boscas , Cygnus cygnus, Pha/acro corax carbo, Fu/ica atra and Grus grus) , possibly indicatin g some degree of hunting for food or feathers ; others were represented by a few or even single bones , probably indicating incidental inclusion or opportunistic use.

The second seed assemblage was taken from the peat layers at the edges of the site , and reflected the wet and acidic character of the peat big. The species identified from the Iron Age deposits (see Bulleid and Gray l 911-1917:626) were virtually identical to those still growing in the area at the time of excavation , indicating the stability of the peat-bog environment over time . These species were also the same as the bog species found in the hou se mounds , indicating their common origin . The rich nature of the artifact assemblage and the construction of a canoe landing pier are sufficient evidence of a network of activity extending well beyond the confines of the site. In addition , the apparent absence of newborn cattle and sheep suggests the possibility that meat was being

The floral report divides the plant remains into two assemblages: plant remains associated with the house mounds , and plant remains sampled from the ancient peat layers at the fringes of the site. Domestic species were associated with the house mounds ; these consisted of bread wheat , barley and beans (Viciafaba). Several of the mounds

7

Although brome was present in small amounts in the buns , it was not repre sented in the seed deposits.

91

came there by accident and was probably the contents of a capsized boat." (Gray and Cotton 1966:380)

brought in. It is likely that grain was traded in as well; the excavated samples were all apparently clean storage deposits , and the weed flora characteristic of arable were not native to the site area. (see also Meare Village West LIA, Meare Village East LIA)

Twelve additional floral samples were taken in 1979 as a part of the excavations carried out by the Somerset Levels Project (G. Jones 1986). Like the earlier data , the samples were dominated by wheat (76%) , with some barley (21 %) and small amounts of oats (2%) and rye (1 %). The wheat was mostly spelt , but with a good percentage of emmer and a small inclusion of bread wheat. The immediate vicinity of Meare was not suitable for agriculture, but crops could have been grown on nearby Meare Island only 200 meters to the south.

Meare Village West, Somerset Levels (Somerset , NGR: ST 445 415. Bulleid and Gray 1948; Gray and Bulleid 1953; Gray and Cotton 1966; G. Jones 1986; Orme , Coles , Haseldine and Bailey 1981 ; Coles , Rouillard and Backway 1986): Meare Village West is one ofa pair oflron Age lake villages located on Westhay Common between the villages of Westhay and Meare, about seven kilometers from the Glastonbury site . The Meare sites were excavated by Arthur Bulleid and Harold St George Gray in the first half of this century , after they had completed their work at Glastonbury . Further excavations at Meare were undertaken by the Somerset Levels Project in the 1980s.

Chaff was abundant in only one of the barley samples (Sample 3398) , and scarce or absent in the others . In contrast , chaff dominated the wheat samples , with only one exception (Sample 509). This chaff was all from secondary cleaning processes , indicating that the grain had been stored in a semi-clean state.

Meare West , which preceded by a short time the occupation at Meare East (see below) , was located on a low rise in the Meare Pool. This body of water has enlarged since the Iron Age; at the time of occupation , the site was located midway (c. 200 meters) between open water to the north and dry ground to the south. As at Glastonbury, the houses were built on platforms of clay, packed down over the substrate of mud and brush to elevate them above the damp surface. Hearths were apparently located outside of the houses. Neither Bulleid and Gray nor Coles were able to discover structural traces, suggesting that the houses were lightly-built of hurdles , or were not in fact permanent structures.

Despite the wetland location of Meare West, damp-ground species made up only a small portion of the weed flora (especially Eleocharis palustris , Carex sp., and Scirpus sp.) The majority of the seeds belonged to arable-type weeds, especially Bromus secalinus lmollis (69% of the weed seed total) and including Chenopodium sp., Polygonum sp., Silene sp., Valerianella dentata and Matricaria perforata (class Stellarietea mediae , especially orders PolygonoChenopodietalia and Centauretalia cyani) . There was also a strong component of plants from neutral grassland , especially Poa, Festuca, and Phleum pratense (class Molin io-A rrhenatheretea).

In common with Meare East and Glastonbury , Meare West yielded an extraordinary quantity of finds, including 130 weaving combs , 216 spindle whorls , 224 bronze objects (mostly ornaments), 132 objects of iron (mostly tools , but with a few fittings and weapons) , 40 crucible fragments , 81 shale bracelets , 155 beads (one jet , five amber , the rest glass) and over 200 querns or fragments. The large number of weaving implements attests to the importance of textileproduction at the site, but metal- shale- and bone-working are also indicated.

The preponderance of chaff and weeds in the samples indicates that they represent cleaning waste rather than food stores , with the single exception of Sample 509, a deposit of clean grain (spelt and emmer in a ratio of about three-to-one) ; no chaff was included in Sample 509 , and the only weed inclusions were a quantity of Bromus mollislsecalinus. The very large amounts of brome in the waste deposits indicate that this weed was generally not kept as a food source ; nevertheless , its significant presence in a storage deposit (Sample 509) indicates that brome was occasionally eaten, or at least no strenuous effort was made to remove it. The presence ofbrome is also an indication that a part of the crop was autumn-sown. In addition to the carbonized grain, samples were taken to extract waterlogged grains from the features. This assemblage proved to be quite similar to the carbonized samples , yielding arable weeds and acid bog species (see Orme et al. 1981: Table 4) .

Floral remains were not collected systematically by Bulleid and Gray at Meare West ; the report on the excavations (Gray and Cotton 1966) notes that wheat (spelt and/or bread wheat) and barley as well as peas were found in large numbers, usually stored in pits or large pots. There was also a large sample of wheat discovered by accident: "When digging a narrow trench, hoping to intercept a causeway between the two villages [Meare East and West] , a layer of wheat was discovered on the surface of the peat at a spot midway between the two sites, and from a space of a few feet, four wheelbarrows were filled with grain. From its position in the peat , and the distance it was found from a dwelling site, we can only conclude that it

There was no systematic analysis of the fauna published in the first Meare West report (Gray and Cotton 1966) , even though correspondence between Gray and J. Wilfred Jackson (cited in Coles 1987 :231) makes it clear that such an analysis was intended . The publication (p . 408) notes only that "a

92

Meare East was excavated by Bulleid and Gray between 1934 and 1956, following completion of their excavations at Meare West, but the work was never published. Further excavations were undertaken by the Somerset Levels project, who subsequently published not only their own work, but also the excavation data compiled by Bulleid and Gray and held in the Somerset County Museum in Taunton (Coles 1987).

large quantity of mixed bones of domestic animals, mostly broken up small" were_associated with Mounds XI, XIII and XIV, and that horse bones were plentiful in Mounds II and VI. Remains of cat, otter, beaver and dog were also noted, none in great quantity. The bird bones were examined in some detail (Bate in Gray and Cotton 1966:408-410). In all, forty-five species were identified, of which twenty-seven were waterfowl, three were woodland game birds (moorhen, Gallinula phalaropus; black grouse, Lyrurus tetrix; and red grouse, Lagopus scoticus) , and twelve were marine raptors (Fam. Falconidae) and scavengers (Larus sp.). Several of the duck species were winter visitors to the area, confirming that the site was occupied all year.

As at Meare West and Glastonbury, Meare East contained nearly fifty clay platforms laid out to support the houses; the mounds were rebuilt numerous times to combat subsidence. The hearths, which were located in the center of the clay platforms, were also frequently rebuilt: Mound 13, for example, had sixteen superimposed hearth structures, and Mound 47 might have had as many as twenty-four. There was little evidence of structures and it is assumed that houses were insubstantial.

Fauna) remains from the later excavations (Orme et al. 1981) yielded a total of 1876 identified fragments, of which 1142 (61%) were from sheep , 442 (24%) from cattle, and 238 (13%) from pigs. The sample also contained a small number of dog and horse bones (NISP = 34 and 26, respectively), and bones of otter and birds (not identified). Sixty-three of the sheep mandibles could be assigned to age classes; thirtyseven (59%) of these belonged to individuals one-year-old or younger (including seven newborns) , eight (13%) were at optimal meat age , seventeen (27%) were between three and four years old, and only one was older. The small number of cattle specimens that could be aged mostly belonged to older animals, and the pigs were primarily at meat age.

The artifact list from Meare East is extensive, including 144 objects of bronze, 142 glass beads , 90 weaving combs, 150 iron tools, 45 shale bracelet fragments, 40 objects of lead or tin, 70 quems and 184 spindle whorls. There is evidence at Meare East for production of metals and possibly glass on a small scale, and textiles on a large scale. Together the three lake village sites contained over 600 spindle whorls, and 314 weaving combs (the majority of those known from Iron Age contexts in Britain; Coles 1987)8. Also , between Meare East and West there were the remains of some 70,000 pottery vessels (or 230 pots per year for the 300 years of occupation).

There seems to be considerable evidence for the raising of sheep for meat at Meare, including a high rate of infant mortalities. The scarcity of individuals over the age of four indicates that stock were bred for only a year or two before slaughter , and that little premium was put on the production of dairy (though wool, based on the artifacts , must have been of great importance). The depletion of animals at meat age (apparently also true for the cattle) suggests that livestock were being traded out to other sites. (see also Meare Village East LIA, Glastonbury LIA)

The cultivated grain sample from Meare East was similar to that from Meare West , both in species and variety. The wheats were the most abundant species (spelt with some emmer and bread wheat; about 90% of the sample), with some barley and a very small quantity of oats and rye. Unlike the Meare West flora , however, the Meare East grain had been cleaned; grain was more abundant than chaff (all secondary) and weeds made up only about 3% of the total. The weed species identified were Bromus secalinus /mollis, Galium aparine, Polygonum aviculare, and Rumex sp. There was also a small number of beans (Viciafaba) mixed into the grain; its inclusion in an otherwise clean grain sample suggests that it was relict from fallow. The presence of Bromus and Galium aparine implies a two-season planting schedule.

Meare Village East, Somerset Levels (Somerset, NGR: ST 445 415. Coles 1987; Levine 1986; Orme, Coles and Sylvester 1983): Meare East is the second of the two Iron Age sites located in a raised bog within the present-day Meare Pool. Settlement at Meare East began slightly later than that at Meare West, but both continued contemporaneously for most of their history, as attested by stylistic similarities and sherd matches between the two. Nevertheless, despite several efforts to locate a causeway both by Bulleid and Gray (Gray and Cotton 1966) and by the Levels Project (Coles, Rouillard and Backway 1986), there is no evidence that the sites were ever physically linked. There were also no artifacts, apart from the wheat spill, found in the cutting between the sites , which suggests that they were separated by water or some other barrier to foot travel and that communication between them must have been by boat.

Bulleid and Gray did not collect the animal bone in a systematic manner; rather, they noted the presence of various species in the field notes , and then collected representative samples for analysis. Their notes indicated that cattle and sheep were the most abundant species, and that the animals were "young" , but whether this means infant or juvenile/young adult is not clear. Pig and horse were present , but only in small numbers.

8

In contrast, the entire Danebury site produced 53 weaving combs in its Late Iron Age deposits (Phases 6-8).

93

A small number of bones (N = 1152) was excavated at this site by Michael A very in 1966 and identified by I. W. Cornwall ( cited in Coles 1987). Sheep made up the majority of these specimens (NISP = 473 , 41 %) , followed by roe deer (NISP = 269, 23%), cattle (NISP = 264, 23%), pig (NISP = 77, 7%) and horse (NISP = 22, 2%). The very large number ofroe deer bones is significant , and will be discussed below. Notes on the ages of the animals suggest that the sheep and cattle bones included all age groups , from very young to elderly. There were immature and elderly bones from horses , but none from very young animals; there were juvenile and young adult pigs, but none that were very young or very old.

In addition to the mammals , thirty-two species of birds were identified (for species list, see Coles 1987:231, 234) . Nineteen of these species were edible waterfowl (primarily duck species , swan and goose) ; these birds would have been quite common in the marshes around the site. The remainder included other water birds (heron, cormorant, ?crane , gannet and gull) as well as raptors who would have preyed on the fish and water birds or scavenged on the middens (eagle , buzzard , crow , falcon , kite) ; some of these were marine species , probably drawn in from the nearby coast during the flooded winter season . There were also a sma11number of woodland game birds (grouse , partridge). Most of the birds were year-round residents of the area , but nine species were winter visitor s, and attest to a winter (and therefore permanent) occupation of the site despite the high winter water levels.

It is notable in this assemblage that Cornwall notes two breeds of cattle-one the usual Iron Age "Celtic ox" type , and a second much larger species ; Cornwall also noted some larger-than-usual pig bones and some large dog/wolf teeth. This raises the possibility (not discussed by Cornwall) that some of the livestock were wild rather than domestic , and that the inhabitants of Meare East were taking in or hunting aurochs , boar and wolf to supplement their diet or breed with their stock .

The large numbers of young (especially neonatal) animals in all three fauna! assemblage s indicate s the proximity of a breeding population ; the stock may have been raised on the adjacent Meare Island . The generally young age of the livestock (comparable to the assemblage from Meare West ) suggests that both the sheep and cattle were being killed young (somewhat younger than optimal) , and the breeding stock were kept for only a short time. The use of wild animals for breeding and possibly to increase the stock , and the importance of hunting to the Meare East population , are further strong indications of stress.

An additional small collection of bones (N = 1092) was made during the excavations at Meare in 1982 (Levine 1986). The majority belonged to sheep (NISP = 710, 65%; MNI = 88; 54% of domestic MNI) , followed by cattle (NISP = 173, 16%; MNI = 31, 19%), pig (NISP = 180, 16%; MNI = 32, 19%) and horse (NISP = 19, 2%; MNI = 11, 7%). Age data were complied for this small sample on the basis of tooth eruption and wear patterns. These data revealed that the animals were mostly quite young: twenty-seven of the fifty sheep with preserved dentition were younger than optimal meat age (many of them neonates) , as were ten of seventeen pigs and seven of twelve cattle. There were also a small number of elderly sheep and cattle. Significantly, four of the eight horses were juveniles which were intentionally used for meat before they had reached draft age.

The three Somerset Levels sites can be regarded as a unit: they were linked by physical proximity, contemporaneity, and a common productive regime . Coles ( 1987) believes that the Meare villages might have been the sites of periodic meeting and ritual; this inference is based upon the apparent lack of permanent structures at Meare and the rich variety of the artifact assemblage. Nevertheless, the faunal data indicate year-round rather than seasonal occupation , and also that livestock were being bred at the sites (that is, maintained over time , and not brought in just for feasting). In addition , there were no large bone deposits that could be referable to feasting or large-scale butchery. On the contrary , it seems that meat-age livestock were being removed from the sites.

The 1982 sample was also notable in that many of the most durable elements (such as foot bones and teeth) were also the least well-represented, and that meat-bearing bones were the most frequent; this is in sharp contrast to the 1966 sample , where waste bones were predominant. The 1966 sample was co11ected at the edges of the settlement (Mounds 34, 35 and 36) while the 1982 excavations were in the central settlement area (Mound 19); it is likely that refuse at the center of the site derived from household use and disposal , while the edges of the site were used as middens for the initial processing , butchery waste and tanning.

A better explanation for the function of the Levels settlements might look toward the fen-edge settlements of Cambridgeshire - sites located to exploit a specialized ecological niche-or even to the trade sites of the Sussex Coastal Plain. It is clear that the locations of the sites were not suitable for farming , and that the inhabitant were not only farmers. They seemed to have instead concentrated on the production of meat , of wool textiles , and on the procurement of resources associated with the marshy environment waterfowl 9, otter and beaver pelts , and tanned hides. In return they received grain , pottery , and ornaments of bronze ,

Several species of wild animals were identified at Meare East in a11three excavated assemblages , especially red and roe deer , otter, beaver , and probably wolf , boar and aurochs. Most of these animals occurred in sma11 numbers , with the exception of roe deer -C ornwall identified 269 fragments of bone in the 1966 collection (23% of the total) , indicating systematic hunting of this animal.

9

In the Domesday survey , the Meare area is listed as a producer of fish and waterfowl.

94

glass and shale. Glastonbury LIA)

this period of occupation, indicating that the site was in a position to acquire such luxuries, perhaps by trading salt or salted fish. Apart from the bracelets, there were few artifacts from Brean Down that could be considered elite.

(see also Meare Village West LIA,

6.4. AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENTS IN WESSEX

SOCIAL

Although there were no other Late Bronze Age farmsteads included in this study, the settlement form is well-known in Wessex . Limited evidence available from such sites as Shearplace Hill in Dorset (Rahtz and ApSimon 1962), and Bishops Cannings Down and Dean Bottom in Wiltshire (Gingell 1992) reinforce this picture of local agricultural production. These sites were two-hut compounds with a range oflocal domestic artifacts (mostly pottery and stone), supplemented by a small number of bronze ornaments or tools. Their situation can be seen as similar to that outlines for the Sussex farmsteads of the same period-self-sufficient farmers, using the small surplus generated by their produce to acquire tools or commodities from a wider network.

6.4.1. the Early and Middle Bronze Ages There are good data for earlier Bronze Age settlement in Wessex, both through site excavation and through regional survey. Substantial stratigraphic remains from this period have been excavated at Brean Down and Poundbury, as well as at South Lodge and Down Farm in Cranborne Chase and the earlier occupation levels at Bishops Cannings Down in the Marlborough Downs (Barrett, Bradley and Green 1991, Gingell 1992). All of the settlements recognized for this period are located on the calcareous soils of the chalk and limestone.

Alongside the farmsteads of the Late Bronze Age were a small number of sites that did not function as agricultural producers. Examples in this study are the river-terrace sites at Aldermaston Wharf and Knight's Farm , and the defended enclosure at Ram's Hil1. The structural characteristics of Aldermaston Wharf and Knight's Farm are impossible to reconstruct due to damage caused both by acidic soil conditions and mechanized gravel-digging equipment. Pottery from the two sites was of relatively high quality and encompassed a range of types derived from a wide area. Grain from Aldermaston Wharf apparently derived from clean storage deposits, and the weeds included in them were characteristic of alkaline arable soils , indicating that Aldermaston Wharf (and probably Knight's Farm as well) was a consumer of grain. The location of the sites near the edge of the Thames and the richness of their artifact assemblage are reminiscent of Runnymede Bridge in Surrey. It is possible that these sites served a similar role in the trade networks of the Late Bronze Age.

Agriculture at Brean Down was based upon cattle- and sheep-raising and the cultivation of emmer and barley. Some diversification is indicated by small-scale pig-keeping , the cultivation of ?einkorn , and some fishing in the local area. Cultivation was apparently local, with evidence of fallowing and a two-season planting schedule. Middle Bronze Age deposits at Brean Down were essentially the same, except that einkom was replaced by spelt and fishing declined as a component of the economy in favor of domestic resources. The settlement was also apparently making use of its sea-side location to produce salt. The decline in the use of marine resources is an indication that domestic cultivation was sufficient to maintain the community at a comfortable subsistence level. Nevertheless, there was no evidence of extensive extra-local contacts at Brean Down in the Early Bronze Age. The data from Poundbury were similar to those from Brean Down. The settlement practiced a mixed arable and pastoral economy based on cattle, ?spelt and barley, supplemented by some sheep- and pig-raising. The notable feature of the Poundbury deposits is the collection of six butchered cattle carcasses. These carcasses most likely represent the slaughter of meat for salting and storage (several briquetage vessels were found at the site). Whether the meat was stored simply for winter consumption, or whether it was a commodity circulated in a ?reciprocal network cannot be determined. Similar evidence of stored salted meat (this time in the form of vessel residues) was identified in the Middle Iron Age assemblage from this site.

The Ram's Hill enclosure also contained a rich and diverse pottery assemblage. The very limited floral data indicate arable production at the site, and the .very limited fauna} data were strongly indicative of a meat production economy based on sheep and cattle. This emphasis on livestock production at Ram's Hill is significant, since it is the first evidence of a pattern evident in later in the Iron Age-that is, the association of wealthy sites with livestock , especially cattle, production (see below). Although Ram's Hill was not a particularly rich site, its pottery assemblage was indicative of extra-regional contacts , and the construction of its defensive enclosure can be attributed to a greater investment in labor than is evident at other sites of this period.

6.4.2. the Late Bronze Age Agricultural evidence from Brean Down in the Late Bronze Age is not significantly different from that of the earlier phases, again representing self-sufficient domestic agriculture. Two gold buffer-terminal bracelets , however , that were found eroding out of the site probably belonged to

The diversification of settlement sites, from merely local farmsteads in the earlier Bronze Age, to farmsteads plus special-purpose sites reflects the elaboration of social relationships from local reciprocity to a wider-range, possibly redistributive network. Sites such as Aldermaston Wharfand Ram's Hill seem to be drawing on a network that probably

95

greater ease of maintaining flocks in the dry grassland environment. Sheep age profiles for most sites (Old Down Farm is an exception) show a trimodal distribution of very young animals (neonatal deaths and early culls), young adults at optimal meat age, and older(usually 6+ years) animals kept for breeding , milk and wool. In contrast, age profiles for cattle generally show a bimodal distribution of very young animals and older animals (4+ years and more) ; although these older cattle were eaten (as shown by the frequency of articulated meaty joints in midden deposits), they were well past the ideal age for consumption. This suggests that cattle were valued more for dairy and traction than for their meat. Thus , only in sites where the food-production regime was under stress (eg. Gussage All Saints) were cattle specifically used to provide meat (cf. Hambleton 1999).

exceeded the range of local reciprocity. It is also likely that sites such as Brean Down, producing a valuable commodity and located on the coastline with access to Wales and Cornwall, participated in these networks.

6.4.3. the Early Iron Age The diversification of sites seen in the Late Bronze Age of Wessex is not continued in the Early Iron Age. The main fonn of settlement was the agricultural farmstead, usually enclosed and encompassing two or three huts and a number of pits and four-posters. The sites ofWinnall Down and Old Down Fann were characteristic of such farmsteads. Data from these sites indicated a shift from cattle-herding to sheep-herding and from the cultivation of emmer to spelt; barley remained an important cultivar in this area. This shift, which was also seen in the Southeast at this time, reflected a shift away from the more familiar Neolithic species to a more efficient program of cultivation better suited to the dry chalkland environment of southern Britain . The weed flora from Winnall Down and Old Down Fann were scanty , but were characteristic of local cultivation on chalk soils ; at neither site was there significant evidence of fallowing, but a small amount ofbrome in the sample from Winnall Down suggests that some increase in productivity was achieved by winter planting. Livestock economies were based on breeding sheep and cattle for meat and dairy. Both sites contained significant butchery deposits: cattle and horse bones (Pit 3111) and lamb bones (Pit 2431) at Winnall Down, and a deposit of eleven lambs and sheep (Pit 93 7) at Old Down Fann. None of these had the character of votive or ritual offerings , and instead can be regarded as butchery middens associated with the systematic processing of meat for storage. The Early Iron Age phases at Gussage All Saints and Hengistbury Head can also be regarded as agricultural fannsteads. Although these sites would have a significant productive and trade role in the later part of the Iron Age, there were no remains from the site in the early phases that indicated a similar function in the Early Iron Age. Nevertheless, the grain species at Hengistbury were unusual for this period-emmer, bread wheat and barley, but no spelt. Although the weed flora were consistent with local cultivation on acidic sands and gravels , the grain species (especially the emmer) were not. The evidence from Hengistbury (albeit slight) suggests that the site might have been trading shale bracelets and salt from grain grown on more productive soils, either locally or on the Continent.

Grain crops in the Early Iron Age are primarily spelt , with a smaller but important component of barley. This represents a decline in the importance of barley from the Bronze Age, and a virtual disappearance of emmer as a staple crop . Both barley and spelt are more tolerant than emmer of the cool and damp British climate, and both can be winter- or spring-sown. Significantly, the only site that shows diversification in the crop remains (bread wheat , barley , emmer and oats) is Hengistbury Head, a reflection of its wide trade contacts.

6.4.4. the Middle Iron Age

In addition to the fannsteads , the Early Iron Age saw the development of the first hillforts in this area; these hill forts were empty of residential occupation , and have been presumed to play a role (as in Sussex) of stock-breeding or periodic defense.

Agricultural production in the Middle Iron Age was again centered on the chalkland fannsteads. Sites such as Old Down Farm, Groundwell Fann , Winnall Down, Micheldever Wood and Little Sombome practiced spelt and barley cultivation , though in most cases some diversification can be recognized in the form of small-scale cultivation of emmer or bread wheat. All of these sites showed some evidence of fallowing (beans and fodder crops) and of winter planting. M. K. Jones (1995) notes that there is systematic evidence of nitrogen depletion at the later Iron Age sites near Danebury ; it can be assumed by this period that a rotation schedule had become part of the arable routine- a necessity for long-term cultivation on the easily-depleted chalk soils. Stockbreeding also took place at these sites, and the large number of neonates ( cattle and sheep) included in the deposits (especially at Gussage All Saints, Winnall Down and Micheldever Wood) is strong evidence that lambing and calving took place within the enclosures themselves. Nevertheless , there is significant indication at Old Down Farm, Little Sombome and Winnall Down that sheep were being sent out at optimal meat age. In contrast , most of the livestock population from Gussage All Saints and Micheldever Wood were at optimal meat age, but there is ample evidence for breeding at these sites as well, discounting the possibility oflocal reciprocity between them .

