The Roman to Medieval Transition in the Region of South Cadbury Castle, Somerset 1841718785, 9781841718781, 9781407320489

Citation preview

BAR  399  2005   DAVEY   THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE

B A R

The Roman to Medieval Transition in the Region of South Cadbury Castle, Somerset John Edward Davey

BAR British Series 399 2005

The Roman to Medieval Transition in the Region of South Cadbury Castle, Somerset

John Edward Davey

BAR British Series 399 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 399 The Roman to Medieval Transition in the Region of South Cadbury Castle, Somerset © J E Davey and the Publisher 2005 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 9781841718781 paperback ISBN 9781407320489 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718781 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

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

To Mum, Dad, Bryony, Oliver, Martin and Sarah

ii

Foreword This volume is essentially unaltered from my PhD thesis presented in October 2004 to the University of Bristol (Davey 2004d). Many of the illustrations have been modified slightly, and the appendices have been omitted, but the main text and conclusions are essentially the same. The research undertaken for the puposes of the thesis between 2000 and 2003, formed part of the South Cadbury Environs Project (SCEP) directed by Dr. Richard Tabor (University of Bristol). This project is continuing and the results will be published in 2008. The book is an examination of the transitional period spanning the end of Roman Britain and the beginning of the medieval period, in a small region centred on South Cadbury Castle, Somerset. It aims to set this well-known post-Roman settlement in its proper landscape and regional context through a landscape archaeological survey of the, previously poorly studied, hinterlands. Through this method the thesis moves towards a better understanding of the socio-economic processes effecting social and political change from the 3rd to 10th centuries AD. A multi-disciplinary approach involving cartographic and documentary evidence, extensive geophysical survey and sample excavation revealed a remarkable continuity of land division in the rural landscape from the late prehistoric period to the modern day. This is in contrast to the discontinuity in material culture between the 4th and 5th centuries AD. It is suggested that this apparent dichotomy could be resolved through a processual approach to understanding socioeconomic change, rather than the traditional recourse to historical models generated from non-contemporary documentary sources. The book concludes that the archaeological evidence from rural areas can no longer uphold the traditional concepts of upheaval, disorder, demographic and economic collapse that plunged Britain into a ‘dark age’ at the end of the 4th century AD. Neither is Anglo-Saxon migration and conquest seen as important in shaping the rural landscape. Instead, many aspects of the medieval landscape and land organisation are shown to be the result of continuous development proceeding from the Iron Age.

iii

Acknowledgements Initial thanks must go to Dr. Mark Horton, Head of the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Bristol, for first suggesting that I join the South Cadbury Environs Project and for early discussions concerning the theme of my research. Ever since 1995 when I first started studying archaeology, part time at the University of Bristol, my mentor has been Professor Mick Aston. To him I owe a debt of gratitude for instilling in me an appreciation of medieval landscapes. As my supervisor his support, time, advice and comments have been of great benefit to this book. I am also grateful to Andy and Donna Young, Jon Erskine, Lynne Hulme, Ray Ducker and Adrian Parry for my early grounding in field archaeology at the Avon Archaeological Unit. I am also very grateful for the time and efforts of Dr. Richard Tabor, director of the South Cadbury Environs Project, without which I would not have had this opportunity to study the Roman to medieval transition in such a significant region. The database gathered by the project has proved to be the bedrock upon which my book has been constructed. Giles Cooper, another prominent member of SCEP has been very generous with his time, data and friendship. His tireless efforts in the field have resulted in the identification of numerous late Romano-British sites for me to survey and excavate. Moreover, he has compiled a comprehensive list of field names from Tithe apportionments that facilitated the identification of more sites for me to explore further. He also examined all the Romano-British ceramics from my excavations in 2003. Many colleagues at the University of Bristol have provided advice, support or practical help, notably Dr. Richard Wykes, Dr. Nick Corcos, Dr. Naomi Payne, Magnus Alexander, Professor Richard Harrison, Dr. Paula Gardiner, Dr. Michael Costen, Mark Corney and many others. My work has also benefited from discussions or practical help from Peter Leach, Charlie and Nancy Hollinrake, Dr. Paul Davies (Bath Spa University), Dr. Paul Budd (University of Durham). Richard Coleman-Smith, David Dawson and Steve Minnit (Somerset County Museums), Teresa Hall and Lorraine Higby. James Gerrard (University of York) in particular has been very forthcoming with offers of practical and theoretical help and the opportunity to present my research at conference. Fieldwork conducted as part of my research would have been impossible without the co-operation of the landowners Archie and James Montgomery, Dave and Roger Yeomans, Greg Hitchins, Terry Holly, Mr. Bishop, Richard Horsington, Fred Bradford and John Stokes. Equally the help of University of Bristol students and volunteers was essential in completing the many surveys and excavations. Thanks to Ian Milstead, Richard Wykes, Mark Morgan, James Gerrard, Giles Cooper, Adam Broome, Sarah Reeves, Caron Reeves, Barry Reeves, Pam Reeves, John Ferdinando, Peter Sherwin, Duncan Black, Sally Bown, Brian Cann, Mary Claridge, Tony Dickinson, Simon Fletcher, Harry Jelly, Sally Mills, Jinx Newley, Faith Cairns, Neil Tinkley and Mike Wilcox. My research was funded by the Tratman Scholarship, the Arts and Humanities Research Board and the Maltwood Fund (for isotope analysis on teeth from Hicknoll Slait). Finally, I would like to thank my family, particularly Bryony, Ollie and Sarah, for their support. This book would not have bee possible without them keeping me going through some stressful and financially impoverished times.