There is also strong evidence in Wessex for the beginnings of productive specialization in this period . The dominance of sheep over cattle in the livestock economy probably reflects the progressive depletion of woodland and the

Gussage All Saints is notable in this period for its production of fine bronzes , produced on a much larger scale than has previously been defined in southern Britain. Nevertheless , the site retained its agricultural occupation as well , though

96

The existence of a tribute system would also help to explain the peculiar situation of Gussage All Saints , which was apparently producing bronzes to the detriment of its farming economy, but not deriving any apparent profit. There might have been settlements, and perhaps Gussage is an example , that produced manufactured rather than agricultural goods for tribute, and that the power of the hill fort ( either social or coercive) was sufficient to maintain this production even under duress.

not without effort and some indication of stress. A small amount ofbrome was included in the grain to supplement the food supply, and more livestock were being killed at meat age, a short-term strategy optimizing the meat supply to the detriment of dairy , traction and manure resources. The Middle Iron Age is also the period in which hillforts can be recognized as true centers of population and economic control. Both Maiden Castle and Danebury, for example , were densely occupied by this period , and the artifacts found at these sites represent a wide range of local and distant contacts. The grain residues from these sites were also indicative of widespread influence. Spelt, barley and emmer were being processed at Danebury, but the weeds included in the waste deposits derived from both the local soils and from soils (especially riverbank soils) that occurred well beyond the expected arable range of the hillfort. The weed flora from Maiden Castle were characteristic only of chalkland soils, but the deposits included five types of grain , some of which (such as emmer and bread wheat) have differing cultivation preferences. The likely explanation is that part or all of the grain supply was brought into the hillforts from farming sites in their hinterlands. In addition, the hillforts consistently show a broader variety of grains-spelt, bread wheat, emmer, barley and cultivated oats-than their satellites. As at Hengistbury Head , it is assumed that this diversity is a reflection of their central role and the wide range of their contacts , rather than a diversified planting strategy.

Final1y, the conjunction of livestock production and social power evident in Middle Iron Age Wessex might be the key to explaining the enigmatic role of the Early Iron Age hillforts, and their precursors such as Ram's Hill. Early hillforts, though large in size, did not exert the same social and economic influence as the later hillforts. Nevertheless, many were clearly associated with livestock breeding, an apparent source of social power later in the Iron Age.

6.4.5. the Late Iron Age The tributary relationship between the hillforts and the farmsteads continued in the Late Iron Age without significant change. This period was notable , however , for the development of sites whose role was related more to trade and production than to agriculture. One such example is the emergence of Hengistbury Head as a center of trade with Continental Europe. Sites such as Hengistbury were the conduits through which the agricultural produce controlled by the hillforts was used to obtain goods from across the Channel. The Somerset Levels sites also fell into this category. All three sites were consumers of grain: the grain at Glastonbury was almost entirely bread wheat , which was quite expensive to produce relative to spelt and barley (see Section 2.1 .1); Meare East and West each had six species of grain (spelt , bread wheat, barley , emmer , rye and oats), indicating a wide and ecologically-diverse productive catchment. Livestock were raised at Meare East and West , and there is some evidence for depletion of animals at optimal meat age. In addition to the production of meat, the Lake Village sites were apparently producing hides, pelts , waterfowl and textiles (this last on a very large scale). Unlike at Gussage All Saints, however , there was considerable evidence that Glastonbury and Meare were profiting from their production: in addition to grain , the sites were receiving bronze luxury goods (including chariot fittings) , ornaments (bronze , glass , amber and shale) , iron tools, imported (Mayen) quernstones and fine pottery (mostly local) . Although much of the apparent richness of these sites was due to waterlogging , fortunate conditions of preservation cannot alone explain the high-quality , the abundance and the variety of this artifact assemblage. Coles' (1987) suggestion that the Meare sites were periodic tribal meeting places is not entirely satisfactory , but neither do these sites fit into the presumed tributary relationship of the hillforts and farmsteads. Furthermore, although the resources produced by the lake villages were useful, they were not so rare and specialized that the villagers could monopolize them to their

In contrast, livestock were being raised at the hillforts , and there is some likelihood that some are being traded out for meat. The livestock- economy at Danebury was apparently quite healthy , but there was some depletion of three-year-old cattle and it is likely that these animals represented a surplus that were being used to acquire elite goods. Sheep and cattle were also being produced for meat at Maiden Castle , though greater efforts were needed to maximize the meat supply. It is possible that the intake of grain and the outflow of meat from the hillforts represents the redistributive system traditionally associated with the role of these sites, but there is little evidence of any return of goods at the farmsteads. The farmsteads do not show the same diversity of produce , specializing instead in growing spelt and barley. The farmsteads also seem to be producers of1ivestock-especially cattle-exactly the opposite of the expected redistributive pattern. In fact, Winnall Down was left almost entirely without meat-age stock. There are two possible scenarios to explain this pattern: a domestically-oriented strategy of specialization wherein sheep provide the meat and cattle the traction; or an export-oriented strategy in which prime cattle were provided by the farmsteads to the hillforts , and which were then traded out of the territory to acquire high-status goods for the elites. Given the frequency of imports at the later hillforts and trading sites, a tribute system seems more clearly indicated. Strabo (IV.5.2) noted that grain , livestock and hides were among the exports of Britain , and it is likely that the hillforts controlled this supply.

97

advantage. However , one advantage that the sites did have was ready access through the Levels (especia]]y during the flooded winter season) to the Bristol Channel and the coastal areas ofWales and Cornwall. It is clear that Glastonbury and the Meare sites were linked to the hi11forts, both by the range of goods available to them , and by their proximity to the resources (such as tin?) of the western coast , but the precise relationship between them is unclear .

98

CHAPTER 7: Discussion and Analysis •

"The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. " -Karl Marx , Preface, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy ( 1859)

7.1. THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF SUBSISTENCE A discussion such as this must first begin by defending its premise: that the organization of society operates in a direct and measurable way on the organization of subsistence production. Modem archaeological theory has been wellsteeped in the belief that prehistoric human society was modeled to fit the requirements of its agricultural and/or technological production. The Paleoeconomists , accompanied by the human ecologists , viewed man as an organism ruled by the biological environment of which he was a part: •

dependent upon the local ecological environment and the technologies required to exploit and adapt to that environment. Nevertheless , it was noted above that strict functionalism has been particularly unsuccessful in modelling changes that were not technological in origin , such as the transition from simple to complex societies or the changes in settlement and procurement associated with increased complexity - topics that form the basis for this paper. Therefore , this study rejects the functionalist view in favor of the opposite stance: that is, social organization is not merely a reflection of the technological capabilities of a society; rather the function of the productive economy and any changes in its organization is to facilitate the order of society. It is important to emphasize that post-Mesolithic humans did not live in a "natural" environment , an environment whose geological and biological characteristics constrained and directed human subsistence. Even at the hunter level , a society has to choose among different resources: " .. .the economically productive activity of the hunter is initiated and directed by the system of social relations in which he is involved , which determines the constituents of the environment that are to be valued as resources and the rationality of their exploitation." (Ingold 1981: 120)

"Thus , the primary goal of environmental archaeology should be to define the characteristics and processes of the biophysical environment that provide a matrix for interaction with the social systems , as reflected , for example , in subsistence activities and settlement patterns. The secondary objective .. .is to understand the human ecosystem defined by that systemic intersection .. .It is within this human ecosystem that earlier communities interacted spatially , economically , and socially with the environmental matrices into which they were adaptively woven." (Butzer 1982:6-7; also, see Higgs and Jarman 1975:2 ; Jarman , Bailey and Jarman 1982:4 , 5)

By the time that agriculture was well established , modification of the environment from its "natural" state was quite profound : new species were introduced , predators (of humans , livestock and crops) were driven off, local biodiversity had been greatly restricted , and the maturation and reproductive cycles of both animal and plant species had been altered. The subsistence role of deer is a good example of this change. Deer were a significant resource in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Britain, providing meat , hides , and antler. Progressive clearance of the woodlands for arable and pasture after the Neolithic , however , moved most of the deer population away from the farming settlements. By the Bronze Age there is little evidence of deer in the fauna! remains of most British sites, even though farmers went routinely to their habitats to collect shed antler. Moreover , deer who were drawn to the settlements were a nuisance and could do great damage to the growing crops . This transformation of deer from a valued staple resource to an agricultural pest was not due to the changing biology of deer, but to a change in human subsistence organization that increased the value of cultivated resources over hunted : "All those features which distinguish the domestic animal from the wild one (whether biological or behavioral) stem not from the

To the Processualists , the humanistic aspects of culture were subordinated to the "ecological" - meaning the relationship between the natural environment and man's technological adaptation to it: "The artifacts is no longer seen solely as an object with an importance of its own, but as a mediator between man and his surroundings. The various cultural subsystems-economic , political , religiousare seen in relation to each other and to the biophysical environment." (Watson , LeBlanc and Redman 1971 :89) Thus, to scientific

archaeology , social relations were

99

evolutionary dynamics of the animal but from those of human society" (Ducos 1978:54; also Barker and Gamble 1985b; Clark 1953, 1975, 1976; Miles 1981; Gamble 1981; Renfrew I 97 4 ). In fact, large amount of effort and resources could be expended in circumventing the restrictions of the "natural" environment. Long-distance trade- for flint, for metals, for luxuries like gold and amber- represents an attempt to supplement for social and/or technological reasons the resources not available in the local environment. The ancient Middle Eastern states used irrigation to make the desert into productive cropland - surely one of the most extreme examples of a fabricated productive environment. The incentive to invest and maintain the labor that produced this artificial landscape was the desire for productive security . Agriculture is a collective enterprise , dependent upon shared labor and resources , and vulnerable to annual climatic variation . Cooperation between individuals or communities are the means by which capital costs are diffused and risk is mitigated (Ellis 1988, F. E. Green 1908, Dahlman 1980, Halstead and O'Shea 1982, Spielman 1986). Once the agricultural productive system has been established (and by implication, the local environment has been altered in ways not easily reparable) , continued subsistence is dependent upon a continuation of this cooperation and on the social relations that maintain it (Gamble 1981, Bradley and Hodder 1979, Meillassoux 1972). It is in this way that social and economic institutions become intertwined and ultimately inseparable , and that economic resources become the means by which social complexity can be achieved (Renfrew 1974, Hastorf 1983, Fleming 1985, Service 1975). Having asserted that the social order is the mediator of subsistence, the task at hand is to describe how such influences can be "measured". It has been the purpose of this study to relate excavated assemblages of subsistence data to models of social relations , and now these models must be applied to the definition of social forms. The models described in Chapter 3 all form components of the primary concern of this study: the use of agricultural data to elucidate social organization. Although agricultural residues are not themselves the kinds of artifacts associated with status differentiation, they were ultimately the currency by which such goods were acquired , and control of their production made the acquisition of such goods possible. The models are defined specifically in terms of the expected patterns in the floral and faunal remains . At the lowest level (Sections 3 .1 through 3.4) these models define production strategies rather than social relations: a producer site can be a small farmstead such as Winnall Down or a highly-centralized hillfort such as Danebury , but in both cases the identification of production is defined by the depletion of meat-age livestock. It is the specific techniques of measurement that are laid out in these sections. The implications and intersections of these "measurements" form the basis for the socioeconomic models- reciprocity (Section 3 .5), redistribution (3 .6) and tribute (3.7). Evidence for reciprocity , for example, appears as a combined producer /consumer strategy based upon local produce , whereas tribute can be defined as a consumer

orientation based upon the acquisition of goods from a broad area. Combined again, these socioeconomic models are the components of a third-level model, the definition of decentralized and centralized production strategies:

7.1.1. A socioeconomic model of decentralized production A decentralized economy has two main characteristics : a non-hierarchical social organization , and an absence of resource specialization. In the terms of the above models, such an economy would be defined by a diversified strategy (Section 3 .4) of self-sufficient production (3 .1, 3 .2), engaging in reciprocal exchange (3.5). If it can be argued that a specialist economy requires a centralized social authority to regulate it, then a decentralized economy can be considered a means of maintaining localized autonomy. Because such a community is a self-sufficient producer , it will necessarily pursue a diversified production strategy. The community will fonn part of an economically and socially undifferentiated landscape populated by other communities like itself , each producin g what it needs and not relying on the flow of goods within the region to supply it with necessities . It is, however , very likely that the community will participate to some extent in a network of regional reciprocities resulting from kinship (exogamy), proximity , community fissioning , or niche specialization (Fleming 1985, Murra 1980, Arensburg and Kimball 1948, Rees 1968, Lewthwaite 1985).

7.1.2. A socioeconomic model of centralized production Compared to a decentralized economy, the model for a community participating in a centralized economy can be represented as a specialized producer (Section 3.4) producing a surplus of a specific resource (3.3) to feed into a redistributive (3.6) or tribute (3.7) system. Such a community would function within a hierarchical landscape , in which the productive communities clustered around an administrative /political center. This central site would mediate and regulate the flow of goods within the territory and would organize any reallocation of resources made necessary by variations in annual productivity ; within the production network it would function as a consumer (3.4). While the productive strategies of the communities in a decentralized system will look broadly similar, those in a centralized system can be very different from each other. Communities will most likely specialize in different resources (on a regional basis) , depending upon their location and their access to ecological resources. Finally, the models of decentralized and centralized economies can be applied to the definitions of social relations- specifically , the recognition of tribes and chiefdoms. This paper will adhere to these familiar and serviceable (no pun) tenns on the grounds that they are ubiquitous and more intelligible than the alternatives that have been proposed. There has been surprisingly little

100

agreement among archaeologists about the meaning of these terms· the history of this debate has been chronicled at length by other authors (e.g. Earle 1991, Yoffee 1993, Gibson and Geselowitz 1988, Trigger 1989), and is not necessary to tread that ground again. In brief, it had been hoped that sufficient analysis and comparison would make it possible to define a suite of characteristics that would distinguish these social forms from each other, in a precise and mechanistic way that could be applied across cultures (Peebles and Kus 1977, Earle 1991). Renfrew ( 1974) even went so far as to make a list of twenty characteristics that had to be present to identify a chief, like so many steps on the way to a merit badge. Nevertheless, in a seminar on chiefdoms held at the School of American Research in 1988 (Earle 1989, 1991), participants were able to agree on only two characteristics that were consistent with the data across their respective areas: ►

chiefs control a centralized polity with a population that exceeds the immediate ties of kinship, and

►

the social and economic status of chiefs is heritable-that is, ascribed rather than earned.

Beyond those two observations, the attributes of chiefs could differ: redistribution vs. tribute , militaristic vs. theocratic , group-oriented vs. individualizing. A wide range of sociopolitical arrangements and socioeconomic behaviors could be called "chiefdoms", and so any definition would have to be regional in scope (Feinman and Neitzel 1984, Earle 1991). As discussed earlier , unstratified soc1et1es maintain a decentralized pattern of production. Polities are small, and are responsible for their own subsistence on a local basis. Although there will probably be some degree of intersite cooperation, both for reasons of affinity and to increase efficiency, this cooperation would neither be institutionalized nor maintained over a wide area. If these ties broke down, whatever the social ramifications , the economy could continue essentially unimpaired. For these reasons , decentralized production can be associated with tribal societies. In contrast , centralized production systems require a centralized political structure to maintain and regulate the system, and vice-versa; they can therefore be identified as chiefdoms. The risky strategy of specialization establishes the dependence of the satellite producer on the center ; the loss of economic autonomy and the tenuous position of being dependent upon a restricted range of goods reinforces economic and therefore social dependency (see Section 3.4), and it is this dependency that defines and sustains unequal social status. Whether the dependency originates through ritual prestige, economic access or physical force , in a very few generations the productive system of the satellite becomes so altered that it cannot extricate itself by any but catastrophic means. Indeed, in such a situation the organizing role of the center becomes essential to the subsistence of the satellite, which would have the greatest possible interest in maintaining the relationship for as long as its needs are met.

7.2. A SOCIOECONOMIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT IN BRITAIN

OF

Turning to the data from southern Britain, it is clear that t~e three regions studied were not identical in their social development. The Eastern Counties exhibited the greatest degree of diversification and can be considered to be tribal throughout later prehistory, perhaps tending toward a greater degree of complexity at the end of the Iron Age, but never reaching that state of regional integration that would constitute a chiefdom. There were no sites in this region prior to the Late Iron Age that could be considered central or elite; there was no evidence for more than reciprocal resource circulation. The frequency of special-purpose sites, especially sites related to the exploitation of fen resources , cannot really be regarded as indicative of specialized production: the evidence from Haddenham indicates a local group taking advantage of the varied resources of their environment , and the Fengate sites (until the Late Iron Age) could only be regarded as components and not separate and autonomous communities. The construction of Burgh (for whatever purpose) and the permanent nature of Cat's Water, especially when coupled with the consumer orientation of the other floodplain sites of this period (West Stow , Little Waltham, Maxey) might be evidence in this area of a greater tendency toward centralization in the form of specialized production and possible cooperative action based o~ ritual or redistributive incentive , but could not be considered a transition to a chiefly organization. In contrast to the Eastern Counties , the data from the Southeast exhibit a greater level of regional integration. Specialization is evident in this area by the Late Bronze Age , both in the form of low-level intensification of produce (barley and spelt) and in the form of special-purpose sites such as Runnymede Bridge , whose catchment may have exceeded the extent of local reciprocal obligation. The role of the early hill forts in this social and economic elaboration is unclear, but by the Late Iron Age the hillforts have clearly taken on a centralized function. The redistributive role of the hillforts can be illustrated indirectly by the grain residues at Copse Farm, which was a consumer of grain from over a wide area. Whether the relationship between the hillforts and the farmsteads was also redistributive , or whether specialized trade and production sites like Copse Fann occupied an intermediate position in an otherwise hierarchical society cannot be determined. The Wessex region has yielded the best database of the three regions under discussion , and the analysis is consequently more sophisticated. The fannstead sites show a steady trajectory toward specialization , starting in at least the Late Bronze Age. The mainland Neolithic pattern of farming that emphasized emmer , barley and cattle gave way to a more locally efficient emphasis on spelt and sheep. Cattle become important for providing manure and traction rather than meat, and at most sites (Gussage All Saints is an exception) the economy is productive enough that this resource

101

specialization does not seem to affect the stability of the food supply . This type of resource specialization is seen, weakly , in the Southeast, but is wholly absent in the Eastern Counties.

this approach in shedding some light on the larger issue of social development. The method has proved helpful in several areas.

Wessex farmstead settlement also differs from that of the other two regions in that it is denser (ie, a higher density of population at any given time) and that it is long-lived. In the other two regions, multi-period sites are relatively scarce (only Bishopstone and Maxey among the sites in this study ; see Appendix 3). In Wessex , continuous occupation over hundreds of years is common (Brean Down, Gussage All Saints, and Winnall Down/Easton Lane are all good examples). In part, this might be a reflection of the productivity of the environment and its resistance to degradation. One factor has to be the density of settlement , which limited the potential for movement. Boundary features in the landscape , such as the linear ditch system, would have further inhibited mobility and solidified the spacial , as well as the social and economic, relationships between sites. Resource specialization , stability of settlement, and boundary features are all parts of the feedback loop that fostered and maintained progressive social differentiation.

The brief synthesis of the British data provided in the last few paragraphs (in conjunction with the lengthier discussions that conclude each chapter) indicate that the model has proved quite sensitive to regional and intersite variation. This variation is the main indicator of differing production strategies - the means of distinguishing producers from consumers , reciprocity from redistribution , and so on . For the British data, this variability can be seen both between sites and between regions. In the Eastern Counties for example, the economic reconstructions of the Haddenham sites were quite different , even though the enclosures were located only a few hundred meters apart ; in Wessex, the enclosed farmsteads of Winnall Down and Micheldever Wood appeared to be nearly identical in structure and topography, but there were notable differences in their livestock economies. On the regional level, it is clear that the evidence from the Eastern Counties , which is consistently indicative of decentralization and localized reciprocal relationships , differs significantly in all periods from that of Wessex , an area in which centralization of production is evident from at least the Late Bronze Age.

In addition to the farmstead settlements , special-purpose sites are evident in Wessex by the Late Bronze Age ( Aldermaston Wharf , Knight's Farm and Ram's Hill). Although their role in this period is not clearly defined , they seem to be involved in the exchange of elite goods and imports. Evidence for this trade becomes clearer in later prehistory at sites such as Hengistbury Head and Glastonbury. The social and economic role of Early Iron Age hill forts in Wessex, as in the rest of southern Britain, is not well defined; their construction implies an increasing social hierarchy, but these sites do not exhibit the gravity to draw toward themselves the resources or populations that centralization implies. By the Middle and Late Iron Age hillforts have clearly taken on a central role, and evidence from Maiden Castle and Danebury suggests that they had gone beyond redistribution, exacting tribute from their hinterlands, even to the point ofinflicting productive pressure on them. Nevertheless , Hengistbury Head and the Somerset Levels sites seemed to have enjoyed a more favorable relationship, even as Copse Farm did in Sussex at this period. These apparent differences in social and economic status might be the result of the extraordinary preservation at Glastonbury and Meare. On the other hand, it is possible that these sites , located in areas accessible to major trade routes , were bound to the centers by a different pattern of social interaction (that is, redistributive or client rather than tributary) than the farmsteads.

7.3. ASSESSMENT It was hoped at the outset of this study thatthe socioeconomic approach would help to clarify changes in agricultural organization in southern Britain during the Bronze and Iron Ages, and that the case study would illustrate the utility of

It is significant that this variation is expressed in usage patterns- weed flora, livestock ages , etc.- rather than in resource choice. With few exceptions , the food resources of southern Britain were spelt, barley, emrner , sheep, cattle and pigs. There was even some broad uniformity in the relative importance of these species . The consistency of resource choice through time and across regions makes it possible to eliminate from consideration the ecological factors and focus instead on the social. The sensitivity to variation inherent in the models can also be used to highlight changes in the "progress" of social development. For example , it has been observed that for prehistoric Europe as a whole , periods that exhibit strong regional integration (such as the Late Bronze Age and Late Iron Age) alternate with periods of apparent regional autonomy (such as the Middle Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age). Such "setbacks" in the development of social complexity are evident in the artifact and settlement records from southern Britain as well- the Late Bronze Age pattern suggests contacts that exceed the scope of local reciprocal relations (especially at Runnymede Bridge , Aldermaston Wharf and Ram's Hill), while the Early Iron Age data are indicative of strictly local production. Nevertheless , the supposedly "decentralized" Early Iron Age in Wessex (especially) , and to some extent in the Southeast , is also a time of progressive resource specialization and landscape integration. This suggests that political and social hierarchies, though not reflected in material goods such as imports , are in fact advancing rather than retreating in the Early Iron Age . It is against this background that the role of the early hillforts should be studied.

102

The most intriguing possibility suggested by this analysis is that a certain class of Late Iron Age site- the "trade" sites of Hengistbury Head , Copse Fann , and the Lake Villages- were bound to the hillforts by a different pattern of social relations than were the farmsteads. In both the Southeast and Wessex , the evidence from these sites is indicative of a redistributive relationship in which their role in the acquisition of elite goods is repaid by both subsistence goods and luxury items. Their apparent wealth stands in contrast to such sites as Winnall Down, Gussage All Saints and Bishopstone , where the demands of (tributary?) production resulted in productive stress. It should be noted that these models can be used to document changes in subsistence production and in the social relationships that regulate this produce. They cannot , however, of themselves explain these changes. The reasons for the transition from a decentralized to a centralized social organization are rooted in a wide range of social, cultural , ideological and economic factors. An explanatory model must take all such factors into account , not just those that address subsistence production. Nevertheless , the study of the social relations of subsistence production is one such factor, and this model has offered a means of approaching this aspect of the problem.

7.4. FUTURE DIRECTIONS It is the eternal lament of archaeologists that they need more and better data , and this paper will be no exception. The data complied for this project were drawn from a wide range of sources which varied in quality and detail. Inevitably , possibilities were suggested and conclusions were drawn from very sparse evidence. Data for a study such as this should ideally form part of the research design from the beginning , not be cobbled together after the fact (cf. Cherry , Gamble and Shennan 1978). Also , these data should be gathered in a regional scheme , and not site-by-site. Systematic excavation of the group of enclosures clustered near Winnall Down , for example , or the settlements aligned to the Danebury linear ditch , would provide a coherent regional sample whose components would have a clear social and economic relationship to each other. Several projects of a similar regional scope have been published recently in Britain (Gingell 1992, Richards 1990, Barrett et al. 1991, Cunliffe and Poole 2000a-e ); it is surveys such as these that will ultimately yield the most useful data for socioeconomic analysis.

of difference. The second issue is one of social trajectory - was the rise of complexity inexorable , or did the stresses associated with changes in social relations cause periodic breakdowns in regional integration? The "local" orientation of the Early Iron Age remains from southern Britain is seen in the apparent lack of trade sites that serve as a focus for goods and resources , and the lack evidence for habitation and significant use at the hillforts . The absence of evidence for traditional (tangible) markers of social status might in fact be masking more subtle evidence for the development of integrated regional social networks in some areas . The third issue is the role of the Late Iron Age hillforts in the control of trade and production. The position of the trade sites relative to the hillforts is noticeably different from the position of the farmsteads. It may be that the apparent differences are a reflection of differential data preservation , but it is also possible that the hillforts maintained a complex and multi-level series of social relationships depending upon the nature of a specific economic interaction. Finally, this method of investigating socioeconomic change is offered for the study of other regions of Europe and of other parts of the world. The relationships modelled in Chapter 3 are not specific to Britain , but are generally applicable to the study of post-Neolithic /post-Formative society . The models can be adapted with small effort to reflect the cultivated and wild resource s available in the study area . In so doing , it might be possible to compare patterns of socioeconomic development in terms ofrelationships that are not wholly bound by their cultural attributes. It is hoped that such a use will prove the models presented her e to be useful beyond the confines of this present study .

Three issues raised by the present analysis are certainly worthy of further investigation. The first is the issue of regional variability in social organization . Although cultural regions such as "southern Britain" or even "temperate Europe" are often regarded as homogenous , the evident differences between the Eastern Counties and Wessex suggest that variations in the social landscape of Europe were quite fine-grained , and that explanations that extrapolate data from region to region might be missing significant patterns

103

APPENDIX 1: Sociological Classification and Ecological Range of Plant Species Mentioned in the Text

APPENDIX 1.1: Sociological Classification of Plant Communities Classes I through 6 are as defined by Silverside ( 1977) for arable weed communities; Classes 7 through 30 are as defined by Rieley and Page ( 1990) for al1 other weed communities . The hierarchy of classification is as follows: I. CLASS (ending: -etea) I. I. Order (-etalia) 1.1.1. Association (-ion) 1.1.1.a. Alliance (-etum)

I. WEED COMMUNITIES OF ARABLE AND DISTURBED GROUND I. BIDENTETEATRIPARTITI 1.1. Bidentetalia tripartiti - annual communities on drying mud ; nitrophilous ; high in organic matter (poorlydrained farmland , mud along cleared ditches , disturbed fens, reclaimed arable) 1.1.1. Bidention I. I. 1.a. Polygono-Bidentetum 1.1.2. Chenopodion fluvatile 1.1.2.a. Chenopodietum glauco-rubri

2. STELLARIETEAMEDIAE- annual species of arable and disturbed ground 2.1. Polygono-Chenopodietalia - nitrophilous communities ofroot crops and (less often) summer cereals 2. I. I. Fumario-Euphorbion 2.1.t.a. Veronico-Lamietum hybridi - light, loamy soils of East Anglia , but also scattered mainly coastal locations elsewhere; reclaimed fenland, low altitude alluvial and aeolian deposits 2.1.1.b. Setario-Veronicetum politae - thermophilic (though less so in Britain) species of root crops and fallow; calcareous clays (one stand known in Britain) 2.1.1.c. Alopecuro-Matricarietum chamomillae - root crops , on the fringes of the East Anglian fens, esp. base-poor sandy and light clay loams 2.1.1.d. Fumarietum officinalis - fertile loam soils in intensive vegetable growing areas; also topsoil dumps and disturbed earth along new roadsides; base-poor ; typically lowland alluvial or drift deposits 2.1.1.e. Fumarietum bastardii - vegetable and root crops; typically high rainfall and humidity, mild winters, scarce frosts; leached and acidic soils 2.1.2. Spergulo-Oxalidion - base-poor sandy and peaty soils , high rainfall 2.1.2.a. Oxalido-Chenopodietum polyspermi - poor wet ground 2.1.2.b. Spergulo-Chrysanthemetum segeti - nitrophilous , dislike of calcareous soils; basepoor; peaty, sandy loam , or sandy clay soils; also gravels, alluvium 2. 1.2.c. Stachys arvensis community - loams and clay loams with little sand; possibly basiphilous 2.1.2.d. Medicagini-Ranunculetum parviflori - areas of few frosts and high relative humidity; sheltered sites 2.1.2.e. Chenopodio-Violetum curtisii - known only from the Outer Hebrides - cool summers, mild winters, high humidity 2.1.2.f. Lycopsietum arvensis - east coast of Britain (whole length); low rainfall, low relative humidity, cold winters 2.1.2.g. Descurainio-Lycopsetum arvensis - dry calcareous sands, low altitudes 2. 1.2.h. Galeopsis speciosa-G. bifida association - root crops on damp , heavy , peaty soils 2.1.3. Poo-Cardaminion hirsutae (provisional) 2.1.3.a. Cardaminetum hirsutae - gardens and nurseries on damp, sandy , or peaty soils; fertile and humus-rich; shady 2.1.3.b. Veronica sublobata community - garden communities on clay soils, defined by the presence of V. hederofolia ssp. lucorum (= V. sublobata)

104

2. 1.3.c. Galinsoga ciliata-Rorippa sylvestris community - dry, gravelly flowerbeds 2.1.3.d. Cochlearia danica community - maritime species on clay loams 2.1.3.e. Diplotaxis muralis community 2.1.3.f. Impatiens parviflora community 2.2. Eragrostietalia - thermophilic communities of root crops , mainly Medit. and Southeast Europe (though aspects of Panico-Setarion reach Britain) 2.2.1. Diplotaxion 2.2.2. Panico-Setarion - dry sands of SE Britain ; warm early spring temperatures; acidic 2.2.2.a. Echinochloo-Setarietum - pure sands (no clay) ; thermophilic ; acidic 2.2.2.b. Spergula arvensis-Lamium amplexicaule community - base-poor geological sands; market gardens and vegetable fields 2.3. Centauretalia cyani - esp. cereals , though in Britain some root crops and vegetables (esp. broad beans) ; thermophilic (poss. originally weeds of crops in Near East that traveled with crops) 2.3.1. Arnoseridion minimae - very base-poor sandy soils 2.3.1.a. Teesdalio nudicaulis-Arnoseridion minimae - poorest soils, very unproductive land (now largely extinct because of fertilization) ; what is left is now mostly permanent pasture or rye fields rotating with lupins 2.3.1.b. Airo multiculmis-Arn. min. - warm , dry, very sandy soils 2.3.2. Aphanion arvensis - winter cereals on loamy soils 2.3.2.a. Papaveretum argemonis - sandy and sandy loam soils; base-poor 2.3.2.b. Alchemillo-Matricarietum chamomillae - heavy loam clays , basic 2.3.2.c. Euphorbia exigua-Avena fatua communities - moderately calcareous soils , heavy 2.3.2.d. Kickxia elatine-Aphanion (Brun-Hool community) 2.3.3. Caucalidon lappulae - south and southeast England ; calcareous , primarily chalk or oolitic limestone soils 2.3.3.a. Linarietum spuriae - calcareous clays and loams, often on pure chalk or chalky rendzinas 2.3.3.b. Papaveri-Melandrietum noctiflori - light, well-drained calcareous soils; on chalk or chalk-mixed soils and gravels 2.3.3.c. Adonido autumnalis-lberidetum amarae - mature calcareous loams over chalk or soft limestone ; thermophilic 2.4. Sisymbreitalia - annual pioneer communities of ruderal habitats 2.4.1. Sisymbrion officinalis - many introduced and transitional species ; not readily broken into associations 2.5. Onopordetalia - annuals and biennials of ruderal habitats ; thermophilic ; sunny 2.5.1. Dauco-Melolotion 2.5.1.a. Echio vulgaris-Melitotetum albi - sunny situations on sandy or gravelly wastes and sands 3. AGROPYRETEA REPENTIS - dry ruderal grassland 3.1. Agropyretalia repentis 3.1.1. Convolvulo-Agropyrion repentis 3.1. 1.a. Convolvulo-Agropyretum repentis - vigorous competitor (in modem stands , herbicideresistant); fallow-field development 4. PLANT AGINETEA MAI ORIS - associated with compacted soils and anaerobic conditions (trampled places , along gateways, footpaths , etc.); indicative of deteriorated (compacted) arable wet soils 4.1. Agrostetalia stoloniferae 4.1.t. Agropyro-Rumicion crispi - damp arable land ; compacted areas , poor drainage , frequent flooding or fluctuating water table 4.1.1.a. Rumici-Alopecuretum geniculati - compacted damp soils 4.1.1.b. Ranunculetum repentis - loam and clay soils, esp . near drainage ditches , gateways , floodplains; base-poor 4.1.1.c. Potentilletum anserinae - floodplains , drainage ditches , poorly drained soils; more base-rich than the above 4.2. Plantaginetalia maioris 4.2.1. Polygonion avicularis - trampled and compacted soils, footpaths 4.2.1.a. Poo-Coronopetum squamati - highly nitrphilous , near manure , silage , droveways 4.2.1.b. Myosuretum minimae - damp tracks and arable with pooling water 4.2.1.c. Spergularia bocconii community - dry and compacted

105

4.2.1.d. Lolio-Plantaginetum - footpath margins, trodden waste ground , gateways , severely compacted arable 4.2.1.e. Bryum caespiticium-Tussilago farfara community - hard , compacted rubble/cinders and clay 5. MOLINIO-ARRHENA THERETEA - grasslands , hay-meadows, pastures and other grassland subject to modification and disturbance (compare 20, 21, 22) Sa. MOLINIO-ARRHENA THERETEA-STELLARIETEA - associated with arable land in rotation with short-term grassland (fallow , pasture, hay); strongly associated with hay-growing rather than predominantly arable areas (modem) ; absent in East Anglia 6. SEDO-SCLERANTHETEA - dry grassland and natural therophyte communities 6.1. Corynephoretalia canescentis - open , sandy coastal situations in W. Europe 6.1.1. Thero-Airion - very dry, sandy, on base-poor soils or non-calcareous rocks ; humid coastal situations (ideal - the Lizard) 6.2. Sedo-Scleranthetalia - open calcareous soils 6.2.1. Alysso-Sedion 6.2.2. Arabidopsidion

II. EMERGENT VEGETATION OF FRESHWATER SWAMPS, SPRINGS, AND FLUSHES 7. PHRAGMITETEA - reed-grass and tall sedge vegetation of shallow water in lakes, rivers , canals , and coastal fresh and brackish water marshes 7.1. Nasturtio-Glycerietalia - low-growing vegetation on ditches and shallow waters on mineral-rich ground ; dikes, ditches and shallow pools with fluctuating water levels 7.1.1.Glycero-Sparganion - emergent plants; mineral-rich substrates that tend to dry out in summer (ditches and pools) 7.1.2. Apion nodiflori - submerged and emergent species; nutrient-rich , permanent shallow water 7.2. Phragmitetalia - tall reed swamps and deeper lakes on substrate rich in organic matter ; standing or slowrunning water 7.2.1. Phragmition - standing or slow-moving water, dominated by one-species stands over large areas; beside lakes, canals, mature rivers 7.2.2. Oenanthion aquaticae - more localized , shallow, eutropic waters over calcareous substrate 7.3. Magnocaricetalia - beds of tall sedges in shallow mesotrophic waters 7.3.1. Magnocaricion - tall sedges and grasses of nutrient-rich , stagnant or slow-moving water 8. MONTIO-CARDAMINETEA - springs 8.1. Montio-Cardaminetalia 8.1.1. Cardamino-Montion - lowland and submontane altitudes; springs fed by oligo- or mesotrophic , calcium-poor water 8.1.2. Mniobryo-Epilobion - ditto , in montane regions 8.2. Cardamino-Cratoneuretalia - calcareous, meso- and eutrophic springs 8.2.1. Cratoneurion commutati - ditto , lowland and submontane 8.2.2. Cratoneureto-Saxifragion aizoidis - ditto , montane 9. PARVOCARICETEA - nitrogen-poor mineral substrates where the water level is at or near ground level for most of the year; also, dune slacks with high water table and occasionally standing water (9 .1 if acid , 9 .2 if basic) 9.1. Caricetalia nigrae - low sedge vegetation; associations of acidifying transition mire in which substrates become progressively nutrient-deficient as peat accumulates and land level rises above groundwater level ; transitional , often rapidly 9.1.1. Caricion curto-nigrae 9.2. Tofieldietalia - calcareous fens and flushes irrigated by nutrient-rich water 9.2.1. Eriophorion latifolii - species-rich vegetation of calcareous flushes and mineral-rich fens

III. RIVERBANK WILLOW WOODLAND, FEN AND BOG CARR 10. ALNETEA GLUTINOSAE - alder swamps on peat with high water table causing waterlogging and pooling for most or

106

all of the year; organic-rich silts and peat in the transition zone between dry land and ombrotrophic mire; peat layers neutral to acidic, but substrates mineral-rich 10. 1. Alnetalia glutinosae 10.1.1. Alnion glutinosae 11. FRANGULETEA - low-growingtrees and shrubs colonizing upper layers of peat that dry out periodically due to drainage, disturbance, or fluctuation; neutral or acid 11.1. Salicetalia auritae 11.1.1. Salicion cinereae 12. SALICETEA PURPUREAE - river-bank willow shrub; pioneer associations of riverbanks where the water and substrates are mineral-rich; also dune slacks where organic content and calcium levels are high and ground water reaches the surface in winter 12.1. Salicetalia purpureae 12.1.1. Salicion albae

IV. ACID BOG AND WET HEATH 13. SCHEUCHZERIETEA - central hollows, lagg, and erosion pools of ombrotrophicmires 13.1. Scheuchzerietalia 13. 1.1. Rhynchosporion albae 14. OXYCOCCO-SPHAGNETEA - peat-forming vegetation of ombrotrophicmires and wet heaths 14.1. Ericetalia tetralicis - wet heaths 14. I.I. Ericion tetralicis 14.2. Sphagnetalia magellanici - peat-forming, Sphagnum-dominated associations on peat more than 1.5 m deep 14.2. I. Erico-Sphagnion - central flat and low hummock communitiesof mires where snow cover is limited to a few weeks of the year and from which Sphagnumfuscum is either absent or occurs only as isolated hummocks 14.2.2. Sphagnion fusci - characteristic of the terminal, hummock phase of ombrotrophic mire

development, ground water relatively low in summer

V. TALL SHRUB, SCRUB AND CLIMAX FOREST 15. RHAMNO-PRUNETEA - dry scrub vegetation of stabilized dunes; often result from rabbit or sheep grazing; many communities temporary and result from degradation of the dunes 15.1. Prunetalia spinosae 15.1.1. Berberidion 15.1.2. Salicion arenariae - dry, calcium-deficientdune slacks on the East Anglian coast 16. VACCINIO-PICEETEA - pinewoods and birchwoods on acidic podzolic soils; birchwoods, which are less acidic than pines, are mostly secondary forest in the south 16.1. Vaccinio-Piceetalia 16.1. 1. Vaccinio-Piceion 16.1.2. Betulion pubescentis 17. QUERCETEA-ROBORI-PETRAEAE - all oakwoods on acid soils throughout the west, north, and southwest; largely absent from the heavy clays of eastern and central England; also includes beechwoods on non-calcareous soils (acid sands and gravels) in the south 17 .1. Quercetalia-robori-petraeae 17.1.1. Quercion-robori-petraeae 18. QUERCO-FAGETEA - lowland woodlands on calcareous brown earths, clay, marl, sands, chalk or limestone; all mixed deciduous woodlands of tall forest trees 18.1. Fagetalia sylvaticae 18.1.1. Alno-padion - alderwoods of western and central Europe on damp, humus- and mineral-rich soils;

weakly acid through alkaline soils; edge communitiesof other woodland types in areas that are damp or subject to occasional waterlogging 18.1.2. Carpinion betuli - mixed deciduous oak-hornbeamforests on fertile brown earths; hornbeam rare

107

in Britain (generally East Anglia) 18.1.3. Fagion sylvaticae - beechwoods on moist, calcium-rich soils (dominant forest type); beech does not grow well on heavy clay soils, but on these soils oak may be added; may have developed in the southern chalklands as secondary forest following deforestation or the abandonment of agricultural land 18.1.4. Ulmion carpinifoliae - mixed oak-elm valley woods on fertile soils; now scarce in Britain because of clearance, but once probably common in the lowland valleys 19. BETULO-ADENOSTYLETEA - tall herb vegetation of species-rich montane pasture; fertile calcareous soils; rare in Britain, mostly on steep rocky ground or ledges inaccessible to grazing animals 19.1. Adenosyletalia 19.1.1. Latucion alpinae

VI. GRASSLANDS AND DRY HEATHS 20. NARDO-CALLUNETEA - acid grasslands; Atlantic and sub-Atlantic regions , absent from continental climates of central Europe 20.1. Nardetalia 20.1.1. Eu-Nardion 20.1.2. Nardo-Galion saxatilis - most common acid grassland associations in Britain ; predominant grassland on the heavily-grazed upland pastures on shallow podzolized soils over hard siliceous rocks 20.1.3. Nardeto-Caricion bigelowii 20.2. Calluno-Ulicetalia - lowland dry heath ; also , low-growing vegetation of sheltered, low-lying dry dune slacks on dry substrates with a well-developed O-horizon of mor humus 20.2.1. Calluno-Genistion - dry heath s on acid , podzolized soils formed over fast-draining poor sandstones, sands or gravels 20.2.2. Empetrion nigri - northern heaths on peaty podzols in the north 21. MOLINIO-ARRHENATHERETEA - neutral grasslands; hay meadows and lowland permanent pastures, waysides and margins throughout Britain; anthropogenic; economically important as a source for grazing , hay or silage; secondary development on formerly wooded land, and maintained by agricultural practices 21.1. Molinietalia - periodically wet meadows, where ground water levels fluctuate, but remain high throughout the year; gleyed soils with poor water permeability , winter flooding a regular feature; occasionally take over damp fallow , damp clearances where grazing prevents the regrowth of scrub, or drained wetlands 21.1.1. Calthion palustris - soils with high organic content and water table at or just below the ground surface most of the year 21.1.2. Filipendulion - humus-rich damp soils with high nitrogen content , subject to periodic flooding (esp. along streams , rivers , and drainage channels) 21.1.3. Junco-Molinion - boundary communities between wet peat-forming associations and terrestrial associations on more acid substrates 21.2. Arrhenatheretalia - meadows on soils with moderate (if fluctuating) moisture content; water does not reach the surface, and flooding (if at all) is rare and short-lived ; secondary grasslands, maintained by grazing and mowing; rich in fodder, esp. leguminous plants 21.2.1. Arrhenatherion elatioris - hay meadows , verges, and roadside margins; maintained by mowing several times per year 21.2.2. Cynosurion cristati - grazed but not mown ; species diversity low due to trampling 22. FESTUCO-BROMETEA - chalk and limestone grasslands on shallow and well-drained rendzina soils; periodic water deficits ; one of the most species-rich of any vegetation type in Britain 22.1. Brometalia erecti 22.1.1. Xerobromion - currently restricted to small areas of Somerset and Devon ; dry pioneer grasslands of steep rocky chalk and lime cliffs ; thin rendzina soils 22.1.2. Mesobromion - chalk and limestone grasslands (including some stabilized calcareous sand dunes)

VII. BRACKISH WATER AND SALT MARSHES 23. ZOSTERETEA - marine grass communities of estuaries and mud flats; submerged associations in shallow sea water (34m) on shingle and sand 23.1 Zosteretalia

108

23.1.1. Zosterion marinae 24. SPARTINETEA - cord-grass salt marshes; single-species stands of pioneer vegetation on waterlogged mud, c1ay, and sand of the eu-littoral zone; often replaces Zosteretea associations 24.1. Spartinetalia 24.1.1. Spartinion 25. THERO-SALICORNIETEA - pioneer communities of waterlogged saline and muddy substrates; muddy delta region of salt marshes 25.1. Thero-Salicornietalia 25.t.1. Thero-Salicornion 26. RUPPIETEA - vegetation of brackish waters of coastal ponds and ditches that are inundated only by the highest tides, but with strong influence of sea-spray 26.1. Ruppietalia 26. 1.1. Ruppion maritimae 27. ASTERETEA TRIPOLII - grass and herb-rich , grazed associations of the upper region of salt-marshes 27.1. Glauco-Puccinellietalia 27.1.1. Puccinellion maritimae - salt-marsh grass meadows; short grass swards over muddy sand; frequently inundated by spring and storm high tides 27.1.2. Armerion maritimae - herb-rich coastal meadows ; low-growing lawns on silty or muddy ground , from about MHW to the maximum reach of storm tides ; may succeed 27. 1.1 27.1.3. Puccinellio-Spegularion salinae - ephemeral associations of dry channels in the upper reaches of salt marshes periodically inundated by storm tides; rarely , inland on sandy saline soils near brine springs 27.1.4. Halo-Scirpion - sandy substrates of salt marshes , flushed with fresh water from the landward side

VIII. COAST AL STRAND, SHINGLE BEACH AND SAND DUNE 28. CAKILETEA MARITIMAE - strand and maritime edge vegetation 28.1. Thero-Suaedetalia - pioneer associations of the zone immediately above the normal daily tidal limit , on sand with a high proportion of decaying organic matter (high nitrate content) 28.1.1. Thero-Suaedion 28.2. Cakiletalia maritimae - pioneer associations of the strand and embryo dune regions of the foreshore 28.2.1. Atroplicion littoralis 28.2.2. Salsolo-Honkenyion peploidis 29. AMMOPHILETEA - vegetation of sand dune hills 29.1. Elymetalia arenarii 29. 1. 1. Agropyro-Honkenyion pep loid is - pioneer associations of sha11ow-rooted species of the foreand embryo dunes 29.1.2. Ammophilion borealis - deep rooted species of mobile dunes· factor in dune stabilization

IX. RUDERAL WEED VEGETATION OF WASTE PLACES, SPOIL TIPS, ARABLE FIELDS, AND GARDENS 30. ARTEMESIETEA VULGARIS - stabilized soils in areas once severely disturbed (e.g. former industrial or construction sites) 30.1. Artemesietalia vulgaris 30.1.1. Arction - anthropogenic associations of stabilized nitrate- and humus-rich soils in towns and industrial areas 30.1.ta. Tanaceto-Artemisietum 30.1.2. Galio-Alliarion - garden hedges and waysides on the urban fringe , mainly in shaded situations 30.1.3. Aegopodion podagrariae - sim. 30 .1.2, above ; communities reminiscent of shaded woodland

109

APPENDIX 1.2: List of Synonymous Sociological Terminology

Terms in bold correspond to the headings I heading numbers in Appendi x 1.1. Terms in ordinary type are other commonlyused synonyms (primarily from Braun-Blanquet , TUxen and Ellenberg) and are cross-referenced to the heading number s of the equivalent term in Appendi x 1.1. Terms in italic s are synonyms for the class es of Brit ish vegetationa l communitie s recently published by Rodw ell (2000 ); again , they are cross -referenced to the equivalent headin gs in Appendi x 1.1. Arrhenatheretea = 5 Arrhenatherion eliatoris = 21.2.1 Artemesietalia vulgaris = 30.l Artemesietea vulgari s = 30 Artemisio-Agropyrion intermedii = 3.1 Artimesietea vulgaris = 2.5 Artimesietea vulgaris = cf 30 Asteretea tripolii = 27 Atroplicion littoralis = 28.2. 1 Avenetum fatuae = 2.3.2a Berberidion = 15. 1.1 Betulion pubescentis = 16.1.2 Betulo-Adenostyletea = 19 Bidentetalia tripartiti = 1.1 B identetea tripartiti = I Bidentetum tripartiti = 1.1. 1a Bidention = 1.1.1 Bidentitea tripartiti = 1 Bidentitea tripartiti = 1 Brometalia erecti = 22. l Brometo-Corynephoretea = 6 Bromus secalinus-Delphinium consolida assoc. = 2.3 .2 Bryo-therograminetea = 6 Bryum caespiticium-Tussilago farfara community = 4.2.le Cakiletalia maritimae = 28.2 Cakiletea maritimae = 28 Cakiletea maritima e = 28 Calluno-Genistion = 20.2.1 Calluno-Ulicetalia = 20.2 Calthion palustris = 21.l.1 Cardaminetum hirsutae = 2.1.3a Cardamino-Cratoneuretalia = 8.2 Cardamino-Montion = 8.1.l Caricetalia nigrae = 9.1 Caricetea arenariae = 6 Caricion curto-nigrae = 9. 1.1 Carpinion betuli = 18. 1.2 Caucalidon lappulae = 2.3.3 Caucalis daucoides-Scandix pecten veneris assoc. = 2.3.3a Centauretalia cyani = 2 Centauretalia cyani = 2.3 Chenopodi etalia = 2.1, 2.2 , 2.4 , 2.5 Chenopodietalia mediterranea = 2.2, 2 .5 Chenopodietalia albi = 2 .2, 2.4 Chenopodi etali a medioeuropae a = 2.1 , 2 .4, 4, 4.2

Adenostyletalia = 19.1 Adonideto -Delphinietum consolida e = 2.3.3c Adonido autumnalis-Iberidetum amarae = 2.3.3c Aegopodion podagrariae = 30.1.3 Agropyr etali a intermedi i-repentis = 3 .1 Agropyretalia repentis = 3.1 Agropyretalia repentis = 3.1 Agropyretea intermedii-repenti s = 3 Agropyretea repentis = 3 Agropyretum repent is = 3 .1.1 a Agropyro-Honkenyion peploidis = 29.1.1 Agropyro-Rumicion crispi = 4.1.l Agrostetalia stoloniferae = 4.1 Agrostidion spicae-venti = 2.3 . I , 2.3 .2 Agrostio-Ranunculetum repentis = 4 .1.1b Airo multiculmis-Arnoseridion minimae = 2.3.1 b Alchemilla arvensis-Matricaria chamomilla assoc. = 2.3.2 , 2.3.2a , 2.3.2b Alchemillo-Matricarietum chamomillae = 2.3.2b Alnetalia glutinosae = 10.1 Alnetea glutinosae = 10 A/netea g/utinosae = 10, 11 Alnion glutinosae = 10. 1.1 Alno-padion = 18.1.1 Alopecureto-Matricarietum = 2.3.2b Alopecuro-Matricarietum chamomillae = 2.1.lc Alopecuro-Matricarietum chamomillae = 2.1.1 Alopecuro-Matricarietum = 2.3.2a Alysso-Sedetalis = 6.2 . 1 Alysso-Sedion = 6.2.1 Amarantho-Chenopodion = 2.2.1 Amarantho-Fumarietum = 2. 1. 1b, 2.1.1d Ammophiletea = 29 Ammophi/etea arenariae = 29 Ammophilion borealis = 29.1.2 Aperetalia = 2.3 Aphanion arvensis = 2.3.2 Aphano-Matricarietum = 2.3 .2b Apion nodiflori = 7.1.2 Arabidopsidion = 6.2.2 Arction = 30.1.1 Arction lappae = 2.4 , 2.4.1 , 4, 4.2 Aristolochia clematitis -Tulipa sylvestri s = 2.1.1 Armerion maritimae = 27.1.2 Arnoseridion minimae = 2.3.1 Arnoseris minima-gruppe = 2.3. 1 Arrhenatheretalia = 21.2