John Davey, June 2005

iv

Contents Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Themes .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Continuity and Collapse .................................................................................................................................... 4 Late Antiquity or ‘Dark Age’ ............................................................................................................................ 4 The Rise and Fall of Socio-political Systems .................................................................................................... 6 Systems of Trade and Exchange........................................................................................................................ 7 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 9 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 SCEP Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Thesis Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 13 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................... 14 Terminology .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Geology, Topography and Land Use ................................................................................................................. 19 Geology ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Topography...................................................................................................................................................... 21 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................................ 22

Chapter 3: Estates and Boundaries ........................................................................................... 24 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 Iron Age Territories and Roman Estates .......................................................................................................... 25 Post-Roman Estates............................................................................................................................................. 31 The Dismantling of the Multiple Estate System ............................................................................................... 35 Medieval Parishes................................................................................................................................................ 39 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 40

Chapter 4: Settlement Patterns and Form ................................................................................ 42 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 42 The 3rd and 4th Centuries.................................................................................................................................. 43 Fieldwork ........................................................................................................................................................ 43 Gilton and Stonchester, North Cadbury..................................................................................................... 44 New Close, Middle Field and Palmer’s Barn, Sandford Orcas ................................................................. 45 Cheese Hill, Holway .................................................................................................................................. 45 The Destruction Layers ........................................................................................................................ 45 Trench 2................................................................................................................................................ 46 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 46 Englands, Charlton Horethorne................................................................................................................. 48 Gradiometer Survey ............................................................................................................................. 49 Excavation............................................................................................................................................ 50 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 50 Castle Farm, South Cadbury...................................................................................................................... 50 Larger Rural Settlements ........................................................................................................................... 51 Post-Roman Settlement....................................................................................................................................... 52 The Middle Saxon Period ................................................................................................................................... 53 Fieldwork ........................................................................................................................................................ 56 Gilton and Stonchester, North Cadbury..................................................................................................... 56 Brockington and Dustone........................................................................................................................... 56 Bruscotts, Sandford Orcas ......................................................................................................................... 56 v

Worthy, Weston Bampfylde ........................................................................................................................ 56 Upper Parish and Orchard, North Cadbury.............................................................................................. 56 Henehill and Stonehill, Sutton Montis........................................................................................................ 56 The Later Saxon Period ...................................................................................................................................... 58 Fieldwork ........................................................................................................................................................ 59 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................ 61