110

Fumarietum officinalis = 2 .1.1 Fumarietum bastardii = 2.1 .1 Fumarietum bastardii = 2.1.te Fumario-Euphorbion = 2. 1.1 Galeopsido-Chenopodietum = 2. l .2a Galeopsietum speciosae = 2.1.2h Galeopsis speciosa-G. bifida association = 2.1.2h Galeopsis speciosa-Galeopsis bifida assoc .= 2.1.2 Galinsoga ciliata-Rorippa sylvestris community =2.1.3c Galio-Allarion = 30.1.2 Ga/io-Urticetea = cf 30 Geranium rotundifolium-Allium vineale = 2.1.1 Glauco-Puccinellietalia = 27.1 Glycero-Sparganion = 7.1.1 Halo-Scirpion = 27.1.4 Honkenyo-Elymetea arenariae = 4.1 Hordeion murini = 2.4 .1 Hordeo-Brometum sterilis = 2.4.1 Hordeum jubatum-Atriplex haststa comm. = 2.4.1 Impatiens parviflora community= 2.1.3f lsoeto-Littorelletea = cf 9 Juncetea maritimi = 2 7 Junco-Molinion = 21.1.3 Kickxia elatine-Aphanion = 2.3.2d Kickxio-Aperetum = 2 .3.3a Koelerio-Corynephoretea = 6 Koelerio-Corynephoretea = 6, 20 Lamieto-Veronicetum politae = 2.1.1 Lamio-Panicetum crus-galli = 2.1 .2 Lamio-Veroniceturn politae = 2.1.1 a Lathyro-Aperetum = 2.3.3a Lathyro-Melandrietum = 2.3.3b Lathyrus aphaca-Agrostis spica-venti = 2.3 .2 Latucion alpinae = 19.1. l Linaria elatine-Scutellaria hastifolia = 2.3 .2 Linarietum spuriae = 2.3.3a Lolietalia perennis = 4.2 Lolio-Linetalia = 2 Lolio-Plantaginetum = 4.2.1 d Lolio-Plantaginion = 4.2.1 Lolio-Potentilletum anserinae = 4.1.1 c Lycopsietum arvensis = 2.1.2 Lycopsietum arvensis = 2.1.2f Magnocaricetalia = 7.3 Magnocaricion = 7.3.1 Medicagini-Ranunculetum parviflori = 2.1.2d Medicagini-Ranunculetum parvitlori = 2. 1.2 Melilotetum = 2.5. la Melilotetum albo-officinalis = 2.5.1 a Melyandro-Veronicetum politae = 2.1.1 b Mercurialetum annuae = 2.1.1 d Mercuriali-Fumarietum = 2.1.1 d Mercurialis annua Gesellschaften = 2.1.1 Mesobromion = 22.1.2 Mniobryo-Epilobion = 8.1.2 Molinietalia = 21.1 Molinio-Arrhenatheretea = 4, 5 Molinio-Arrhenatheretea = 5, 21 Molinio-Arrhenatheret ea = 2 1; cf also 3, 5, 5a

Chenopodietea = 2, 2.1 , 2.2, 2.4 , 2.5 Chenopodietum glauco-rubri = 1. 1.2a Chenopodietum glauci = 1.1.2a Chenopodio-Oxalidetum violaceae = 2.1.2 Chenopodio-Urticetum urentis = 2.4.1 Chenopodio-Violetum curtisii = 2.1.2 Chenopodio-Violetum curtisii = 2.1.2e Chenopodion fluvatile = 1.1.2 Chenopodium glaucum-rubrum = l .1.2a Chrysanthemo-Lycopsetum Raabe = 2.1.2b, 2.1.2f Chrysanthemum segetum-Oxalis violaceae = 2.1.2b Chrysanthemum segetum-Oxalis violaceae assoc. = 2.1.2 Cochlearia danica community = 2. 1.3d Convolvulo (arvensis)-Agropyrion repentis = 3. 1 Convolvulo-Agropyretum repentis = 3.1.la Convolvulo-Agropyrion repentis = 3.1. l Convolvulo-Agropyrion repentis = 3.1.1 Coronopo-Matricarietum = 4.2. la , 4.2. l d Corynephoretalia canascentis = 6.1 Corynephoretea = 6 Cratoneureto-Saxifragion aizoidis = 8.2.2 Cratoneurion commutati = 8.2.1 Cynosurion cristati = 21.2.2 Dauco-Melilotion = 2.5.1 Delphinietum consolidae = 2.1.1 d Descurainio-Delphinietum = 2.3.3b Descurainio-Lycopsetum arvensis = 2.1.2g Descurainio-Lycopsietum = 2.1.2 Diplotaxion = 2.2.1 Diplotaxis muralis community= 2.1.3e Echieto-Verbascetum = 2.5. la Echinochloo-Setarietum = 2.2.2a Echio vulgaris-Melitotetum albi = 2.5.la check sp Elymetalia arenarii = 29.1 Empetrion nigri = 20.2.2 Eragrostidion = 2.2.1 Eragrostietalia = 2.2 Eragrostietalia = 2 Ericetalia tetralicis = 14.1 Ericion tetralicis = 14.1.1 Erico-Sphagnion = 14.2.1 Eriophorion latifolii = 9.2.1 Eu-Nardion = 20.l .1 Eu-Polygono-Chenopodion polyspenni = 2.1, 2. 1.1, 2. 1.2 Eu-Secalinion = 2.3.3 Euphorbia exigua-Avena fatua communities= 2.3.2c Euphorbio-Melandrietum = 2.3 .3b Fagetalia sylvaticae = 18.1 Fagion sylvaticae = 18.1.3 Falcaria vulgaris-Veronic polita = 2.1. l Festucetalia arundinaceae = 4.1 Festuco-Brometea = 6 Festuco-Brometea = 22 Festuco-Brometea = 22 Festuco-Sedetea = 6 Filagini-Aperetum = 2.3.2a Filipendulion = 21.1.2 Franguletea = 11 Fumarietum officinalis = 2.1.td

111

Quercetea-Robori-Petraeae = 17 Quercion-robori-petraeae = 17.1.1 Querco-Fagetea = 18 Querco-F agetea = 17, 18 Ranunculetum repentis = 4.1.lb Ranunculus repens-Alopecurus geniculatus association = 4.1.1 a, 4.1.1 c Raphanetum raphanistri = 2.1. l d Rhamno-Prunetea = 15 Rhamno-Prun etea = cf 15 Rhynchosporion albi = 13.1.1 Rorippo-Chenopodietum polyspermi = 2.1.2 Rudereto-Secalinetales = 2, 4 Rudereto-Secal inetea = 1 Rumex crispus-Alopecurus geniculatus nodum = 4.1. 1a Rumex crispus-Alopecurus geniculatus assoc . = 4 .1.1c Rumici-Alopecuretum geniculati = 4.1. 1a Ruppietalia = 26.1 Ruppietea = 26 Ruppietea maritima e = 26 Ruppion maritimae = 26. 1.1 Salicetalia purpureae = 12.1 Salicetalia auritae = 11.1 Salicetea purpureae = 12 Salicetea purpureae = 12 Salicion arenariae = 15.1.2 Salicion albae = 12.1.1 Salicion cinereae = 11.1.1 Salsola pestifer nodum = 2.4.1 Salsolo-Honkenyion peploidis = 28.2.2 Scheuchzerietalia = 13.1 Scheuchzerietea = 13 Scheuchzerio-caricetea fuscae = 13 Scheuchzerio-caricetea nigrae = 13 Scleranthion annuae = 2.3.1, 2.3.2 Scleranthus annuus-Amoseris minima assoc. = 2.3.1 a Scleranthus annuus-Myosurus minimus assoc. = 2.3.2a Secalinetalia = 2.3 Secalinetea = 2, 2.3 Secalinion medioeuropaeum = 2.3 Secalino-Violetalia arvensis = 2.3 Sedion anglici = 6. 1. l Sedo-Scleranthetalia = 6.2 Sedo-Scleranthetea = 6 Sedo-Teucrion = 6.2.1 Setario-Amoseretum = 2.3 . la Setario-Fumarietum = 2.1.1 b, 2.1.1 d Setario-Lycopsetum = 2. l .2f Setario-Stachyetum arvensis = 2.1.2 Setario-Veronicetum politae = 2.1.1 Setario-Veronicetum politae = 2.1.lb Sherardion = 2.3.2 Sisymbrietalia = 2.4 Sisymbrietalia = 2, 2.4, 2.5 Sisymbrietum sophiae = 2.4.1 Sisymbrion officinalis = 2.4.1 Soncho-Veronicetum agrestis = 2.1.1 Spartinetalia = 24.1 Spartinetea = 24

Molinio-Arrhenatheretea-Stellarietea = 5a Molinio-Juncetea = 5 Montio-Cardaminetalia = 8.1 Montio-Cardaminetea = 8 Montio-Cardaminetea = 8 Muscarieto-Calenduletum = 2.1.1 Myosuretum minimae = 4.2.1 b Nardetalia = 20.1 Nardeto-Caricion bigelowii = 20.1.3 Nardo-Callunetea = 20 Nardo-Galion saxatilis = 20.1.2 Nasturtio-Glycerietalia = 7.1 Oenanthion aquaticae = 7.2.2 Onopordetalia = 2.5 Onopordietalia = 2 Onopordion acanthii = 2.5.1 Onopordo-Sisymbrietea = 2, 2.4 , 2.5 Omithopus perpusillus-Scleranthus annuus g' schft = 2.3.2a Oxaleto-Chenopodietum po lysperm i medioeuropaeum = 2. l .2a Oxaleto-Chenopodietum polyspermi subatlanticum =2.1.2a Oxalido-Chenopodietum polyspermi = 2.1.2 Oxalido-Chenopodietum polyspermi = 2.1.2a Oxalis stricta-Stachys arvensis gesellschaft = 2.1.2 , 2.1.2c Oxycocco-Sphagnetea = 14 Oxycocco-Sphagnetea = 14 Panico-Chenopodietum = 2.1.2a Panico-Chenopodietum polyspermi = 2.1.1 d, 2.2.2a Panico-Galeopsidetum speciosae = 2.1.2h Panico-Setarion = 2.2.2 Panicum crus-galli-Spergula arvensis = 2.2.2a Papavereto-Meliandrietum noctiflori = 2.3.2 Papaveretum argemonis = 2.3.2a Papaveri-Melandrietum noctiflori = 2.3.3b Parvocaricetea = 9 Phragmito-Magnocaricetea = 7 Phragmitetalia = 7.2 Ph ragm itetea = 7 Phragmition = 7.2.1 Plantaginetalia maioris = 4.1 Plantaginetalia maioris = 4.2 Plantaginetea maioris = 4 Plantagini-Festucion = 6 Polygono Arenastri-Poetea annua e = 4 Polygonion avicularis = 4.2.1 Polygono-Bidentetum = 1.1.la Polygono-Chenopodietalia = 2 Polygono-Chenopodietalia = 2.1 Polygono-Chenopodion polyspermi = 2.2.2 Polygono-Coronopion = 4.2. l Polygono-Galeopsidetum speciosa = 2.1 .2h Poo-Cardaminion hirsutae = 2.1.3 Poo-Coronopetum squamati = 4.2.la Potentilletum anserinae = 4.1.lc Potentillo-Polygonetalia avicularis = 4 Prunetalia spinosae = 15.1 Puccinellio-Spergularion salinae = 27.1.3 Puccineff on maritimae = 27.1.1 Quercetalia-robori-petraeae = 17 .1

112

Spartinetea maritimae = 24 Spartin ion = 24. 1.1 Spergula arvensis-Lamium a.mplexicaule community = 2.2.2b Spergularia bocconii community= 4.2. lc Spergulo-Chrysanthemetum segeti = 2.1.2 Spergulo-Chrysanthemetum segeti = 2.1.2b Spergulo-Erodion = 2.1, 2.1.2 , 2.2. 2 Spergulo-Oxalidion = 2.1.2 Sphagnetalia magellanici = 14.2 Sphagnion fusci = 14.2.2 Stachys arvensis comm . = 2.1.2 Stachys arvensis community= 2.1.2c Stellarietea mediae = 2 Stel/arietea mediae = 2 Teesdalio nudicaulis-Arnoseridioo minimae = 2.3.1 a Thero-Airion = 6.1.1 Thero-Chenopodietea = 2, 2.1 , 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 Thero-Salicornietalia = 25.1 Thero-Salicornietea = 25 Thero-Salicornietea = 2 5 Thero-Salicornion = 25.1.1 Thero-Suaedetalia = 28.1 Thero-Suaedion = 28.l.1 Thlaspi arvense-Setaria viridis = 2.1.1 Thlaspio-Veronicetum politae = 2.1.1 Tofieldietalia = 9.2 Trifolio fragiferi-Agrstie talia = 4.1 Triticion sativae = 2.3.2 , 2.3.3 Tuberio (guttati)-Corynephoretea = 6 Ulmion carpinifoliae = 18.1.4 Vaccinio-Piceetalia = 16.1 Vaccinio-Piceetea = 16 Vaccinio-Piceetea = 16 Vaccinio-Piceion = 16.1.1 Valerianello olitoriae-Arabidopsetum thalianae = 2.3.2 Veronica sublobata community= 2.1.3b Veroniceto-Euphorbion pepli = 2.1 .1 Veroniceto-Lamietum amplexicauli = 2. 1. 1 Veronicetum politae = 2.1.1a Veronicion = 6.1. l Veronico agrestis-Fumarietum = 2. I . 1d Veronico politae-Taraxacion = 2.3 .3 Veronico-Chenopodion = 2. 1. 1 Veronico-Euphorbion pepli = 2.1, 2. 1.2 Veronico-Fumarietum = 2.1.1 Veronico-Lamietum = 2.1.lc Veronico-Lamietum hybridi = 2.1.1 Veronico-Lamietum hybridi = 2.1.la Vicietum tetraspermae = 2.3 .2a Xerobrometo-Sedetea = 6 Xerobromion = 22.1.1 Zosteretalia = 23.1 Zosteretea = 23 Zosteretea Marina e = 23 Zosterion marinae = 23.1.1

113

APPENDIX 1.3: Ecological Characteristics of Weed Species

The list is compiled from the floral reports used in this analysis. The data were derived mainly from Reiley and Page (1990) , Ellenberg (1992) , Hatlinger and Brun-Hool (1968) , and Grime (1988). The columns are defined as follows: Column I- Life cycle , Annual, Perennial , or Biennial Column 2- Preferred soil reaction: Acid , Base, or Neutral A+ I A- = strongly / weakly acidic B(A) = prefers base, occurs in local conditions on acid soils Column 3- Germination season, Fall or Spring F*/ S* = characteristic weed of winter /spring crop s Column 4- Soil fertility: highly Fertile or Infertile X = moderately but not highly fertile Ng = nitrogenous N = nitrophilous Column 5-Sociological classification ; numbers refer to Appendi x 1.1

1 Achillea millefolium (yarrow) Achilles ptarmica (sneezewort) Aethusa cynapium (fool's parsley) Agropyrum repens (couch , twitch grass) Agrostemma githago (corn cockle) Agrostis canina (brown bent) Agrostis capillaris /vulgaris (common bent) Agrostis stolonifera/alba (creeping bent) Aira flexuosa Alchemilla arvensis Alopecuris agrestis / mysuroides (black grass, slender fox-tail) Alopecuris geniculatus (marsh foxtail) Anagallis arvensis (scarlet pimpernel) Angelica sylvestris (wild angelica) Anisantha sterilis Anthemis arvensis (corn chamomile) Anthemis cotula (stinking mayweed) Anthoxanthum odoratum (sweet vernal-grass) Anthyllis vulneraria (kidney vetch) Aphanes arvensis (parsley piert) Apium nodiflorum (fool's watercress) Arctium Jappa (greater burdock) Arctium minus (lesser burdock) Arenaria trinerva Arrhenatherum elatius (false oat-grass) Artemisia vulgaris (mugwort) Asperula cynanchica (squinancywort) Atriplex hastata/prostrata (spreading orache , spear-leaved orache) A triplex patula ( common orache , lamb's quarters) Atropa belladonna ( deadly nightshade) Avena fatua (wild oat) Ballota nigra (black horehound)

2

3

4

p p

5

noA+ FS X XI N A s F B p B(A) s F A F* F 8 p A+ FS I p X(I) AFS p SF F NB = Deschampsia tlexuosa (cf) = Aphanes arvensis ( cf) F F A 8

cf 5/21 21.1 2/2.3 2.1/3.1.1 a/4.1/4.1.1/5a/30.1.3 2.3/2.3.3 I 8.1.1/20.1.2 2. I / 16. I .2/ 18 .1.1 / 20 .1.2 4/4. l /4. l. l /5a/8. 1/18. l .1/27 .1.2

p A p

X F F

4.1 /4.1 . 1/4.1. la 2/2.1/2.2/2.3 18.1.2/21.1

F

2.3/2.3.2a 2.3 16.1.2/17.1.1 /20.1.2 22.1 2.3/2.3.2 7.1.2 30.1.1 30.1.1

NB8 noA+

FS

s s

2/2.1.1 c/2.3/2.3.2/2.3.2b/2.3.2c

= Bromus sterilis (cf) SF 8 S(F) 8 F AN 8 F(S) B s B NB s B = Moehringia trinerva (cf) p noA+ F p s NB p B noA+ s A

A A p p A p p p

A p A p

noA+ 8 8 no A+

114

s s

F X NgX X X FN FN FX F X X

F F F

F

5/30.1.3 2.4.1 /30.1.1 a 22.1.2 l .1/27 .1.3/28/28.2 1.1.2a/2.3 cf 18 2.1.1c/2.3/2 .3.2c 2.4.1

Bellis perennis (common daisy) Bilerdykia convolvulus / fallopia Brassica alba (white mustard) Brassica campestris/rapa (field mustard , wild turnip) Brassica sinapis/arvensis ( charlock , wild mustard) Bromus arvensis (field brome) Bromus mollis / hordaceus (soft brome) Bromus secalinus (chess) Bromus sterilis (barren brome) Calluna vulgaris (heather) Caltha palustris (marsh marigold) Camelina sativa (gold-of-pleasure) Campanula rotundifolia (harebell , bluebell) Capsella bursa-pastoris (shepherd's purse) Cardamine pratensis (lady's smock, cuckoo flower, bitter cress) Carduus sp. Carex arenaria (sand sedge) Carex demissa (common yellow-sedge) Carex echinata (star sedge) Carex flacca/glauca (glaucous sedge) Carex lasiocarpa (slender sedge) Carex nigra (common sedge) Carex panicea (carnation sedge) Carex pulicaris (flea sedge) Carlina vulgaris (carline thistle) Centaurea cyanus (cornflower, bachelor's button) Centaurea nigra (common knapweed) Centaurium erythraea (centaury) Cerastium aquaticum Cerastium holosteioides / fontanum (mouse-ear chickweed) Chenopodium album (fat hen , goosefoot) Chenopodium bonus-henricus (perennial goosefoot, good king henry) Chenopodium ficifolium (fig-leaved goosefoot, ivy-leaved goosefoot) Chenopodium glaucum (oak-leaved goosefoot , glaucous goosefoot) Chenopodium polyspermum (all-seed) Chenopodium rubrum (red goosefoot) Chenopodium urbicum (upright goosefoot) Chenopodium vulvaria (stinking goosefoot) Chrysanthemum leucanthemum (ox-eye daisy) Chrysanthemum segetum (com marigold) Circium acaule (dwarf thistle) Circium arvense (creeping thistle) Circium dissectum (meadow thistle) Circium palustre (marsh thistle) Circium vulgare (spear thistle) Cladium mariscus (great fen-sedge) Clematis vitalba (traveller's-joy) Cnicus spp. Colchicum autumnale (Meadow saffron , autumn crocus)

p B+ F F = Polygonum convolvulus (ct) s F A B A NB F A A A A A p

NB B noA + B B A+

S(F) F F* F* F* FS

p

B NB B(A) noA + noA +

s

A p A p

F F XN

F F X

F FS

s s

I F XNg

Circium sp. (ct) A na Ana na A B(N) na AB na A+ na AN na B na p B+ S? F* A B F p noA + S(F) X(I) F X(I) A B = Myosoton aquaticum (ct) p noA + F* X

5/21.2.1 /21.2.2 2.3/2.3.3 2.1 2 .1.1c/2 .3 2.5 2.4 . 1/5 2.3 2.4 /2.4. l /l 5 .1 . 1/30.1.2 14. 1. 1/ 14 .2. 1/ 14 .2 .2/ 16 .1 .1/ 17.1.1/20. 2.1 17.1.1/21.1.1 2.4.1 /4/4.2.1/4.2.1 d cf22 l .1.2a/2/4 .2.1 8.1/8.2. 1/21

=

p p p p p p p p

6.2/9 9 9.1.1/20.1.2 8.2.1/9 /22 . 1.2 9/9. 1.1 9.1.1 8.2.1 /9/14.1 . 1/20. 1.2 9.2.1 /20.1.2 22.1.2 2.3 21/22.1.2 18 cf 5/21

A p

noA + B

S*

s

F

1. 1/2/2. 1/2.2 /2.3 2.4 /2.4.1 /4/4.2

A

B

s

F

2. 1.1

A

noA +

s

F

1. 1.2/ l. 1.2a

A A A A p A p p p p p

noA + B B B B A B B AA-N noA + p

s s

F

F

2.1/2.1.2a I .1.2/l. l .2a/2. l. l/ 2.4. I 2.5.l 2.4. 1/cf27 21.2. l 2.1 /2. 1.2/2. l .2b 22.1.2 2.1/2 .3 cf 10/14 10. 1. I/ 18. 1.2/2 1. 1 2.5/30 F 7.3.1 18.1.3

F

21

115

F

F FS

s s s

FS

NB B = Circium spp. (cf) p NB s p

F

F X F I F(X) X FN

s

Convolvulus arvensis (bindweed , wi)d morning-glory ) Cornus sanguinea (dogwood) Corylus avellana (hazel)

p

noA +

dee dee

NA-

Crataegus monogyna (hawthorn)

dee

noA +

s

X

Crepis capillaris (smooth hawk's-beard) Crepis paludosa (marsh hawk's-beard) Cynosurus cristatus (crested dog's-tail ) Dactylis glomerata (cock's-foot) Daucus carota (wild carrot , Queen-Anne's lace ) Deschampsia flexuosa (wavy hair-grass )

AB p p p p p

A N noA + noA + B+ A+

SF

s s

F F F X J(X)

F

I

Echinochloa crus-galli (cockspur grass) Eleocharis palustris (spike rush ) Elymus repens Epilobium pa lustre (marsh willowherb) Epipactus palustris (marsh helleborine ) Equisetum arvense (field horse-tail , toad-pipe) Erodium cicutarium (common storksbill ) Erophila verna (common whitlowgrass ) Euonymus europaeus (spindle ) Euphorbia peplus (petty sp urge) Euphorbia platyphyllos (broad spurge ) Euphrasia odontites Festuca gigantea (giant fescue) Festuca ovina (sheep's-fescue) Festuca pratensis (meadow fescue) Filipendula ulmaria (meadowsweet) Filipendula vulgaris (dropwort) Fragaria vesca (wild strawberry) Fumaria officinalis (common fumitory) Galeopsis tetrahit (common hemp-nettle) Galium aparine (goosegrass , cleavers) Galium mollugo (hedge bedstraw) Galium palustre (marsh bedstraw) Galium saxatile (heath bedstraw) Galium spurium (false bedstraw) Galium verum (lady's bedstraw) Genista anglica (petty whin) Glechoma hederacea (ground ivy) Hedera helix (ivy) Helianthemum nummularium (common rockrose) Hippocrepis comosa (horseshoe vetch) Hippuris vulgaris (mare's-tail) Holcus lanatus (Yorkshire-fog) Hydrocotyle vulgaris (marsh pennywort) Hyoscyamus niger (hen bane) Hypericum perforatum (St. John's wort) Hypochoeris radicata (cat's-ear) Iris pseudacorus (yeJlow iris) Juncus articulatus Oointed rush) Juncos subnodulosus (blunt-flowered rush) Juniperus communis Ouniper) Lamium album (white deadnettle ) Lamium purpureum (red deadnettle) Lapsana communis (nipplewort)

s A X B = Agropyrum repens (ct) p s A-N X B p na NB F NB A FS B A B dee s noA + A SF B A = Odontites verna (cf) p s B p AN F p noA + F p s noA + p B p s B s A B s AB A noA + F* A p F B p noA + s p na A s B A p na N ev A p noA + s p B(A-) s p s B p B p B p FS N p na A s A NB p s B p AFS p N p s Ap B Aev p B+ F A s B A noA + F

B

A p

116

F(S)

F

3.1.1 a/5a

F F

18.1.2 16.1.2/17.1.1/18.1.1/ l 8. l.2 / 18. 1.3 15. 1.1116.1.2/18.1. l/ 18.1.2/ 18.1.3 21.2.2 21.1.1 21.2.2 5/21.2.1 2. l .2/5a; cf 22 14.2.2 / l 6. 1.1I 16.1.2/17 . 1.1/ 20.1.2/20.2.1 2.2.2/2.2.2a 7.2.2112

FN

X(I)

X(I) 8. 1/9/9. 1. 1 9.2.1 2/3.1.la F 2.1 FN Xl(Ni) 2.3.1/2.3.2 18. 1.2/18.1.3 F 2.1 FN 2.1 FN F

I X X I X(I)

F F F F F

I FN I NgXI F

X I F F X(F)

X F I

X F X X na F

F FN

18. l.3 6/16. l .2/20.1.2 /20.2.1/22 21 4. 1/ 4. 1. 1/ 10. 1. 1/ 18. 1. 1/ 18. 1.2 17 15.1.2 / 18.1.3 2.1.1 /2. 1. ld/ 2.3/2.3.3 2 2.3 /30 21.2.1 7.3.l 16.1.2 / l 7. 1. 1/20 . 1.2/ 20.2.1 2.3.3 2.1.2e 20.2.1 18. 1 17 .1 . 1/ 18. l .2/ 18 .1.3 22.1.2 22.1 7.2 . 1 2. 1.1 d/5/21 9/9 . 1.1/ 12 2.5.1 20 /22 /30 . 1.1 a 2.1.2/2.3.1 /6/17 /2 0.2 7/7.2.1 / 12 4. 1/4. 1. 1/9/9 . 1. 1/ 17. 1.1 9.2.1 16.1.1 /16.1.2 30.1.1/30.1.3 2.1/2.2.2b 2.3

Lathyrus nissiola (grass vetchling) Lathyrus pratensis (meadow vetchling) Leontodon autumnalis (autumn hawkbit) Leontodon hispidus (rough hawkbit) Leucanthemum vulgare Linum catharticum (fairy flax) Linum usitatissimum (flax) Lithospermum arvense (com gromwell) Lolium perenne (perennial rye-grass) Lolium temulentum (dame) , poisonous rye-grass) Lonicera periclymenum (honeysuckle) Lotus corniculatus (common bird's-foot trefoil) Lychnis diurna/dioica Lychnis flos-cuculi (ragged-robin) Lychnis alba/vespertina Lycopus europaeus (gypsywort) Lysimachia vulgaris (yellow loosestrife) Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) Malva sylvestris (mallow) Matricaria inodora/perforata Matricaria maritima Medicago lupulina (black medick) Melandrium album Melandrium dioicum/rubrum Melandrium noctiflorum Mentha aquatica (water mint) Metha arvensis (wild mint) Moehringia trinerva (three-nerved sandwort) Molinia caerulea (purple moor-grass) Montia fontana (blinks) Myagrum sativum Myosotis arvensis (forget-me-not) Myosoton aquaticum (water chickweed) Nasturtium officinale (watercress) Nasturtium palustre Odontites verna (bartsia) Oenanthe aquatica (water dropwort) Ononis repens (common restharrow) Ononis spinosa/campestris (cammock , spiny rest-harrow) Panicum crus -galli Papaver argemone (long rough-headed poppy) Papaver dubium (long smooth-headed popy) Papaver hybridium (round rough-headed poppy) Papaver rhoeas (common poppy , com poppy) Pastinaca sativa (parsnip) Petasites vulgaris/hybridus (butter-box , butterbur) Peucedanum palustre (milk-parsely) Peucedanum sativum Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary-grass) Phleum pratense (timothy) Phyteuma orbiculare (round-headed rampion) Pimpinella saxifraga (bumet-saxifrage) Plantago lanceolata (ribwort plantain) Plantago major (broad leaf plantain) Poa annua (bluegrass , meadow grass) Polygonum amphibium (amphibious bistort) Polygonum aviculare (knotgrass , irongrass)

NgF 2.3 B F NgX 5/21/21.1 /21.2. l /2 . l s noA+ 4. l/4. l.l/5a FS F noA + 22 B+ F = Chrysanthemum leucanthemum ( cf) I 9; cf21/22 B(A) B+ s B+ F 2.4.1/4 /4.2.1/4.2.1 d A FS F 2.3 /2.3.3 N A p 2.1.1 d/4/4.2.1 /4.2 .1d/5a/21.2.2 noA + F F F 2.3 B F A p A+ s 17 .1. 1/18.1.1 /18.1.2 I p noA + s 4.1.l ; cf 20/22 NgXJ = Silene dioica (ct) p F 21/21.1 /21. l. l B = Silene alba/latifolia (cf) p B F 7 p NB F 21.1 p A-B 4.1/4.1.1/7.3.1 /21.1.2 s X FS 2.4.1 BP B FN = Tripleurospermum inodorum (ct) = Tripleurospermum maritimum ( cf) P B S Ngl 2 . 1.1d/2.3.2a = Silene alba/latifolia (cf) = Silene dioica ( ct) = Silene noctiflora (cf) P N na(S) F 9 2 . 1/2 .3/2.3.2c /4. l/4.1. l P B F F 12 A(P) B S X P A+ S 9. 1. 1I 10. 1. 1/ 14. 1. 1/ 16. 1. 1/2 1. 1.3 X 8.1 AP AX = Camelina sativa (cf) noA+ F F 2.3/2 .3.2 A p s 2.5 B F p N s 7.1/7.1.2 X = Rorippa palustris ( cf) FS F 2.3/4.1 /4.1.1 A B F 7.2 .2 AB B p Ngl 22.l.2 B p Ngl B 22.1.2 A p p p

= Echinochloa

crus-galli (ct) FS F B B FS F B FS F S(F) F B F B s s F B noA + X B = Pastinaca sativa (ct) p s noA + X p noA + F? F p B X p noA + s I p noA + I s p noA + F s A(P) NB F(S) F p noA + s F noA + s A X

A A A A B p

117

2.3/2.3.2 /2.3.2a/2 .3 .3b 2 .1.2/2.1.2f /2.3.2a 2.3/2.3 .3/2.3 .3 b 2.3/2.3.3b 2.5.1 /5 30.1.3 7.3 2.1/7.3 . 1/12/21.1.2 5/21 21.1 22.1.2 2. l .3b/5/2 l/22. l .2 2.1.1 d/4/4.2 . 1/4.2.1 d 2. 1.3/4.2.1 /5/8. 1/21.2.2 4.1/4.1.1 4.2.1 /4.2. la

Polygonum convol vulus (b lack bindw eed , climbing buck wheat) Polygonum hydropiper (water pepper ) Polygonum lapathifolium (pale pers icaria ) Polygonum minus (lesser persicaria ) Polygonum persicaria (redshank , red persicaria , smartw eed) Potentilla anserina (silverweed) Potentilla erecta (tormentil ) Potentilla palustris (marsh cinquefoil ) Potentilla reptans (creepin g cinqu efoil) Primula veris (cowslip ) Prunella vulgaris (self-heal) Prunus spinosa (sloe , blackthorn ) Pteridium aquilinum (bracken ) Ranunculus acris (meadow buttercup ) Ranunculus arvensis (com crowfoot) Ranunculus bulbosus (bulbou s buttercup ) Ranunculus flammula (lesser spearwort ) Ranunculus parviflorus (small -flow ered butte rcup) Ranunculus repens (buttercup , creepin g crowfoo t) Raphanus raphanustrum Uointed charloc k, wild radi sh) Rhamnus catharticus (bu ckt horn ) Rhinanthus crista-galli/minor (yellow-rattle ) Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum Rorippa palustris/islandica (marsh yellowcres s) Rubus fruticosus (bramble , blackberry) Rumex acetosa (common sorrel) Rumex acetosella (sheep's sorrel) Rumex crispus (curled dock) Rumex obtusifolius (broad-leaved dock ) Sambucus nigra ( elder) Sanguisorba minor (salad bumet) Sanguisorba officionalis (burnet) Saxifraga tridactylites (rue-leaved saxifrage ) Scabiosa columbaria (small scabious ) Scandix pecten-veneris (shepherd' s needle) Schoenus nigricans (black bog-rush ) Scleranthus annuus (annual knawel) Sedum acre (biting stonecrop) Senecio jacobaea (common ragwort) Senecio vulgaris (groundsel) Sherardia arvensis (field madder) Silene alba/latifolia (white campion ) Silene dioica (red campion ) Silene inflata/vulgaris (bladder campion , whitebottle) Silene noctiflora (night-flowerin g campion ) Sinapis spp. Sisyrnbrium officionale (hedge mustard) Solanurn dulcamara (bittersweet nightshad e) Solanum nigrum (deadly , black nightshade ) Sonchus arvensis (c om sow -thi stle) Sonchus asper (sow-thistle ) Sonchus oleraceus (sow-thistle , milk thistle ) Sorbus aria (common whitebeam )

A

noA +

S*

F

2

A A A A

A B N noA +

s s s s

F F

1.1/ 1.1.la 2. 1. 1 1.1. la 1. 1/ 1. 1.1a/2. l /2 . 1.1

p p p p p p p p p A p p

s s

F

s

F

A p

B AN N B NB noA + B A+ no A+ B noA + AB noA+

A

A

FN

F

I XI

s

I X F X X F F(X) X F F

FS

F

s na

FS FS F

s F

F dee B XI A NB s = Na sturtium officinal e ( cf) noA + s F A p F(X) A+(B ) s p s X Ap s X AP(A) s F NB p noA + s F p noA + s F p I FS B p X N 8+ F I A p NB F I F F B A p F B F A Ai FS p na I N X(I) P(A) F B s F A NB F(S) F A B p F FN B p s F AB p s X B A

B

F

4/4 . 1/4 . l.1 c/29 . 1.2 9 . 1I 14. 1. I/ 16. 1.2/ 17 . 1. 1/20 . 1.2 9/9. 1.1 2. 1/4.1.1 18. 1 5/ 12/21 18.1.2 16. 1.1/1 7.1.1/ 18.1.1 20.1.2 /21 /21.2 . 1 2.1.1/2.3 .3 21.2 .2 9/9 .1.1 2. I/2. 1.2/2 . l .2d 2. 1/4 . 1/4.1.1/4.1.1 bl 5110.1.1I 17. I .1/ 18. 1. 1/ 18. 1.2 2 . 1/2 . 1.2/2. l .2b/2 . 1.2f/2.3.2b 15. 1.1/ 18. 1 5/2 1/22 1/ 1.1 17. 1. 1I 18. 1. 1/ I 8. 1.2/ l 8. 1.3 2 .1/5/ 12/2 1 2 .1.2/2.3 .1 /2 .3. 1a/6/ 12 2.1/ 4 .1/4 . 1.1/l 2 2. 1/2. 1. 1d/12 /30/3 0.1. 2 15 . I . I / I 8. 1.2/ I 8. I .3 22 2 1.1 6.2 .1 22 .1.2 2.3.3 9/9 .2.1/ 14. I . I 2 .1.2/2.3/2.3. 1/2.3. la 6 2 1.2 .2 2/2 .1. 1/2 .1.3/2 .4.1 2.3/2.3 .2d/2.3 .3 2. 1.2/2 .3.3 b no clear association no clear association

F

2.3/2.3 .2c/2.3 .3/2.3 .3b

F

2. 1/2 .4.1 10 1. I .2a/2 /2.1 /2. l .2/2.2.2b 2 .3 2 .2.2 2. 1/2.1.1 I 8.1.3

= Brassica spp . ( cf) AB p A p A A dee

B N B B NB NB B

118

s s s

F

F

S*

F

s s

X F

X

Spergula arvensis (com spurrey) Stellaria alsine (bog stitchwort) Stellaria aquatica Stellaria graminea (lesser stitchwort) Stellaria media ( chickweed) Stellaria palustris (marsh stitchwort) Suaeda maritima (herbaceous seablite) Succisa pratensis (devil's-bit scabious) Thalictrum flavum ( common meadow-rue) Thelypteris palustris (marsh fem) Thlaspi arvense (pennycress) Thymus praecox (wild thyme) Torilis arvensis (hedge parsley) Trifolium dubium (lesser trefoil) Trifolium pratense (red clover) Trifolium repens (white clover) Tripleurospermum inodorum/maritimum (scentless mayweed) Triticum repens Tussilago farfara (coltsfoot) Ulex europaeus (common gorse) Ulex minor (dwarf gorse) U rtica dioica (larger stinging nettle) Urtica urens (annual nettle) Valeriana dioica (marsh valerian) Valerianella dentata (valerian , Iamb's lettuce) Veronica beccabunga (brooklime) Veronica hederofolia (ivy-leaved speedwell) Veronica serpyllifolia (thyme-leaved speedwell) Viburnum lantana (wayfaring-tree) Vicia cracca (tufted vetch) Vicia hirsuta (hairy vetch) Vicia sativa/angustifolia ( common vetch) Vicia tetrasperma (smooth vetch, four-seed vetch) Viola arvensis (field pansy) Viola hirta (hairy violet)

A

Ai

s

F

p

N

FS?

F

2. 1/2. l .2/2 . l .2c/2.2.2/ 2.2.2b/ 2.3.1/2.3. la 8.1

= Myosoton aquaticum (ct)

p A p A p p p

A noA +

S*

B

A A p p

B AB AB B+ B noA + ANB

A

noA +

A p

s s na S* S? FS F F

F FN X FN I XF F F

I

s

F NgXI NgF NgF

s

F

5 2/15 . 1.1/29.1.2 9 28.1 21.1.3 21.1

IO.I.I 2.1.1/2.1. la 22 2.3.3c 2. l .2/5/21/21 .2.1 /29. l .2 5/21/21.2.1/29.1.2 2. l. ld/4.1.1 c/4.2 . 1d/5 /21 .2.1/ 21.2 .2/29.1.2 2/2. l .2e

= Agropyrum repens ( ct)

p ev ev p A p A p A p dee p A A A A p

noA + A A+ NB B NB

B NB AAB noA + B N B

119

s s s s

X NgXI Ngl FN F

I F(S) F? F*

F F(S) F F(S) FS

s

F F X X X NgF FN NgF FN F

4.2.1 /4.2.1 e 20.2.1/20.2.2 20.2 . l 2.1 . 1d/18.1.2 /30/30 . 1.3 2.1 /2.2 .2b/2 .3 21. l 2.3 /2.3.3 /2.3.3b 7. 1/7.1. l 2.1 .2/2. 1.3/2. 1.3b/2.3.2a 21. 2 .2 18.1 2.3.2 /2 1 2.3 2.1.2 /2.3 2.3 2.3 4.1

APPENDIX 2: Habitat Characteristics of the Mammal and Bird Species Mentioned in this Text

Appendix 2.1: Mammal Species The list is complied from fauna) reports used in this study . The data were derived from Corbet and Harris (1991). The columns are defined as follows: Co lumn I-Habitat: R = rivers , lakes, and their margins ; marshes W = woodlands and glades G = grasslands , meadows and fields ; includes agricultural land M = marine and coastal habitats , estuaries , tidal flats; sea cliffs E = woodland edges , coppices , hedgerows ; esp. edges of human settlement S = scavengers and commensals ( ) = occasional or exceptional occurrence Column 2-Food resource: Yes / No Column 3-Secondary products: f = pelts or hides o = oil a = antler or horn b = breed with or augment domestic stock

Canis lupus (wolf) Capreolus capreolus (roe deer) Castor fiber (beaver) Cervus dama Cervus elaphus (red deer) Cetacea sp. (whale) Dama dama (fallow deer) Erinaceus europaeus (hedgehog) Felis sp. (?sylvestris) (wild cat) Lepus capensis / europaeus (hare) Lepus cunniculus Lutra lutra (otter) Martes martes (marten) Meles meles (badger) M ustela martes Mustela nivalis / vulgaris (weasel) Mustela putorius (polecat) Oryctolagus cunniculus (rabbit) Phoca vitulina (harbor seal) Sus scrofa (wild boar) Vulpes vulpes (red fox)

1

2

3

ws ws

N

tb

y fa y R f = Dama dama (ct) y ws fa y M 0 y ws fa y E w N f y G f = Oryctolagus cunniculus (ct) y RM f WE N f WE N f = Martes martes (ct) WGE N f WGS N f y f G y M f y w tb ES N f

120

Appendix 2.2: Bird Species The list is complied from faunal reports used in this study. The data were derived from Peterson , Mountfort and Hollom (I 993) . The columns are defined as follows:

Column I-Habitat: R = rivers , lakes , and their margins ; marshes W = woodlands and glades G = grasslands, meadows and fields ; includes agricultural land M = marine and coastal habitats , estuaries , tidal flats ; sea cliffs E = woodland edges , coppices , hedgerows ; esp. edges of human settlement S = scavengers and commensals all = all habitats , ubiquitous ( ) = occasional or exceptional occurrence Column 2-Food resource: Yes / No Column 3-Residence season: Wi = winter migrant Su = summer migrant (breeding population) Y = resident year-round; non-migratory V = non-resident vagrant (eg. V(Wi) = winter vagrant)

1 Accipiter gentilis (goshawk) Anas acuta (pintail) Anas boscas ( common wild duck) Anas crecca (teal) Anas penelope (wigeon) Anas platyrhynchos (mallard) Anas strepera (gadwall) Anser anser ( domestic goose ,grey lag goose) Aquila chrysaetos (golden eagle) Ardea cinerea (grey heron Astor palumbarius Aythya ferina (common pochard , table duck) Aythya fuligula (tufted duck) Aythya marila (scaup) Botaurus stellaris (common bittern) Bran ta leucopsis (barnacle goose) Bucephala clangula (goldeneye) Buteo buteo (buzzard) Calidris alpina (dunlin) Carduelis carduelis (goldfinch) Ciconia cicona (stork) Circus cyaneus (hen harrier) Colomba palumbus (wood pigeon) Corvus corax (raven) Corvus corone (carrion crow) Corvus frugilegus (rook) Corvus monedula Uackdaw) Coturnix coturnix (quail) Crex crex (land rail , corncrake) Cygnus bewickii (bewick's swan) Cygnus cygnus (whooper swan) Cygnus olor (mute swan)

2

3

y N WES y Wi RM y y RM y y RW y Wi RM y y RM y y R(M) y RG Wi V MW N y RM N = Accipiter gentilis (cf) y y R y y R y M(R) Wi y N R y V(Wi) M y MRW Wi y WECS N y V(Su) M y N E V(Su) N R N Wi GRS y y allS y N allS y allS N y ES N y allS N y y G?W N Su G y V(Wi) R y MR Wi y y M(R)

121

Comments Su - east coast only

south coast only Wi - coastal only

SE and Wash only

Midlands and west only

not east coast

west only east only

Dafila acuta Falco peregrinus (peregrine falcon ) Flammea flammea Fratercula arctica (puffin) Fulica atra (coot) Fuligula fuligula Gallinula chloropus (moorhen) Garrulus glandarius Gay) Glaucion clangula Grus cinerea/grus Haliaeetus albicilla (sea eagle) Lagopus lagopus /scoticus (red grouse) Larus argentatus (herring gull) Larus fuscus (lesser black-backed gull) Lyrurus tetrix (black grouse) Mareca penelope Megalornis grus ( common crane ) Melanitta nigra (common scoter) Mergus merganser (merganser, goosander) Mergus serrator (red-breasted merganser) Milvus ictinus/milvus (kite) Nettion crecca Numenius arquata (curlew ) Nyroca ferina Nyroca marila Pelecanus crispus (Dalmatian pelican) Perdix perdix (partridge) Phalacrocorax carbo (cormorant) Podiceps fluviatilis / ruficollis (little grebe) Prunella modularis (hedge sparrow) Puffinus sp. Rallus aquaticus (water rail) Rissa dactyla/tridactyla (kittiwake) Spatula clypeata (shoveller) Tadorna tadorna (shelduck) Tringa totanus (redshank) Turdus musicus (redwing) Tyto alba (barn owl)

= Anas acuta (ct) W(R)

N

Wi(Y)

= Tyto alba (ct) M

Y

Wi

R

Y?

Y

Su - SW coast

= Aythya fuligula (cf) RG W

Y N

Y Y

= Buchephala clangula (ct) = Megalornis grus (ct) M N V RE Y Y M(R)S N Su M(R)S N Wi RW Y Y = Anas penelope (ct) R N V M Y Wi R(W) Y Wi M Y Wi WES N Su = Anas crecca (ct) RM N Y = Aythya ferina (cf) = Aythya marila (ct) R y G y y

M

N?

Y

R Y? Y ES N Y = Fratercula arctica (ct) y R N y M N y y R y y M y RM N y N RE y S(W) N

122

coastal Su - west and south coasts

Su - some coastal

west - restricted range

no longer resident all coasts exc. Wash

SW coast coastal

APPENDIX 3: Gazetteer of Sites Used in this Text

Site name

Period

County

Region

Page#

Aldermaston Wharf Bishopstone Bishopstone Black Patch Brean Down Brean Down Burgh Bury Hill Cat's Water Copse Farm Danebury Danebury Easton Lane Fison Way Glastonbury Groundwell Farm Groundwell Farm Gussage All Saints Gussage All Saints Gussage All Saints Haddenham Harting Beacon Hascombe Hawk's Hill Hengistbury Head Hengistbury Head Houghton Down Itford Hill Knight's Farm Little Sombome Little Waltham Loft's Farm Maiden Castle Maxey Maxey Meare Village East Meare Village West Micheldever Wood Nettlebank Copse Nettlebank Copse Newark Road North Bersted Old Down Farm Old Down Farm Poundbury Poundbury Ram's Hill Runnymede Bridge Slonk Hill

LBA EIA LIA LBA E/MBA LBA LIA LIA LIA LIA MIA LIA E/MIA LIA LIA EIA MIA EIA MIA LIA MIA EIA LIA LIA EIA LIA EIA LBA LBA MIA LIA LBA MIA MIA LIA LIA LIA MIA EIA LIA LBA LIA EIA MIA E/MBA LIA LBA LBA EIA

Berkshire East Sussex East Sussex East Sussex Somerset Somerset Suffolk Hampshire Cambridgeshire West Sussex Hampshire Hampshire Hampshire Norfolk Somerset Wiltshire Wiltshire Wiltshire Wiltshire Wiltshire Cambridgeshire West Sussex Surrey Surrey Dorset Dorset Hampshire East Sussex Berkshire Hampshire Essex Essex Dorset Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire Somerset Somerset Hampshire Hampshire Hampshire Cambridgeshire West Sussex Hampshire Hampshire Dorset Dorset Berkshire Surrey West Sussex

Wessex Southeast Southeast Southeast Wessex Wessex Eastern Counties Wessex Eastern Counties Southeast Wessex Wessex Wessex Eastern Counties Wessex Wessex Wessex Wessex Wessex Wessex Eastern Counties Southeast Southeast Southeast Wessex Wessex Wessex Southeast Wessex Wessex Eastern Counties Eastern Counties Wessex Eastern Counties Eastern Counties Wessex Wessex Wessex Wessex Wessex Eastern Counties Southeast Wessex Wessex Wessex Wessex Wessex Southeast Southeast

65 38 39 35 61 64 56 85 55 40 80 89 74 55 90 68 74 69

123

77

83 52 39 42 40 70 86 70 34 65 76 54 49 78 53 53 93 92 76 72

84 51 41 68 73 63 87 66 36 39

Springfield Lyons Story's Bar Road West Stow Winnall Down Winnall Down

LBA E/MBA LIA EIA MIA

Essex Cambridge shire Suffolk Hampshire Hampshire

124

Eastern Counties Eastern Countie s Eastern Counties Wessex Wessex

51 48 54 67 75

REFERENCES

Adkins, L. and S. Needham 1985 New Research on a Late Bronze Age Enclosure at Queen Mary's Hospital, Carshalton. Surrey Archaeological Collections 76: 11-50. Albarella, Umberto 1999 'The Mystery ofHusbandry': Medieval Animals and the Problem oflntegrating Historical and Archaeological Evidence. Antiquity 73:867-875. Alcock, Leslie 1972

By South Cadbury is that Camelot. Thames and Hudson, London.

Allen, M. J. 1984

Ashcombe Bottom Excavation. Lewes Archaeological Group Report, Lewes.

Arensberg, Conrad M. and Solon T. Kimball 1948 The Family and Community in Ireland. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Ashwin, Trevor 1996

Neolithic and Bronze Age Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62:41-62.

Ashwin, Trevor and Sarah Bates 2000 ExcavationsontheNorwichSouthernBypass , /989-1991 . Part I: ExcavationsatBixley , CaistorSt . Edmund, Trowse, Cringleford and little Melton. East Anglian Archaeology 91 / Norfolk Museums Service. Avery, M. 1968

Excavations at Meare East, 1966. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 112:21-39.

Bailey, Geoff and Alison Sheridan 1981 Introduction: Ecological and Social Perspectives in Economic Archaeology. In Economic Archaeology: toward an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches , edited -by Alison Sheridan and Geoff Bailey. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 96, Oxford. Bakels, Corrie 1996

Growing Grain for Others, or How to Detect Surplus Production? Journal of European Archaeology 4:329336.

Balch, Herbert E. 1914 Wookey Hole: its Caves and Cave Dwellers. Oxford University Press, London. Barker, Graeme 1985 Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Barker, Graeme and Clive Gamble 1985a Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe. Academic Press, New York. Barker, Graeme and Clive Gamble 1985b Beyond Domestication: a Strategy for Investigating the Process and Consequence of Complexity. In Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, edited by Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble, pp. 1-31. Academic Press, New York.

125

Barlett, Peggy 1980

Introduction: Development Issues and Economic Anthropology. In Agricultural Decision Making : Anthropological Contributions to Rural Development , edited by Peggy F. Barlett, pp. 1-18. Academic Press, New York.

Barrett, John and Richard Bradley 1980a The Later Bronze Age in the Thames Valley . In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, edited by J. Barrett and R. Bradley, pp. 247-270. British Archaeological Reports 83, Oxford. Barrett, John and Richard Bradley , eds. 1980b Settlement and Society in the British later Bronze Age. British Archaeological Reports 83. Oxford. Barrett, John , Richard Bradley and Martin Green 1991 landscape, Monuments and Society: the Prehistory of Cranborne Chase. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Barrett, John , Richard Bradley and Melanie Hall, eds . 1991 Papers on the Prehistoric Archaeology of Cranborne Chase. Oxbow Monograph 1 I, Oxford. Barton , K. J. 1962

Bedwin , Owen 1978a Bedwin , Owen 1978b

Bedwin, Owen 1979a Bedwin , Owen 1979b

Settlements of the Iron Age and Pagan Saxon Periods at Linford, Essex. Archaeological Society 3:57-104.

Transactions of the Essex

Excavations inside Harting Beacon Hill fort , 1976. Sussex Archaeological Collections 116:225-240 .

Iron Age Sussex-The Downs and Coastal Plain. In Archaeology in Sussex to AD 1500, edited by P. Drewett, pp. 41-51 . Council for British Archaeology Bulletin 28, London.

Bronze Age Pottery from Cross Lane, Findon , West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 117:254-5.

Excavations at Harting Beacon , West Sussex; Second Season 1977. Sussex Archaeological Collections 117:21-36.

Bedwin, Owen 1980

Excavations at Chanctonbury Ring, Wiston , West Sussex , I 977. Britannia I I: 173-222.

Bedwin , Owen 1981

Excavations at Lancing Down, West Sussex , 1980. Sussex Archaeological Collections 119:37-55.

Bedwin, Owen 1982

Bedwin , Owen 1984

Bedwin , Owen 1986

The Pre-Roman Iron Age on Bullock Down. In The Archaeology of Bullock Down, Eastbourne, East Sussex: The Development of a landscape, edited by P. L. Drewett , pp. 73-96. Sussex Archaeological Society Monograph 1. Lewes .

Aspects oflron Age Settlement in Sussex. In Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain , edited by B. Cunliffe and David Miles , pp. 46-51. Oxford Committee for Archaeology Monograph #2, Oxford.

Excavations at Seaford Head, East Sussex , 1983. Sussex Archaeological Collections 124:25-33.

Bedwin , Owen and M. W. Pitts 1978 The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement at North Bersted , Bognor Regis , West Sussex, 1975-76. Sussex Archaeological Collections 116:293-346.

126

Bedwin, Owen and Robin Holgate 1985 Excavations at Copse Fann, Oving , West Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51 :215-246. Bell, Martin 1977

Excavations at Bishopstone. Sussex Archaeological Collections 115.

Bell, Martin 1990

Brean Down Excavations , /983-198 7. English Heritage Archaeology Report 15. Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England , London .

Bender, Barbara 1978

Gatherer-Hunter to Fanner: a Social Perspective.

World Archaeology 10(2):204-222.

Berry , Brian J. L. 1961 City Size Distribution and Economic Development. 588.

Economic Development and Cultural Change 9:573-

Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology . American Antiquity 28(2):217-225. Binford, Lewis R. 1977 For Theory Building in Archaeology. Academic Press , New York. Binford, Lewis R. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson, New York. Binford , Sally R. and Lewis R. Binford 1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago . Boessneck , J. 1969

Osteological Differences between Sheep (Ovis aries Linne) and Goats (Capra hircus Linne) . In Science in

Archaeology, edited by D. Brothwell and E. Higgs , pp. 331-358. Thames and Hudson , London. Boissevain, J. 1974

Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulations and Coalitions. Basil Blackwell , Oxford.

Bond, Dennot 1988

Excavation of the North Ring, Mucking, Essex: a late Bronze Age Enclosure. East Anglian Archaeology Report 43. Archaeology Section , Essex County Council , Chelmsford.

Bradley, Richard 1970 The Excavation of a Beaker Settlement at Belle Tout , East Sussex , England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36:312-379. Bradley , Richard 1971a An Iron Age Promontory Fort at Belle Tout. Sussex Archaeological Collections 109:8-19. Bradley , Richard 1971 b Stock Raising and the Origins of the Hill fort on the South Downs. Antiquaries Journal 51 :8-29. Bradley, Richard I 972a Prehistorians and Pastoralists in Neolithic and Bronze Age England. World Archaeology 4: 192-204. Bradley , Richard 1978 The Prehistoric Settlement of Britain . Routledge and Kegan Paul , London. Bradley , Richard 1982 Belle Tout - Revision and Reassessment.

In The Archaeology of Bullock Down, Eastbourne , East Sussex:

127

The Development of a landscape , edited by P. Drewett , pp. 62- 71 . Sussex Archaeological Monograph

Society

1, Lewes.

Bradley, Richard 1984 The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain. Longman , London. Bradley, Richard 1990 The Passage of Arms . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge . Bradley , Richard 1991 The Pattern of Change in British Prehistory. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy , and Ideology , edited by T. K. Earle , pp . 44- 70. Cambridge University Press , New York . Bradley , Richard and Ann Ellison 1975 Ram 's Hill. British Archaeological Reports 19, Oxford . Bradley , Richard and Ian Hodder 1979 British Prehistory: an Integrated View . ManN.S . 14:93-104. Bradley , Richard , Sue Lobb , J. Richards and M. Robinson 1980 Two Late Bronze Age Sites on the Kennet Gravels : Excavations at Aldermaston Wharf and Knight's Farm , Burghfield , Berks . Proceedings of the Prehistori c Society 46 :2 17-296 . Braidwood , Robert J . and Bruce Howe 1960 Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. University of Chicago Press Chicago. Braun-Blanquet, Josias 1932 Plant Sociology. Translated by George D. Fuller. McGraw Hill, New York. British Geological Survey , 1977 Quaternary Map of the United Kingdom , South Sheet. ( l :625 ,000). Her Majesty's Stationery Office , London. Brothwell , Don R. 1987 The Bog Man and the Archaeology of People. Harvard University Press , Cambridge. Brown , N. 1988a

A Late Bronze Age Enclosure at Loft's Farm , Essex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54:249-302.

Brown, N. 1988b

The Late Bronze Age Settlement at Broad's Green. Essex Archaeology and History 19:7-14.

Buckley, David and John D. Hedges 1987a Excavation of a Cropmark Enclosure Complex at Woodham Walter, Essex, 1976. EastAnglian Archaeology Report 33 . Archaeology Section , Essex County Council , Chelmsford . Buckley, David and John D. Hedges 1987b The Bronze Age and Saxon Settlements at Springfield Lyons, Essex: an Interim Report. Essex County Council, Occasional Paper 5, Chelmsford . Bulleid, Arthur and Harold St. George Gray 1911The Glastonbury lake Village. 2 volumes . Glastonbury 1917 Antiquarian Society , Glastonbury. Bulleid , Arthur and Harold St. George Gray 1948 The Meare lak e Village: A Full Description of the Excavations and Relics from the Eastern Half of the West Village, 1910-1933 . Volume 1. Privately printed at Taunton Castle , Taunton. Burchell , J.P . T. and S. Piggott 1939 Decorated Prehistoric Pottery from the Bed of the Ebbstleet , Northtleet , Kent. Antiquaries Journal 19:405420.

128

Burstow, G. and G. Holleyman 1957 Late Bronze Age Settlement on Itford Hi11,Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 23: 167-212. Bushe-Fox, J. P. 1915 Excavations at Hengistbury Head, Hampshire in 1911-12. Society of Antiquaries Research Report 3. Oxford. Butzer, Karl 1982 Cancian, Frank 1980

Catt, J. A. 1978

Archaeology as Human Ecology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Risk and Uncertainty in Agricultural Decision Making. In Anthropological Contributions to Agricultural Decision Making, edited by Peggy F. Barlett, pp. 161-176. Academic Press, New York.

The Contribution ofLoess to Soils in Lowland Britain. In The Effect of Man on the landscape: the Lowland Zone , edited by Susan Limbrey and J. G. Evans, pp. 12-20. Council for British Archaeology, Research Reports 21, London.

Chambers, F. M. The Evidence for Early Rye Cultivation in Northwest Europe. In The Beginnings of Agriculture , edited by 1989 Annie Miles, Diane Williams and Neville Gardner, pp. 165-178. Symposia for the Association for Environmental Archaeology 8 / British Archaeological Reports, International Series 496, Oxford. Chambers, F. M. and Martin Jones 1984 The Antiquity of Rye in Britain. Antiquity 58:219-224. Champion, T. C. 1980 Settlement and Environment in Later Bronze Age Kent. In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age , edited by J. Barrett and R. Bradley, pp. 223-246. British Archaeological Reports 83, Oxford. Champion, T. C. 1982

The Bronze Age in Kent. In Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500, edited by P. Leach, pp. 31-39. Council for British Archaeology Bulletin 48, London.

Chaplin, Raymond 1971 The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Seminar Press, New York.

Charles, M. and Glynis Jones 1997 FIBS in Archaeobotany: Functional Interpretation of Weed Floras in Relation to Husbandry Practices. Journal of Archaeological Scien ce 24: 1151-1161. Cherry, John, Clive Gamble and Stephen Shennan 1978 Sampling in Contemporary British Archaeology. British Archaeological Reports 50. Oxford. Childe, V. Gordon 1942 What Happened in History. Penguin, Harmondsworth, U.K. Chippindale, Christopher 1994 Stonehenge Complete. Rev. ed. Thames and Hudson, London. Clapham, A. R., T. G. Tutin and D. M. Moore 1987 Flora of the British Isles. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York. Clark, Grahame 1952 Prehistoric Europe : the Economic Basis. Methuen, London.

129

Clark, Grahame 1953 Clark, Grahame 1954

The Economic Approach to Prehistory. Proceedings of the British Academy 39:215-238 .

Excavations at Star Carr, and Early Mesolithic Site at Seamer near Scarborough, Yorkshire. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge.

Clark, Grahame 1966

The Invasion Hypothesis in British Archaeology . Antiquity 40: 172-189.

Clark, Grahame 1972

Star Carr: a Case Study in Bioarchaeology . Addison-Wesley , Reading , MA .

Clark , Grahame 1975

The Earlier Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge.

Clark, Grahame 1976

Domestication and Social Evolution. In The Early History of Agricult ure, edited by J. Hutchinson , Grahame Clark , E. M. Jope , and R. Riley, pp. 5- I I . A Joint Symposium of the Royal Society and the British Academy . Oxford University Press for the Royal Society , Oxford.

Clark , Grahame 1989a

Economic Prehistory: Papers on Archaeology . Cambridge University Press , New York.

Clark, Grahame 1989b

Prehistory at Cambridge and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Clark, Grahame and C. I. Fell 1953 The Early Iron Age Site at Micklemoor Hill, West Harling (Norfolk) and its Pottery . Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 19( 1): 1-40. Clarke , David L. 1962 Matrix Analysis and Archaeology with Particular Reference to British Beaker Pottery . Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28:371-383. Clarke, David L. . 1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen , London. Clarke , David L. 1972 Review of. Explanation in Archaeology : an Explicitly Scientific Approach. Antiquity 46:237-239 .. Clarke, David L. 1972 A Provisional Model of an Iron Age Society and its Settlement. In Models in Archaeology, edited by D. L. Clarke, pp. 801- 70. Methuen , London. Clutton-Brock, Juliet 1989 A Natural History of Domesticated Animals. University of Texas Press , Austin. Coles , Bryony and John Coles 1986 Sweet Track to Glastonbury: the Somerset levels in Prehistory. Thames and Hudson , London. Coles , Bryony , S. E. Rouillard and C. Backway 1986 The 1984 Excavations at Meare . Somerset levels Papers 12:30-57. Coles , John 1987

Meare Village East: The Excavations of Arthur Bulleid and Harold St. George Gray, 1932-56. Somerset Levels Papers 13

130

Coles, John 1992

Arthur Bulleid and the Glastonbury Lake Village, 1892-1992. Somerset Levels Project and the Somerset County Museums Service, Taunton.

Coles, John and Bryony Orme 1980 The Prehistory of the Somerset Levels. Somerset Levels Project , Hertford. Conrad, Geoffrey and Arthur Demarest I 984 Religion and Empire: the Dynamics of Aztec and Inca Expansion. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge. Coppock , J. T. 1964

Crop, Livestock and Enterprise Combinations in England and Wales. Economic Geography 40:65-8 I.

Corbet, Gordon B. and Stephen Harris, eds. 1991 The Handbook of British Mammals. 3rd ed. Published for the Mammal Society by Blackwell Scientific Publications , Oxford. Couchman , C. R. I 980 The Bronze Age in Essex. In Archaeology in Essex to AD 1500, edited by D. G. Buckley , pp. 40-46. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 34 , London. Coy, Jennie 1982

Crabtree, K. 1984 Crabtree , Pam 1996

Crabtree , Pam 1997

Woodland Mammals in Wessex--the Archaeological Evidence. In Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology, edited by Martin Bell and Susan Limbrey , pp. 287-296 . Symposia for the Association for Environmental Archaeology 2 I British Archaeological Reports , International Series 146, Oxford.

Two Gold Bracelets from Brean Down , Somerset. Antiquity 58:49-52.

Production and Consumption in an Early Complex Society: Animal Use in Middle Saxon East Anglia. World Archaeology 28( 1):58-75.

Identifying Specialized Agricultural Production Journal of Field Archaeology 14:241-243.

in the Archaeological Record - a Response to Wells.

Crow , D. A. 1930

Excavations at Ditchling Beacon. Sussex Archaeological Collections 71 :259-61.

Cunliffe, Barry 1976

Iron Age Sites in Central Southern England. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 16, London.

Cunliffe , Barry 1982

Cunliffe, Barry 1983 Cunliffe, Barry 1984a

Cunliffe , Barry 1984b

Social and Economic Development in Kent in the Pre-Roman Iron Age . In Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500, edited by P. Leach , pp. 40-50. Council for British Archaeology Bulletin 48 , London.

Danebury : The Anatomy of an Iron Age Hillfort. Batsford , London .

Danebury : An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire , Volumes I and 2. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52 . London.

Iron Age Wessex: Continuity and Change. In Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain , edited by Barry Cunliffe and David Miles , pp. 12-45. Oxford University Committee on Archaeology , Monograph 2, Oxford.

131

Cunliffe, Barry 1987

Hengistbury Head, Dorset. Part II: Prehistoric and Roman. Oxford University Committee on Archaeology, Monograph 13. Oxford.

Cunliffe, Barry 1991

Iron Age Communities in Britain. 3rd ed. Routledge, London.

Cunliffe, Barry 1992

Wessex to AD 1000. Longman , London.

Cunliffe, Barry 1993

Danebury. 2nd rev. ed . Batsford/English Heritage , London.

Cunliffe, Barry and Cynthia Poole 1991 Danebury : An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, Volumes 4 and 5. Council for British Archaeology , Research Report 73 . London. Cunliffe , Barry and Cynthia Poole 2000a The Danebury Environs Program: the Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape . Volume 2, Part 2: Bury Hill, Upper Clatford, Hants., 1990. English Heritage / Oxford University Committee for Archaeology , Monograph 49 . Oxford. Cunliffe , Barry and Cynthia Poole 2000b The Danebury Environs Program : the Prehistory of a Wessex landscape . Volume 2, Part 3: Suddern Farm, Middle Wallop, Hants. , 1990. English Heritage / Oxford University Committee for Archaeology , Monograph 49. Oxford. Cunliffe, Barry and Cynthia Poole 2000c The Danebury Environs Program: the Prehistory of a Wessex landscape. Volume 2, Part 4: New Buildings, longstock, Hanis., 1992 and Fiveways, longstock , Hants., /996 . English Heritage I Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 49. Oxford. Cunliffe, Barry and Cynthia Poole 2000d The Danebury Environs Program: the Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape . Volume 2, Part 5: Nettlebank Copse, Wherwe/1, Hants., 1993. English Heritage / Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 49. Oxford. Cunliffe, Barry and Cynthia Poole 2000e The Danebury Environs Program : the Prehistory of a Wessex landscape . Volume 2, Part 6: Houghton Down, Stockbridge, Hants., 1994. English Heritage I Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 49. Oxford. Cunliffe, Barry and D. W. Phillipson 1968 Excavations at Eldon's Seat , Encombe , Dorset. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34: 191-23 7. Cunliffe , Barry and David Miles, eds. 1984 Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain. Oxford University Committee on Archaeology, Monograph 2, Oxford. Cunliffe, Barry and Trevor Rowley, eds. 1976 Oppida: The Beginnings of Urbanization in Barbarian Europe. Supplementary Series 1 1. Oxford. Cunliffe , Barry 1978

British Archaeological

Reports ,

Settlement and Population in the British Iron Age: Some Facts , Figures and Fantasies. In Lowland Iron Age Communities in Europe , edited by B. Cunliffe and T. Rowley , pp. 3-24 . British Archaeological Reports , International Series 48 , Oxford .

132

Cunnington, M. E. 1933 Excavations at Yarn bury Castle Camp, 1932. Wiltshire Archaeology Magazine 46: 198-2 I 3. Curcic, Vejsil 1913

Curwen, E. 1936

Rezente Pfahlbauten von Donja Dolina in Bosnien. Erganzungsheft IX der Zeitschrift filr Osterreichische Volkskunde, Vienna.

On Sussex Flint Arrowheads. Sussex Archaeological Collections 77: 15-26.

Curwen, E. and E. C. Curwen 1927 Excavations at the Caburn, near Lewes. Sussex Archaeological Collections 68: 1-56. Curwen, E. C. 1929

Excavations at the Trundle, Goodwood , 1928. Sussex Archaeological Collections 70:33-85.

Curwen , E. C. 1931a

Excavations at Hollingbury Camp , Sussex. Antiquaries Journal 12: 1-16.

Curwen, E. C. 1931b

Excavations at the Trundle, Second Season , 1930. Sussex Archaeological Collections 72: 100-150.

Curwen, E. C. 1932

Excavations at Hollingbury Camp , Sussex. Antiquaries Journal 13:109-133.

Curwen, E. C. 1933

Excavations on Thundersbarrow Hill, Sussex. Antiquaries Journal 13: 109-133.

Curwen , E. C. 1934a

Curwen , E. C. 1934b Curwen, E. C. 1935

A Late Bronze Age Farm and a Neolithic Pit-Dwelling on New Barn Down , near Worthing. Archaeological Collections 75: 137-70.

Sussex

Excavations at Whitehawk Neolithic Camp , Brighton , 1932-33. Antiquaries Journal 14:99-133.

Excavations in Whitehawk Camp , Brighton , Third Season , I 935. Sussex Archaeological Collections 77:6092.

Curwen, E. C. and R. P.R. Williamson 1931 The Date of Cissbury Camp. Antiquaries Journal I I : 14-36. Dahlman , Carl 1980

The Open Field System and Beyond. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge .

Darville, Timothy 1987 Prehistoric Britain. Yale University Press , New Haven. Davies, John 1996 92.

Where Eagles Dare: the Iron Age of Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62:63-

Davies, John, Tony Gregory and Andrew J. Lawson 1991 The Iron Age Forts of Norfolk . East Anglian Archaeology 54. Field Archaeology Division , Norfolk Museum Service, Dereham. Davies , S. M. 1981

Excavations at Old Down Farm , Andover. Part II: Prehistoric and Roman. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club 37:81-163.

133

Davis, Simon J. M. 1987 The Archaeology of Animals. Batsford , London. Davison, Alan 1990

Dennen, R. W. 1972

The Evolution of Settlement in Three Parishes in Southeast Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology Report 49. Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Norfolk Museums Service , Dereham.

The Interpretation of Plant Remains : Bulgaria. In Papers in Economic Prehistory , edited by Eric S. Higgs , pp. I 49-159. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge .

Dennen, R. W. 1974a

Botanical Evidence for Prehistoric Crop-Processing Activities. Journal of Archaeological Science 1:275-284 .

Dennen , R. W . 1974b

The Purity of Prehistoric Crops. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 40: 132-135.

Dennen , R. W. 1976a

The Economic Importanc e of Plant Resources Represented on Archaeological Archa eological Science 3:229-247 .

Sites .

Journal of

Dennell , R. W. 1976b

Prehistoric Crop Cultivation in Southern England--a Reconsideration. Antiquaries Journal 56: 11-23 .

Dixon, Philip 1988

Crickley Hill 1969-1987. Current Archa eology 1 l 0:73-78 .

Dixon, Philip and Patricia Borne 1977 Crickley Hill and Gloucestershire Prehistory . Gloucestershire County Council for Crickley Hill Trust, Gloucester. Drewett , Peter 1979

Drewett, Peter 1980

Drewett, Peter 1982a

Drewett , Peter 1982b Drewett, Peter 1982c

New Evidence for the Structure and Function of Middle Bronze Age Round Houses in Sussex. Archaeological Journal 136:3-11.

Black Patch and the Later Bronze Age in Sussex. In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, edited by J. Barrett and R. Bradley , pp. 377-396 . British Archaeological Reports 83, Oxford.

Excavations at Belle Tout , Eastbourne , 1979-80. In The Archaeology of Bullock Down, Eastbourne , East Sussex : The Development of a lands cape, by P. Drewett , pp. 90-96. Sussex Archaeological Society Monograph l , Lewes.

Excavations at Black Patch , Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48:321-400.

The Archaeology of Bullock Down, Eastbourn e, East Sussex : The Development of a Landscape . Sussex Archaeological Society Monograph l , Lewes.

Drewett , Peter and Sue Hamilton 1999 Marking Time and Making Space : Excavations and Landscape Studies at the Caburn Hillfort , East Sussex , 1996-98. Sussex Archaeological Collections 137:7-37. Drewett, Peter , David Rudling and Mark Gardiner 1988 The Southeast to AD I 000. Longman , London .

134

Drury, P. J. 1978

Drury, P. J. 1980

Excavations at little Waltham, /970-71. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 26/Chelmsford Excavation Committee Report 1, London/Chelmsford.

The Early and Middle Phases of the Iron Age in Essex. In Archaeology in Essex to AD 1500, edited by D. G. Buckley, pp. 47-54. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 34, London

Drury, P. J. and K. A. Rodwell 1973 Excavations at Gun Hill, West Tilbury. Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society 5:48-112. Drury, P. J. and Warwick Rodwell 1980 Settlement in the Later Iron Age and Roman Periods. In Archaeology in Essex to AD 1500, edited by D. G. Buckley, pp. 59-75. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 34, London. Ducos, P. 1978

Duerst, J. U. 1908

"Domestication" Defined and Methodological Approaches to its Recognition in Fauna! Assemblages. In Approaches to Fauna/ Analysis in the Middle East, edited by R. H. Meadow and M. A. Zeder , pp. 53-56. Harvard University, Peabody Museum Bulletin 2. Cambridge.

Animal Remains from Excavations at Anau. In Explorations in Turkestan: Expedition of 1904: Prehistoric Civilizations of Anau: Origins, Growth and Influence of the Environment , by R. Pumpelly and Hubert Schmidt (et al.), pp. 341-399. Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Earle, Timothy K. 1977 A Reappraisal of Redistribution: Complex Hawaiian Chiefdoms. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory , edited by T. K. Earle and J. Ericson, pp. 213-229. Academic Press, New York. Earle, Timothy K. 1980 A Model of Subsistence Change. In Modeling Change in Prehistoric Subsistence Economies , edited by Timothy K. Earle and A. Christenson, pp. 1-30. Academic Press, New York. Earle, Timothy K. 1989 The Evolution of Chiefdoms. Current Anthropology 30:84-88. Earle, Timothy K. and Robert W. Preucel 1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology 28:501-538. Earle, Timothy K., ed. 1991 Chiefdoms : Power, Economy and Ideology. School of American Research/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ellenberg, Heinz, et al. 1992 Ziegerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. 2nd ed. Scripta Geobotanica 18. Erich Goltze, Gottingen . Ellis, Frank 1988

Ellison, Ann 1978

Ellison, Ann 1980

Peasant Economics: Cambridge.

Farm Households and Agrarian Development.

Cambridge University Press,

The Bronze Age of Sussex. In Archaeology in Sussex to AD 1500, edited by P. Drewett, pp. 30-37. Council for British Archaeology Bulletin 29, London.

Settlements and Regional Exchange: a Case Study. In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, edited by J. Barrett and R. Bradley, pp. 127-140. British Archaeological Reports 83, Oxford.

135

Ellison , Ann 1981

Towards a Socioeconomic Model for the Middle Bronze Age in Southern England. In Pattern of the Past : Studies in Honour of David Clarke , edited by I. Hodder , G. Isaac and N. Hammond , pp . 413 - 438 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ellison, Ann, and P. A. Rahtz 1987 Excavations at Hog Cliff Hill, Maiden Newton , Dorset. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53:223-270. Engelmark , Roger 1989 Weed-Seeds in Archaeological Deposits: Models , Experiments and Interpretations. In Approaches to Swedish Prehistory , edited by Thomas Larsson and Hans Lundmark , pp. 179-187. British Archaeological Reports , International Series 500 , Oxford . Entwistle , Roy and Annie Grant 1989 The Evidence for Cereal Cultivation and Animal Husbandry in the Southern British Neolithic and Bronze Age . In The Beginnings of Agricultur e, edited by Annie Miles , Diane Williams and Neville Gardner , pp. 203215 . Symposia for the Association for Environmental Archaeology 8/British Archaeological Reports , International Series 496, Oxford . Evans , Christopher and Dale Serjeantson 1988 The Backwater Economy ofa Fen-edge Community : the Upper Delphs , Haddenham. Antiquity 62:360-370. Evans , John G . 1975 Fasham, P. J. 1978

Fasham , P. J. 1985

Fasham , P. J. 1987

Fasham, P. J. 1994

The Environment of Early Man in the British Isles. University of California Press , Berkeley.

Sampling for Plant Remains from Iron Age Pits: Some Results and Implications. In Sampling in Contemporary British Archaeology, edited by John Cherry , Clive Gamble and Stephen Shennan , pp. 363371. British Archaeological Reports 50, Oxford.

The Prehistoric Settlement at Winnall Down, Winchester. Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society , Monograph 2, and the Trust for Wessex Archaeology , Winchester.

A "Banjo" Enclosure in Micheldever Wood, Hampshire. Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society , Monograph 5 I Trust for Wessex Archaeology , Winchester.

Winnall Down and Easton Lane: Settlement from the Bronze Age to the Roman Period. in The Iron Age in Wessex: Recent Work, edited by A. P. Fitzpatrick and Elaine L. Morris , pp. 62-72. Association Franc;aise D'Etude de Age du Fer I Trust for Wessex Archaeology .

Fasham. P. J., D. E. Farwell and R. J.B. Whinney 1989 The Archaeological Site at Easton lan e, Winchester. Trust for Wessex Archaeology I Hampshire Field Club Monograph 6. Fasham , P. J. and M. Monk 1978 Sampling for Plant Remains from Iron Age Pits: Some Results and Implications. In Sampling in Contemporary British Archaeology, edited by John Cherry , Clive Gamble and Stephen Shennan, pp. 363-372. British Archaeological Reports 50, Oxford. Feinman , Gary and Jill Neitzel 1984 Too Many Types: an Overview of Pre-State Societies in the Americas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 7. Edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 39-102. Academic Press, New York. Fell , C. I. 1953

An Early Iron Age Settlement at Linton , Cambs . Proceedings of the Cambridg eshire Ar chaeological Society 46 :31-42.

136

Firbank, L. G. 1988

Biological Flora of the British Isles 165: Agrostemma githago L. Journal of Ecology 76:1232-1246.

Flannery, Kent V. 1972

The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426.

Fleming, Andrew l 972 The Genesis of Pastoralism in European Prehistory. World Archaeology 4: 179-188. Fleming, Andrew 1982

Social Boundaries and Land Boundaries. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, edited by Colin Renfrew and S. J. Shennan, pp. 52-60. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fleming, Andrew 1985

Land Tenure, Productivity and Field Systems. In Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, edited by Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble, pp. 129-146. Academic Press, New York.

Fowler, P. J. 1983

The Farming of Prehistoric Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fried, Morton 1967

The Evolution of Political Society. Random House, New York.

Friedman, J. 1975

Tribes, States and Transformations. In Marxist Analyses and Anthropology , edited by Marc Bloch, pp. 161202. Malaby, London.

Friedman, J. and M. J. Rowlands l 977 The Evolution of Social Systems. Duckworth, London. Fritz, John M. and Fred Plog 1970 The Nature of Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity 35:405-412. Gamble, Clive 1978

Optimising Information from Studies ofFaunal Remains. In Sampling in Contemporary British Archaeology, edited by John Cherry, Clive Gamble and Stephen Shennan, pp. 321-353. British Archaeological Reports 50, Oxford.

Gamble, Clive 1981

Social Control and the Economy. In Economic Archaeology: toward an Integration of the Economic and Social Approaches , edited by Alison Sheridan and Geoff Bailey, pp. 215-229. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 96, Oxford.

Gastaldi, Bartolomeo 1865 lake Habitations and Pre-historic Remains in the Turbaries and Marl-Beds of Northern and Central Italy . Published for the Anthropological Society of London. Longman, Green , Longman, and Roberts, London Gent, H. 1983

Centralized Storage in Later Prehistoric Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49:243-267.

Gibson, D. Blair and Michael N. Geselowitz 1988 The Evolution of Complex Society in Late Prehistoric Europe: Toward a Paradigm. In Tribe and Polity in Late Prehistoric Europe , edited by D. Blair Gibson and Michael N. Geselowitz, pp. 3-37. Plenum Press, New York. Gilman, Antonio 1981

The Development of Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe. Current Anthropology 22: 1-8.

137

Gingell, Christopher 1982 Excavations of an Iron Age Enclosure at Groundwell Farm, Blunsdon St. Andrew, 1976-77. Wiltshire Archaeology Magazine 76:33-75. Gingell, Christopher 1992 The Marlborough Downs: a Later Bronze Age landscape and its Origins . Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society/Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Devizes. Glass, Margaret 1991 Animal Production Systems in Neolithic Central Europe. British Archaeological Reports, International Series S572. Oxford. Godwin, H. 1975 Grant, Annie 1981

Grant, Annie 1984a

A History of the British Flora. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

The Significance of Deer Remains at Occupation Sites of the Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon Periods. In The Env ironment of Man: the Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxo n Period, edited by M. Jones and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 205-2 13. British Archaeological Reports 87, Oxford

Animal Husbandry in Wessex and the Thames Valley. In Asp ects of the Iron Age in Central South ern Britain, edited by 8 . Cunliffe and D. Miles, pp. I02- 119. Oxford University Committee on Archaeology, Monograph 2, Oxford.

Grant, Annie 1984b Animal Husbandry. In Danebury : an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire , Vols. I & 2, by Barry Cunliffe, pp. 496-547. Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 52, Vol. 2, London. Grant, Annie, with Christina Rush and Dale Serjeantson 1991 Animal Husbandry. In Danebury : an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire , Vols. 4 & 5., by Barry Cunliffe, pp. 447-486. Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 73, Vol. 2, London. Gray, Harold St. George and Arthur Bulleid 1953 The Meare lake Village: A Full Description of the Exc avations and Relics from the Eastern Half of the West Village, 1910-1933. Volume 2. Privately printed at Taunton Castle, Taunton. Gray, Harold St. George and M. A. Cotton 1966 The Meare Lake Village: A Full Description of the Excavations and Relics from the Eastern Half of the West Village, 1910- 1933. Volume 3. Privately printed at Taunton Castle, Taunton. Grayson, Donald K. 1979 On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archaeofaunas. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory , Vol. 2, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 200-237. Academic Press, New York. Grayson, Donald K. 1984 Quantitativ e Zooarchaeology : Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas . Academic Press, New York. Green, F. E. 1908 Green, F. J. 1981

The Small Holding. J. Lane and Co., New York.

Iron Age, Roman and Anglo-Saxon Crops: the Archaeological Evidence from Wessex. In The Environment of Man : The Iron Ag e to the Anglo-Saxon Period, edited by M. Jones and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 129-153. British Archaeological Reports 87, Oxford.

Green, Stanton W. 1980 Broadening Least-Cost Models for Expanding Agricultural Systems. In Modeling Change in Prehistori c

138

Subsistence Economies, edited by Timothy K. Earle and A. Christenson, pp. 209-241. Academic Press, New York. Greenwell , Reverend Canon William 1870 Grimes Graves. A Paper Read at the Blackmore Museum , Salisbury , at the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Society. Privately printed. Gregory , Tony 1991

Greig, Ian 1997

Greig , James 1990

Grieg , James 1991

Grigg , David 1980

Grigg , David 1982

Excavations in Thetford, 1980-1982, Fison Way. East Anglian Archaeology Report 53. Field Archaeology Division , Norfolk Museum Service, Dereham.

Excavation of a Bronze Age Settlement at Varley Halls , Coldean Lane, Brighton , East Sussex . Sussex Archaeological Collections 135:7-58.

Practical Ecology: Experiments in Growing Traditional Cornfield Weeds and a Comment on their Archaeological Records in Britain. In Experimentation and Reconstruction in Environmental Archaeology, edited by David E. Robinson, pp. 41-51. Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology 9. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

The British Isles. In Progress in Old World Paleoethnobotany , edited by W. van Zeist , K. Wasylikowa and Karl-Ernst Behre , pp. 229-334. A. A. Balkema , Rotterdam.

Population Growth and Agricultural Change: an Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge.

The Dynamics of Agricultural Change: the Historical Experience . St. Martin's Press , New York.

Grigson, Caroline 1982 Porridge and Pannage: Pig Husbandry in Neolithic England. In Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology , edited by Martin Bell and Susan Limbrey , pp . 297-314. Symposia for the Association for Environmental Archaeology 2/British Archaeological Reports , International Series 146, Oxford. Grigson, Geoffrey 1955 The Englishman's Flora. Phoenix House , London. Grime, J.P., J. G. Hodgson and R. Hunt 1987 Comparative Plant Ecology : a Functional Approach to Common British Species. Allen & Unwin , London. Haflinger , E. and Joseph Brun-Hool · 1968 Ciba-Geigy Weed Tables: A Synoptic Presentation of the Flora Accompanying Agricultural Crops. CibaGeigy , Basie. Hall , A. R. 1988

Hall, David 1987

Hall, David 1992

Problems of Reconstructing Past Urban Floras and Vegetation. In Archaeology and the Flora of the British Isles, edited by Martin Jones , pp. 93-95. Oxford Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 14, Oxford.

The Fenland Project #2: Fenland landscapes and Settlement between Peterborough and March. East Anglian Archaeology Report 35. Fenland Project Committee and the Cambridgeshire Archaeological Committee , Cambridge .

The Fenland Project #6: the Southwestern Cambridgeshire Fen/ands. East Anglian Archaeology 56. Fenland Project Committee and the Cambridgeshire County Council , Cambridge.

139

Halstead, Paul and John O'Shea 1982 A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed: Social Storage and the Origins of Social Ranking. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange : Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society , edited by Colin Renfrew and S. J. Shennan , pp. 92-99. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge . Halstead , Paul , Ian Hodder and Glynis Jones 1978 Behavioral Archaeology and Refuse Patterns: a Case Study . Norwegian Archaeologi cal Review 11: 118-126 . Hambleton , Ellen 1999 Animal Husbandry Regimes in Iron Age Britain: a Comparativ e Study of Fauna/ Assemblages from British Iron Age Sites. British Archaeological Reports 282 . Oxford . Hanworth , Rosamond 1987 The Iron Age in Surrey . In The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540, edited by Joanna Bird and D. G. Bird , pp . 139- 164 . Surr ey Archa eological Society , Guildfo rd . Hanworth , Rosamond and D. J. Tomalin 1977 Brook/ands, Weybridge : the Excavation of an Iron Age and Medieval Site, 1964-5 and 1970- 71. Surrey Archaeolo gical Society Research Report 4, Guildford . Harding , J . M . 1964

Interim Report on the Excavation ofa Late Bron ze Age Home stead in Weston Wood , Albury , Surrey . Surrey

Archaeological Collections 61 :29-3 8. Harlan, Jack 1967 Hartley , B. R. 1957

A Wild Wheat Harvest in Turkey. Archa eology 20 : 197-20 I.

The Wandlebury Iron Age Hillfort , Excavations of 1955-6 . Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian

Society 50: 1-28. Hartley , Dorothy 1979 lost Country Life. Parthenon , New York. Hartridge , R. 1978

Hassan, Fekri 1997 Hastings , F. 1965

Excavation at the Prehistoric and Romano -British Site on Slonk Hill , Shoreham. Sussex Archaeological Collections 116:69-142.

Beyond the Surface: Comments on Hodder 's ' Reflexive Excavation Methodology ' . Antiquity 71: 1020-1025 .

Excavation ofan Iron Age Farmstead at Hawk's Hill, Leatherhead , Surrey. Surrey Archaeological Collections 62:1-43.

Hastorf , Christine A . 1983 Prehistoric Agricultural Intensification and Political Development in the Jauja Region of Central Peru. Unpublished Ph .D. dissertation . University Microfilms International , Ann Arbor . Hastorf, Christine A. and Virginia S. Popper , eds . 1988 Current Paleoethnobotany : Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains. University of Chicago Press , Chicago. Hawkes , Christopher 1940 The Excavations at Bury Hill, 1939 . Proceedings of the Hampshir e Field Club and Ar chaeological Society 14:291-33 7. Hawkes , Christopher 1954 Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropologist

140

56: 155-168.

Hawkes,Christopher and C. 1. Fell 1945 Heer, Oswald 1866

The Early Iron Age Settlement at Fengate , Peterborough.

Archaeological Journal 100: 188-223.

Abstract of the Treatise on the 'Plants of the Lake-Dwellings'. In The lake Dwellings of Switzerland and Other Parts of Europe, by Ferdinand Keller , pp. 336-354. Translated by John Henry Lee. Longman's , Green and Co., London.

Helbaek, Hans 1952

Early Crops in Southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 18: 194-233.

Helbaek, Hans 1953

Archaeology and Agricultural Botany. Institute of Archaeology Annual Reports 9:44-59.

Helbaek, Hans 1958

Graubollemandens

sidste Maltid. Kum/ for 1958:83-116.

Henry , J. 1951

The Economics of Pilaga Food Distribution. American Anthropologist 53: 187-219.

Higgs, Eric S. and M. R. Jarman 1975 Paleoeconomy . In Paleoeconomy, edited by Eric S. Higgs , pp. 1-7. Cambridge University Press , London. Higgs, Eric S. , ed. 1972 Papers in Economic Prehistory. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge. Higgs , Eric S., ed. 1975 Paleoeconomy. Cambridge University Press , London. Hill , J. D. 1995

Hill, James N. 1977

How Should We Understand Iron Age Societies and Hillforts? A Contextual Study from Southern Britain. in Different Iron Ages : Studies on the Iron Age of Temperate Europe, edited by J. D. Hill and C. G. Cumberpatch , pp. 45-66. British Archaeological Reports , International Series 602. Oxford .

Systems Theory and the Explanation of Change. In Explanation of Prehistoric Change, edited by J. N. Hill , pp. 59-103. University of New Mexico Press , Albuquerque.

Hillman, Gordon 1981 Reconstructing Crop Husbandry Practices from Charred Remains of Crops. In Farming Practice in British Prehistory , edited by Roger Mercer , pp . 123-162. Edinburgh University Press , Edinburgh . Hodder , Ian 1982

Hodder , Ian 1984 Hodder, Ian 1985

Hodder, Ian 1997

Theoretical Archaeology: a Reactionary View. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology , edited by Ian Hodder , pp. 1-16 . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge.

Archaeology in 1984. Antiquity 58:25-32.

Postprocessual Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 8, edited by Michael Schiffer , pp. 1-26. Academic Press , New York.

'Always Momentary , Fluid and Flexible ' : Toward a Reflexive Excavation Methodology. Antiquity 71 :691700.

141

Hodder, Ian 1998

Whose Rationality? A Reply to Fekri Hassan. Antiquity 72:213-217.

Hodder, Ian and Michael Shanks, eds. 1993

Interpretive Archaeologies : Finding Meaning in the Past. Routledge, London.

Hodges, Richard 1988

Primitive and Peasant Markets. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Holden, Eric 1972

A BronzeAge Cemetery-Barrowon ltford Hi11,Beddingham. Sussex Archaeological Collections 110:70-117.

Hole, Frank, Kent V. Flannery, and James Neely 1969

Prehistoric and Human Ecology of the Deh luran Plain: an Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran.

University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs l. Ann Arbor. Holgate, R. 1986

Excavations at the Late Prehistoricand Romano-BritishEnclosureComplex at Came's Seat, Goodwood, West Sussex, 1984. Sussex Archaeological Collections 124:35-50.

Holleyman, G. A. l 937 Harrow Hill Excavations, 1936. Sussex Archaeological Collections 78:230-252 . Holleyman, G. A. and E. C. Curwen l 935 Late Bronze Age Lynchet-Settlementson Plumpton Plain, Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society l: 16-38.

Holmes, J. 1984

Excavations at Hollingbury Camp, Sussex, 1967-9. Sussex Archaeological Collections 122:29-53.

Homans, George 1942

English Villagers of the Thirteenth Century. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Hubbard, R. N. L.B. 1975 Assessing the Botanical Component of Human Paleoeconomies. Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 12: 197205.

Hubbard, R. N. L. B. 1976 On the Strength of the Evidence for Prehistoric Crop Processing Activities. Journal of Archaeological Science 3:257-265 .

Hubbard, R. N. L. B. 1980 Development of Agriculture in Europe and the Near East: Evidence from Quantitative Studies. Economic Botany 34( 1):51-67 .

Ingold, Tim 1981

The Hunter and His Spear: Notes on the Cultural Mediation of Social and Ecological Systems. In Economic Archaeology: toward an Integration of the Economic and Social Approaches , edited by Alison Sheridan and Geoff Bailey, pp. 119- l 30. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 96, Oxford.

Ingold, Tim 1993

The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25(2): 152-174.

Jackson, Ralph and T. W. Potter 1996

Excavations at Stonea , Cambridgeshire , 1980-1985. Trustees of the British MuseumI British Museum Press,

London. Jarman, M. R., G. N. Bailey and H. N. Jarman, eds. 1982

Early European Agriculture : its Foundations and Developments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

142

Jessup, R. I. and N. C. Cook 1936 Excavations at Bigbury Camp, Harbledown. Archaeologica Cantiana 48: 151-168. Johnson, Allen and T. K. Earle 1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: from Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto. Jones, Glynis 1986 Jones, Glynis 1992

Carbonized Plant Remains from Meare West 1979: 2. Somerset Levels Papers 12:57-60.

Weed Phytosociology and Crop Husbandry: Identifying a Contrast between Ancient and Modem Practice. Review of Paleobotany Palynology 73: 133-143.

Jones, Glynis 1998

Wheat Grain Identification - Why Bother? Environmental Archaeology 2:29-34.

Jones, M. U. 1974

The Excavations at Mucking , Essex: a Second Interim Report. Antiquaries Journal 54: 183-199.

Jones, M. U. and D. Bond 1980 Late Bronze Age Settlement at Mucking , Essex. In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, edited by J. Barrett and R. Bradley , pp. 471-482. British Archaeological Reports 83, Oxford. Jones , Martin K. The Plant Remains. In The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement, Bronze Age Ring-Ditches, and Roman 1978 Features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon (Oxfordshire), 1974-19 76, edited by Michael Parrington , pp. 471-482. Council for British Archaeology, Research Report 28/Oxfordshire Archaeology Unit , Report 1, London. Jones, Martin K. Carbonized Cereals from Grooved Ware Contexts. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46:61-63. 1980 Jones, Martin K. 1981 The Development of Crop Husbandry. In The Environment of Man: The Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxon Period , edited by Martin Jones and Geoff Dimbleby , pp. 95-128. British Archaeological Reports 87, Oxford. Jones, Martin K. 1984a Regional Patterns in Crop Production . In Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain , edited by Barry Cunliffe and David Miles, pp. 120-125. Oxford University Committee on Archaeology Monograph 2, Oxford. Jones, Martin K. 1984b The Plant Remains. In Danebury : an Iron Age Hi//fort in Hampshire , Vols. l & 2, by Barry Cunliffe , pp. 483-495. Council for British Archaeology, Research Reports 52, Vol. 2, London. Jones, Martin K. Archaeobotany Beyond Subsistence Reconstruction. In Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe , edited 1985 by Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble, pp. 107-128. Academic Press , New York. Jones , Martin K. England Before Domesday. Barnes and Noble , Totowa , NJ. 1986 Jones, Martin K. 1988a The Arable Field: a Botanical Battleground. In Archaeology and the Flora of the British Isles: Human Influence on the Evolution of Plant Communities, edited by Martin Jones, pp. 86-92. Oxford University , Committee for Archaeology Monograph# 14 (Botanical Society of the British Isles , Conference Report # 19), Oxford.

143

Jones, Martin K. 1988b The Phytosociology of Early Arable Weed Communities, with Special Reference to Southern England. In Der Praehistoriche Mensch und Seine Umwelt, edited by Hansjorg Kilster, pp. 43-52. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte in Baden-Wurtemburg 31. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart. Jones, Martin K. 1992 Food Remains, Food Webs and Ecosystems. Proceedings of the British Academy 77:209-219 . Jones, Martin K. and Sandra Nye 1991 The Plant Remains. In Danebury : an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, Vols. 4 & 5, by Barry Cunliffe, pp. 439-466. Council for British Archaeology, Research Reports 73, Vol. 2, London. Jones , Martin K. Patterns in Agricultural Practice: the Archaeology of Danebury in its Wider Context. In Danebury : an 1995 Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire , Volume 6: a Hillfort Community in Perspective , edited by Barry Cunliffe, pp . 43-50. Council for British Archaeology, Research Reports l 02. Keeley, Helen C. M. and Richard I. MacPhail 1981 A Soil Handbook for Archaeologists. Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 18:225-244. Keller, Ferdinand 1866 The Lake-Dwellings of Switzerland and Other Parts of Europe. Translated by John Edward Lee. Longman's, Green and Co., London. Kelly, D. 8. 1971

Quarry Wood Camp, Loose: a Belgic Oppidum. Archaeologica Cantiana 86:55-84.

Klein, Richard and Kathryn Cruz-Uribe 1984 The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Knight, David 1984

Knorzer , K.-H. 1971

Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Settlement in the Nene and Great Ouse Basins. British Archaeological Reports 130. Oxford.

Urgeschichtliche Unkrauter im Rheinland. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der Segetalgesellschaften. Vegetatio 23:89-111.

Kuster, Hansjorg, ed. 1988 Der Prahistorische Mensch und seine Umwelt: Geburtstag. Konrad Theiss, Stuttgart.

Festschrift fur Udelgard Korber-Grohne zum 65.

Langford, R. 1983

Our Heritage, Your Playground. Australian Archaeology 16:1-6.

Langmaid, L. 1971

Norton Fitzwarren. Current Archaeology 78: 116-120.

Lawson, Andrew 1980 The Evidence for Later Bronze Age Settlement and Burial in Norfolk. In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age, edited by J. Barrett and R. Bradley, pp. 271-294. British Archaeological Reports 83, Oxford. Leach, Edmund 1954 Political Systems of Highland Burma. London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Leach, Edmund 1973 Concluding Address. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Colin Renfrew, pp. 761-771. Duckworth, London.

144

Lees, Susan and Daniel G. Bates 1974 The Origins of Specialized Nomadic Pastoralism: a Systemic Model. American Antiquity 39: 187-193. Legge, A. J. 1981

Legge, A. J. 1989

Leone, Mark 1982

Levine, Marsha 1986 Levy , Hermann 1911

Aspects of Cattle Husbandry. In Farming Practice in British Prehistory , edited by Roger Mercer, pp. 169181. Edinburgh University Press , Edinburgh.

Milking the Evidence: a Reply to Entwistle and Grant. In The Beginnings of Agriculture , edited by Annie Miles , Diane Williams and Neville Gardner , pp. 217-242. Symposia for the Association for Environmental Archaeology 8/British Archaeological Reports , International Series 496 , Oxford .

Childe's Offspring. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology , edited by Ian Hodder , pp 179-184 . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge.

The Vertebrate Fauna from Meare East 1982 . Somerset levels Papers 12:61-71.

large and Small Holdings : a Study of English Agricultural Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lewthwaite , James 1985 Social Factors and Economic Change in Balearic Prehistory , 3000-1000 b.c .. In Bey ond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, edited by Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble , pp. 205-231. Academic Press , New York. Limbrey , Susan 1975 Limbrey , Susan 1978

Longley , D. 1980

Soil Science and Archaeology. Academic Press , London.

Changes in the Quality and Distribution of the Soils of Lowland Britain. In The Effect of Man on the landscape: the lowland Zone , edited by Susan Limbrey and J. G. Evans , pp. 2 1-26. Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 21 , London.

Runnymede Bridge I 9 76: Excavations on the Site of a late Bronze Age Settlement. Surrey Archaeological Society Research Report 6, Guildford .

Lowther , A. W. G. 1945 Report on the Excavations at the Site of the Early Iron Age Camp in the Grounds of Queen Mary's Hospital , Carshalton , Surrey. Surrey Archaeological Collections 49 :56-74. MacNeish, R. S. 1967 A Summary of the Subsistence. In Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Volume I, edited by D.S. Byers , pp. 290-309. R. S. Peabody Foundation , Andover /University of Texas Press , Austin. MacPhail , R. I. and R. G. Scaife 1987 The Geographical and Environmental Background. In The Archaeological of Surrey to I 540, edited by Joanna Bird and D. G. Bird , pp . 31-52. Surrey Archaeological Society , Guildford. Maltby, J. M. 1979

Maltby , J. M. 1981

Fauna/ Studies on Urban Sites : the Animal Bones from Exeter 1971-1975. Sheffield University Dept. of Prehistory and Archaeology, Exeter Archaeology Reports 2.

Iron Age , Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon Animal Husbandry: A Review of the Fauna! Evidence. In The Environment of Man: The lronAgetotheAnglo-Saxon Period, edited byM. JonesandG. Dimbleby , pp. 155204. British Archaeological Reports 87, Oxford.

145

Maltby , J.M. 1984

Maltby, J. M. 1985

Martin, Edward 1988

Animal Bones and the Romano-British Economy. In Animals in Archaeology, Vol. 4, edited by Caroline Grigson and Juliet Clutton-Brock, pp . 125-138. British Archaeological Reports , International Series 227, Oxford .

Patterns in Fauna) Assemblage Variability . In Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, edited by Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble , pp. 33-74. Academic Press, New York.

Burgh: the Iron Age and Roman Enclosure. East Anglian Archaeology Report 40. Suffolk County Planning Department , Ipswich.

Martin, Edward and P. Murphy 1988 West Row Fen, Suffolk: a Bronze Age Fen-Edge Settlement Site. Antiquity 62 :353-358 . Mauss , Marcel 1954

The Gift. W.W. Norton , New York .

Meillassoux , C. 1972

From Reproduction to Production. In Economic Sociology,

Meillassoux , C. 1981

Mellor, D. H. 1973

Mercer, Roger 1980

Maidens, Meals and Money: Capitalism and the Domestic Community. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

On Some Methodological Misconceptions . In The Explanation a/Culture Change: Models in Prehistory , edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 59 - 72. Duckworth , London.

Hambledon Hill: A Neolithic landscape.

Edinburgh University Press , Edinburgh.

Mercer , Roger, ed. 1981 Farming Practice in British Prehistory . Edinburgh University Press , Edinburgh. Miles, D. 1981

Miles, Russell 1996

Miles, Russel] 1997

Social Landscapes: Pattern and Purpose? In The Environment of Man: The Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxon Period , edited by M. Jones and G. Dimbleby , pp. 9-18. British Archaeological Reports 87, Oxford .

Problems of Phasing: a Reconsideration of the Black Patch Middle Bronze Age "Nucleated Village" . Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15:33-38.

Belle Tout Neolithic and Beaker Enclosure. Bournemouth University, School of Conservation Science webpage, http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/belletout / Accessed September 26, 2001.

Miller , Daniel and Christopher Tilley , eds. 1984 Ideology , Power and Prehistory . Cambridge University Press , Cambridge. Miller, Naomi F. and Tristine Lee Smart 1984 Intentional Burning of Dung as Fuel: a Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Record. Journal for Ethnobiology 4: 15-28. Minnis , Paul 1981

Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems . American Antiquity 46: 143-152.

146

Money, J. H. 1960 Money, J. H. 1968

Money, J. H. 1977

Money, J. H. 1978

Excavations at High Rocks, Tunbridge Wells, 1954-56. Sussex Archaeological Collections 98: 173-222.

Excavations in the Iron Age Hillfort at High Rocks near Tunbridge Wells, 1957-61. Sussex Archaeological Collections 106: 158-205.

The Iron Age Hillfort and Romano-British lronworking Settlement at Garden Hill, Sussex: Interim Report on Excavations, 1968-76. Britannia 8:339-50.

Aspects of the Iron Age in the Weald. In Archaeology in Sussex to AD 1500, edited by P. Drewett , pp. 38-40. Council for British Archaeology Bulletin 29, London .

Monk, M.A. and P. J. Fasham 1980 Carbonized Plant Remains from Two Iron Age Sites in Central Hampshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46:321-344. Munro, Robert 1882 Murphy, Peter 1984

Murphy, Peter 1991

Murra, John V. 1980 Neal , D.S. 1981

Ancient Scottish lake Dwellings. David Douglas , Edinburgh.

Environmental Archaeology in East Anglia. In Environmental Archaeology : A Regional Review , edited by Helen C. M. Keeley , pp. 13-42. Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England , Occasional Paper 1, London.

Early Crop Production and Wild Plant Resources in the Coastal Area of Essex, England. In New Light on Early Farming: Recent Developments in Paleoethnobotan y, edited by Jane Renfrew , pp. 329-348. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh .

The Economic Organization of the lnka State. JAi Press, Greenwich

Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman Settlement Sites at Little Som borne and Ashley , Hampshire. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club 36:122-124.

Needham , Stuart 1985 Neolithic and Bronze Age Settlement on the Buried Floodplains of Runnymede. Archaeology 4: 125-137 .

Oxford Journal of

Needham, Stuart 1987 The Bronze Age. In The Archaeology of Surrey to 1540, edited by Joanna Bird and D. G. Bird , pp. 97-138. Surrey Archaeological Society , Guildford. Needham , Stuart 1990 The Petter's Late Bronze Age Metalwork: An Analytical Study of the Thames Valley Metalworking in its Settlement Context. British Museum Occasional Papers 70, London. Needham , Stuart 1991 Excavation and Salvage at Runnymede Bridge, 1978: The late Bronze Age Waterfront Site . British Museum Press in association with English Heritage , London. Needham, Stuart and D. Longley 1980 Runnymede Bridge , Egham: A Late Bronze Age Riverside Settlement. In Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age , edited by J. Barrett and R. Bradley , pp . 397-436. British Archaeological Reports 83, Oxford.

147

Noddle, Barbara Cattle and Sheep in Britain and Northern Europe up to the Atlantic Period: a Personal Viewpoint. In The 1989 Beginnings of Agriculture , edited by Annie Miles , Diane Williams and Neville Gardner , pp. 179-202. Symposia for the Association for Environmental Archaeology 8/British Archaeological Reports, International Series 496, Oxford. Norman, D. W. 1977

Economic Rationality of Traditional Hausa Dryland Farmers in the North of Nigeria. In Tradition and Dynamic in Small Farm Agriculture , edited by R. D. Stephens. Iowa State University Press, Ames , IA.

O'Connell, Martin 1986 Petter's Sports Field, Egham, Excavation of a late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Site . Research Volume of the Surrey Archaeological Society I 0, Guildford. O ' Connor , T. P. 1996 A Critical Overview of Archaeological Animal Bone Studies. World Archaeology 28(1):5-19 . Orme , Bryony , J. Coles and C.R. Sturdy 1979 Meare Lake Village West: A Report on Recent Work . Somerset Levels Papers 5:6-24 . Orme , Bryony , J. Coles , A. E. Caseldine and G. N. Bailey 1981 Meare Village West , I 979 . Somerset l evels Papers 7: 12-69 . Orme , Bryony, John Coles and R. J. Silvester 1983 Meare Village East 1982. Somerset levels Papers 9:49-74 . Palmer, Carol 1998

Palmer, R. 1984

Parsons, J. 1961

An Explanation of the Effects of Crop Rotation Regimes on Modern Weed Floras. Archaeology 2:35-48.

Environmental

Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire : an Aerial Photographic Interpretation of its Environs. Royal Commission for Historic Monuments for England , London.

Broomwood Bronze Age Settlement , St. Paul's Cray, Kent. Archaeologica Cantiana 76: 134-142 .

Payne, Sebastian 1975 Partial Recovery and Sample Bias. In Archaeozoological Studies , edited by A. T. Clason , pp. 7-17 . NorthHolland Publishing Co., Amsterdam. Pearsall, Deborah 1989 Paleoethnobotany: a Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press , New York. Peebles, Christopher and Susan M. Kus 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42 :421-448. Percival , John 1910

Agricultural Botany : Theoretical and Practical. 4th ed. Henry Holt and Co., New York.

Percival, John 1921

The Wheat Plant. Duckworth , London .

Peterson , Roger Tory , Guy Mountfort and P. A. D. Hollom 1993 A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe. 5th ed. Houghton-Mifflin , Boston. Philp , Brian 1973

Excavations in West Kent, 1960-70. Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit, Dover .

148

Philp, Brian 1984

The Iron Age Fannstead on Famingham Hill. In Excavations in the Darent Valley, Kent, edited by B. Philp , pp. 8-71. Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit, Dover.

Pitt-Rivers , Augustus Henry Lane-Fox 1877 Excavations in the Camp and Tumulus at Seaford , Sussex. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6: 187- 199. Pitt-Rivers , Augustus Henry Lane-Fox 1881 Excavations at Mount Cabum Camp near Lewes . Archaeologia 46:423-95. Pitt-Rivers, Augustus Henry Lane-Fox 1887- Excavations in Cranborne Chase. 4 vols. Privately printed. 1898 Polanyi, Karl 1944

The Great Transformation. Rinehart and Company , New York.

Polanyi, Karl 1963

Ports of Trade in Early Societies. Journal of Economic History 23:30-45.

Polanyi , Karl, C. Arensberg and H. Pearson 1957 Trade and Markets in Early Empires. The Free Press, New York. Polunin , Oleg and Martin Walters 1985 A Guide to the Vegetation of Britain and Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Popper , Virginia 1988 Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany, edited by Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper , pp. 53-71. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pryor , Francis 1974

Pryor , Francis 1978

Pryor, Francis 1980

Pryor, Francis 1982 Pryor , Francis 1984

Pryor, Francis 1991 Pryor, Francis 1996

Pryor , Francis 1998

Excavations at Fengate , Peterborough , England : The First Report .. Royal Ontario Museum , Monograph 3. Toronto.

Excavations at Fengate, Peterborough , England: The Second Report. Royal Ontario Museum , Monograph 5. Toronto.

Excavations at Fengate, Peterborough , England: the Third Report. Royal Ontario Museum, Monograph 6. Toronto.

Fengate. Shire Archaeology Series 20 , Princes Risborough , Bucks .

Excavations at Fengate, Peterborough , England: The Fourth Report . Royal Ontario Museum Monograph 7/Northamptonshire Archaeological Society Monograph 2, Leicester .

Flag Fen: Prehistoric Fenland Centre. Batsford /English Heritage , London .

Sheep , Stockyards and Field Systems: Bronze Age Livestock Populations in the Fenlands of Eastern England. Antiquity 70:313-324.

Farmers in Prehistoric Britain. Tempus , Stroud , Gloucestershire.

149

Pryor , Francis , C. A. I. French and M. Taylor 1986 Flag Fen, Fengate , Peterborough I: Discovery , Reconnaissance Proceedings of the Prehistori c Society 42 : 1-24 .

and Initial Excavation (1982-85).

Pryor , Francis, C. French, D. Crowther , D. Guemey , G. Simpson and M. Taylor 1985 The Fenland Project #I : Archaeology and Environment in the lower Welland Valley. 2 vols. East Anglian Archaeology Report 27. Fenland Project Committee and the Cambridgeshire Archaeological Committee , Cambridge. Rahtz , P.A. 1962

Neolithic and Beaker Sites at Downton , near Salisbury , Wilts. Wiltshire Ar chaeology Magazine 58: 116-142.

Rahtz , P. A. and A. ApSimon 1962 Excavations at Shearplace Hill, Syd ling St. Nicholas , Dorset , England. Proceedings of the Prehistori c Society 28 :289- 328. Ratcliffe-Densham , H. B. A. and M. M. Ratcliffe-Densham 1953 A Celtic Farm on Blackpatch . Sussex Archaeological Collections 91 :69-8 3. Ratcliffe-Densham , H. B. A. and M. M. Ratcliff e-Den sham 1961 An Anomalou s Earthwork of the Late Bronze Age on Cock Hill. Sussex Archaeolog ical Collections 99:78101. Redman, Charles L. 1978 The Rise of Civilization . W.H . Freeman , San Francisco . Redman, Charles L., Mary Jane Berman , Edward Curtin , William Langhorne , Jr. , Nina M. Versaggi and Jeffery Wanser , eds. 1978 Social Archaeology : Beyond Subsistence and Dating. Academic Press , New York. Rees, Alwyn D . life in a Welsh Countryside. University of Wales Press , Cardiff. 1968 Reid , Malcolm 1987

Renfrew , Colin 1973a

Renfrew , Colin 1973b

Renfrew , Colin 1974

Renfrew , Colin 1982

Root Holes or Stake Holes? a Re-examination of the Evidence from Ram's Hill, Berks . Proceedings of the Prehistori c Society 53 :489-491 .

Monuments , Mobilization and Social Organization in Neolithic Wessex . In The Explanation of Culture Change : Models in Prehistory , edited by Colin Renfrew , pp. 539 - 558 . Duckworth , London.

Social Archaeology : an Inaugural l ecture. delivered at the University , 20 March 1973. University of Southampton.

Beyond a Subsistence Economy: the Evolution of Social Organization in Prehistoric Europe . In Reconstructing Complex Societies , edited by Charlotte B. Moore , pp. 69-85. Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental Research , Supplement 20, Cambridge , MA.

Socioeconomic Change in Ranked Societies. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange : Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society , edited by Colin Renfrew and S. J. Shennan , pp . 1-8. Cambridge University Pres s, Cambridge .

Renfrew, Colin 1984

Approache s to Social Archaeolo gy. Harvard University Press , Cambridge , MA.

Renfrew , Jane 1973

Paleoethnobotan y: the Prehistori c Food Plants of the Near East and Europ e. Columbia University Press,

150

New York. Renfrew, Jane, ed. 1991 New Light on Early Farming: Recent Developments in Paleoethnobotany. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Reynolds, Peter J. 1979 Iron Age Farm: the Butser Experiment. British Museum Publications , London. Reynolds, Peter J. 1981 a New Approaches to Familiar Problems. In The Environment of Man: the Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxon Periods, edited by Martin Jones and D. W. Dimbleby, pp. 19-49. British Archaeological Reports 87, Oxford. Reynolds, Peter J. 1981b Deadstock and Livestock. In Farming Practice in British Prehistory , edited by Roger Mercer , pp. 97-122. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Reynolds, Peter J. 1987 Ancient Farming. Shire Archaeology Series. Shire Publications , Aylesbury , Bucks., U.K. Richards, Julian 1990

The Stonehenge Environs Project. English Heritage Archaeology Reports 16. Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, London.

Richardson, C., M. Richards , S. Terlecki and W. M. Miller 1979 Jaws of Culled Ewes. Journal of Agricultural Science 93:521-529. Richardson, K. M. 1940 Excavations at Poundbury , Dorchester, Dorset , 1939. Antiquaries Journal 20:429-448. Rieley, Jack and Susan Page 1990 Ecology of Plant Communities. Longman Scientific and Technical , New York. Robertson-MacKay , R. 1977 The Defenses of the Iron Age Hill fort at Winklebury , Basingstoke , Han ts. . Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43: 13 1-154. Robinson, Mark 1984

Landscape and Environment of Central Southern Britain in the Iron Age. In Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, edited by Barry Cunliffe and D. Miles , pp. 1-11. Oxford University Committee on Archaeology Monograph 2, Oxford.

Rodwell, J. S., editor 2000 British Plant Communities: Volume 5: Maritime Communities and Vegetation of Open Habitats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. K. Rodwell, K. A.

1988

The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement at Kelvedon, Essex. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 63/Chelmsford Archaeological Trust Report 6, London /Chelmsford .

Rodwell, Warwick 1993 The Origins and Early Development of Witham, Essex: A Study in Settlement and Fortification, Prehistoric to Medieval. Oxbow, Oxford. Rudling, D.R. 1985

Trial Excavations at Ditchling Beacon , East Sussex , 1983. Sussex Archaeological Collections 123:251-4.

Rlitimeyer, Ludwig 1861 Die Fauna der Pfahlbauten in der Schweiz, Untersuchingen uber die Geschichte der wilden und Haus-

151

Saugethiere Mitteleuropas . Basel.

RUtimeyer,Ludwig 1866 Results of the Investigation of the Animal Remains from the Lake Dwellings. In The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland and Other Parts of Europe , by Ferdinand Keller, pp. 355-362. Longmans, Green and Co., London. Ryder, M. L. 1981

Fleece Changes in Sheep. In The Environment of Man: the Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxon Period ., edited by M. Jones and G. W. Dimbleby, pp.2 15-230. British Archaeological Reports 87, Oxford.

Sabean, David Warren 1990 Property , Production , and Family in Neckarhausen , 1700-1870. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sahlins, Marshall 1960 Political Power and the Economy in Primitive Society. In Essays in the Science of Culture, edited by Gertrude Dole and Robert Carniero, pp. 390-415. Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York. Sahlins, Marshall 1972 Stone Age Economics . Aldine-Atherton, Chicago. Sanders, William T. 1965 The Cultural Ecology of the Teotihuacan Valley. Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Scaife, R. G., P. J. Burrin 1985 The Environmental Impact of Prehistoric Man as Recorded in the Upper Cuckmere Valley at Stream Farm, Chiddingly. Sussex Archaeological Collections 123:27-34. Schadla-Hall, R. T. 1984 The Excavation of an Iron Age Enclosure near Middle Barn Fann, Chilbolton, Hampshire. In The Southern Feeder: the Archaeology of a Gas Pipeline , edited by P. Catherall, Marion Barnett and Heather McClean, pp 97-116. British Gas Corporation, London. Schmidt, Wolfgang 1981 Natural and Experimental Succession on Fallow land. Scripta Geobotanica 15. Eric Goltze, Gottingen. Service, Elman R. 1962 Primitive Social Organization: an Evolutionary Perspective. Random House, New York. Service, Elman R. 1966 The Hunters. Random House, New York. Service, Elman R. 1971 Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. 2nd ed. Random House, NY. Service, Elman R. 1975 Origins of the State and Civilization. Norton, New York. Shanks, Michael and Christopher Tilley 1987a Re-constructing Archaeology : Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Shanks, Michael and Christopher Tilley 1987b Social Theory and Archaeology . Polity Press, Cambridge. Sharples, Niall 1991a Maiden Castle. Batsford/English Heritage, London. Sharples, Niall 1991b Maiden Castle: Excavation and Field Survey 1985-6. English Heritage Archaeological Report 19, London.

152

Sheldon, Joan 1978

Sheldon, Joan 1982

Shennan, S. J. 1982

Shennan, S. J. 1987

The Environmental Background. In Archaeology in Sussex to AD 1500, edited by P. Drewett. Council for British Archaeology Bulletin 29, pp. 3-7. London.

The Environmental Background. In Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500, edited by P. Leach, pp. 1-2. Council for British Archaeology Bulletin 48, London.

The Emergence of Hierarchical Structure. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange , edited by Colin Renfrew and S.J. Shennan, pp . 9-12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Trends in the Study of Later European Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 16:365-382.

Sherratt , Andrew G. 1982 Mobile Resources: Settlement and Exchange in Early Agricultural Europe. In Ranking , Resource and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology C?fEarly European Society , edited by Colin Renfrew and Stephen J. Shennan, pp. 13-26. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Silverside , Alan J. 1977 A Phytosociological Survey of British Arable-Weed and Related Communities. Dissertation , Department of Botany, University of Durham . Smith, C. A. 1976

Smith, K. 1977

Unpublished

PhD

Exchange Systems and the Spatial Distributions of Elites: the Organization of Stratification in Agrarian Societies. In Regional Analysis, Vol. 2, edited by C. A. Smith, pp. 309-374 . Academic Press , London.

The Excavations of Winklebury Camp , Basingstoke , Hampshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43:31-129.

Smith, Laurajane 1994 Heritage Management as Post-Processual Archaeology? Antiquity 68:300-309. Smith, M.A. 1955

The Limitations of Inference in Archaeology .. Archaeological Newsletter 6:3-7.

Sparey Green , Christopher 1987 Excavations at Poundbury , Dorchester , Dorset, 1966-1982. Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, Monograph Series 7, Dorchester. Spielman , Katherine Ann 1986 Interdependence Among Egalitarian Societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:279-312. Spriggs , Matthew , ed. 1984 Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge . Stebbing , W. P. D. 1934 An Early Iron Age Site at Deal. Archaeologica Cantiana 46:207-9. Stone, J. F. S. 1933 Sylvester , R. J. 1988

Excavations at Easton Down, Winterslow. Wiltshire Archaeology Magazine 46:225-242.

The Fenland Project #3: Marshland and the Nar Valley, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology Report 45. Fenland Project Committee and Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Dereham.

153

Sylvester, R. J. 1991

The Fenland Project #4: the Wissey Embayment and the Fen Causeway, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology Report 52. The Fenland Project Committee and the Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Dereham.

Tallgren, A. M. 1937

The Method of Prehistoric Archaeology. Antiquity 11: 152-161.

Taylor, K. 1999

Biological Flora of the British Isles 207: Galium aparine L. Journal of Ecology 87 :713-730 .

Taylor, Walter W. 1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoir Series of the American Anthropological Association 69, Menasha , WI. Thomas , Edgar 1927

The Economics of Small Holdings. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge.

Thompson, F. H. 1979 Three Surrey Hill Forts: Anstiebury , Holmbury and Hascombe , 1972-77. Archaeological Journal 59:245318. Thompson, F. H. 1983 Excavations at Bigbury, near Canterbury , 1978-80. Antiquaries Journal 63:237-78. Thompson , F. H. 1984 Oldbury Hillfort . Kent Archaeological Review 76: 140-144. Thompson , F. H. 1985 Excavations at Oldbury 1984. Kent Archaeological Review 80:239-244. Thompson , F. H. 1986 The Iron Age Hillfort of Oldbury , Kent: Excavations 1983-4 . Antiquaries Journal 66:267-286. Tomlinson, Philippa and Allan R. Hall 1995 A Review of the Archaeological Evidence for Food Plants from the British Isles: an Example of the Use of the Archaeobotanical Computer Database (ABCD). Internet Archaeology 1, http: // intarch .ac.uk/journal/ issue 1/tomlinson _toc.html Accessed September 4, 2001. Trigger , Bruce G. 1984 Archaeology at the Crossroads: What's New? Annual Review of Anthropology 13:275-300. 1 . igger, Bruce G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge.

Troyon, Frederic 1860 Habitations Lacustres des Temps A nciens et Modern es. Lausanne Memoires et Documments 17. Societe d'Histoire de la Suisse Romand . G. Bride! , Lausanne. Turner , Robin 1981

Turner, Robin 1999

Ivy Chimneys, Witham: an Interim Report. Essex County Council, Occasional Papers 2. Westcliffe-on-Sea , Essex.

Excavations at an Iron Age Settlement and Romano-British Religious Complex at Ivy Chimneys, Witham, Essex, 1978-83. East Anglian Archaeology, Report 88. Heritage Conservation I Essex County Council, Chelmsford.

Uerpmann, Hans-Peter 1972 Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology : A Critical Study of Osteo-Archaeological Method . World Archaeology 4:307-322 .

154

van der Leeuw, Sander 1981 Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Complexity. Cingula VI, A. E. van Giffen Institute, Amsterdam. van der Maarel, E. 1975 The Braun-Blanquet Approach in Perspective. Vegetatio 30:213-219. van der Veen, Marijke 1991 Consumption or Production?: Agriculture in the Cambridgeshire Fens. In New Light on Early Farming: Recent Developments in Paleoethnobotany, edited by Jane M. Renfrew, pp. 349-362. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. van Zeist, W. 1974

Paleobotanical Studies of Settlement Sites in the Coastal Area of the Netherlands. Paleohistoria 16:233-371.

van Zeist, W. and W. A. Casparie, eds. 1984 Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in Paleoethnobotany. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium of the International Work Group for Paleoethnobotany , Groningen , 30 May - 3 June 1983. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Wainwright, Geoffrey 1970a The Excav~tions at Balksbury Camp , Andover, Hampshire. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club 26:2155. Wainwright, Geoffrey 1970b An Iron Age Promontory Fort at Sudbury, Bradford-on-Avon , Wilts. Wiltshire Archaeology Magazine 65: 104-66. Wainwright, Geoffrey 1979 Guss age All Saints: An Iron Age Settlement in Dorset. Department of the Environment Archaeology Reports I 0, Her Majesty's Stationery Office , London. Wainwright , Geoffrey and S. M. Davies 1995 Balksbury Camp, Hampshire : excavations 1973 and 1981. English Heritage, Archaeological London .

Report 4,

Ward-Perkins, J. 8. 1939 Iron Age Metal Horses' Bits of the British Isles. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 5: 173-192. Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1944 Excavations on the Iron Age Hillfort of Oldbury near Ightham , Kent. Archaeologia 90: 127-176. Warrington, Katherine 1924 The Influence of Manuring on the Weed Flora of Arable Land. Journal of Ecology 12:111-126. Watson, Patty Jo , Stephen A. LeBlanc and Charles L. Redman 1971 Explanation in Archaeology : an Explicitly Scientific Approach. Columbia University Press , New York. Wells, Peter S. 1980

Wells, Peter S. 1984

West , Stanley 1990

Culture Contact and Culture Change: Early Iron Age Central Europe and the Mediterranean World. Cambridge , Cambridge University Press .

Farms, Villages and Cities: Commerce and Urban Origins in Late Prehistoric Europe. Ithaca , Cornell University Press

West Row Fen: the Prehistoric and Romano-British Occupations . Suffolk County Planning Department , Ipswich.

155

Wheeler, M. 1943

Maiden Castle, Dorset . Society of Antiquaries Research Report 12, Oxford.

Whimster , Rowan 1981 Burial Practices in Iron Age Britain . British Archaeological Reports 90, Oxford. White, Leslie 1959

The Evolut ion of Culture. McGraw-Hill , New York.

Whittaker , R. H. 1978 The Classification of Plant Communities . W. Junk , The Hague. Whittle , A. W . R. 1985 Neolithi c Europ e: a Surv ey. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge . Whittle , A. W. R. 1996 When Did Neolithic Farmers Settle Down ? British Archaeology 16. Wilkinson , T. J. Archaeology and the Environmen t in So uth Essex: Rescue Archaeology along the Gray's By -pass, I 9 79/8 0. 1988 East Anglian Archaeolo gy Report 42. Archaeolo gy Section , Essex County Counc il, Chelmsford . Willey , Gordon R. and Philip Phillip s 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago . Williamson , T. 1987

Wilson , A. E. 1938

Wilson , A. E. 1939 Wilson , A. E. 1940

Wilson , A. E. 1950 Wilson , Bob 1978

Wilson , Bob 1996

Wilson , C. E. 1981

Winbolt , S. E. 1930

Early Co-Axial Field Systems on the East Anglian Boulder Clays . Proceedings of the Prehistori c Society 53 :419-432 .

Excavations in the Ramparts and Gateway of the Caburn , August to October 193 7. Sussex Archaeological Collections 79: 169-194.

Excavations at the Caburn , 1938. Sussex Archaeological Collections 80: 193-213 .

Report on the Excavations at Highdown Hill, Sussex , August 1939. Sussex Archaeological Collections 81: 173-204.

Excavations on Highdown Hill, 1947. Sussex Archaeological Collections 89: 163-178.

Methods and Results of Bone Analysis . In The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlem ent, Bronze Ag e RingDitches and Roman Features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon (Oxfordshir e), 1974- 76, by Michael Parrington , pp. 110-125 . Oxfordshire Archaeological Unit Report I/Council for British Archaeology 28 , London.

Spatial Patterning Among Animal Bones in Settlement Archaeology : as English Regional Exploration. British Archaeological Reports , 251 . Oxford .

Burials within Settlements in Southern Britain during the Pre-Roman Iron Age . Institut e of Archaeology Bulletin 18: 127-170.

Excavations at Saxonbury Camp . Sussex Archaeological Collections 71 :222- 36 .

156

Wolseley, G. R. and R. A. Smith 1924 Discoveries near Cissbury. Antiquaries Journal 4:347-359. Wolseley, G. R., R. A. Smith and W. Hawley 1927 Prehistoric and Roman Settlements in Park Brow. Archaeologia 76: 1-40. Wymer, J. J. and N. R. Brown 1995 Excavations at North Shoebury : Settlement and Economy in Southeast Essex, 1500 BC - AD 1500. East Anglian Archaeology , Report 75. Archaeology Section , Essex County Council I Scole Archaeological Committee, Chelmsford. Yoffee , Norman Too many chiefs? (or, Safe texts for the 90's). In Archaeological Theory: who sets the agenda? , edited by 1993 Norman Yoffee and Andrew Sherratt , pp. 60-78. Cambridge University Press , Cambridge. Zvelebil , Marek 1985

Iron Age Transformations in Northern Russia and the Northeast Baltic. In Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe , edited by Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble , pp . 147-180 . Academic Press , New York.

157