Chapter 5: Field Systems and the Agrarian Economy............................................................. 63 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 63 Documentary and Cartographic Evidence........................................................................................................ 66 System A ........................................................................................................................................................ 66 System B ........................................................................................................................................................ 68 System C ........................................................................................................................................................ 70 Lobed Enclosures ............................................................................................................................................ 71 Fieldwork Results................................................................................................................................................ 72 Gilton and Stonchester, North Cadbury........................................................................................................... 72 Cheese Hill, Holway and Englands Charlton Horethorne ............................................................................... 73 The Agrarian Economy ...................................................................................................................................... 75 The Bowden Reservoir Link Pipeline.............................................................................................................. 75 Middle Field, New Close and Palmers Barn, Sandford Orcas......................................................................... 75 Geophysical Survey.................................................................................................................................... 75 Excavation.................................................................................................................................................. 77 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................. 77 Excavation at Castle Farm, South Cadbury ..................................................................................................... 79 A Regional Overview of Post-Roman and Saxon Rural Economies ............................................................... 80 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 81

Chapter 6: Communications Patterns ....................................................................................... 84 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 84 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 86 Fieldwork Results................................................................................................................................................ 87 Geophysical Survey......................................................................................................................................... 87 Excavation at Cheese Hill, Holway ................................................................................................................. 90 The Road .................................................................................................................................................... 90 Discussion................................................................................................................................................... 92 Earthwork Evidence ........................................................................................................................................ 93 Holloways .................................................................................................................................................. 93 Double Lynchets......................................................................................................................................... 93 Cartographic and Documentary Evidence ....................................................................................................... 95 The A303 in Blackford ............................................................................................................................... 95 The B3145 North of Sherborne .................................................................................................................. 96 The A359 from Sparkford towards Frome97 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................ 98 The Late Romano-British Pattern .................................................................................................................. 101 The Early Medieval Pattern ........................................................................................................................... 102 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 105

Chapter 7: Burial Practices ...................................................................................................... 107 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 107 Late and Post-Romano-British Cemeteries in the South West ..................................................................... 107 Pagan Saxon and ‘Final Phase’ CemeteriesBoundaries and the Re-Use of Ancient Monuments .............. 108 The Transition to Burial in Churchyards ....................................................................................................... 109 The 7th Century Cemetery at Hicknoll Slait, Compton Pauncefoot............................................................. 112 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 112 Location ...................................................................................................................................................... 112 vi

Fieldwork ...................................................................................................................................................... 114 The Excavation .............................................................................................................................................. 114 Trench 1a ................................................................................................................................................. 115 Grave 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 115 Grave 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 117 Trench 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 117 Trench 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 119 Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 119 Discussion...................................................................................................................................................... 119 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 120

8: Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 122 Methodological Revue....................................................................................................................................... 122 Summary of Results .......................................................................................................................................... 124 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 126 Continuity and Collapse ................................................................................................................................ 127 Late Antiquity or ‘Dark Age’ ........................................................................................................................ 128 Systems of Trade and Exchange.................................................................................................................... 130 The Rise and Fall of Socio-Political Systems................................................................................................ 132

Bibliography ..............................................................................................................................134

vii

List of Figures 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14

Location .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Test Pit section, Blacklands, South Cadbury...................................................................................................... 12 SCEP study area ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Core study area................................................................................................................................................... 15 Wider study area (hundreds of SE Somerset)..................................................................................................... 16 Early 19th century field boundaries.................................................................................................................... 17 Area covered by geophysical survey (2003) ..................................................................................................... 18 Solid and drift geology ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Relief and drainage............................................................................................................................................ 22 Putative Iron Age Territories superimposed on hundred boundaries ................................................................ 26 Major Romano-British sites in the South Cadbury, Ilchester and Sherborne Areas.......................................... 27 Geophysical survey, Church Road, South Cadbury .......................................................................................... 28 Geophysical survey, Milsom’s Corner, South Cadbury .................................................................................... 29 Domesday Manors between Ilchester and Camel.............................................................................................. 30 Post-Roman core and periphery ....................................................................................................................... 32 Putative early core estate, Milborne Port.......................................................................................................... 33 Domesday Manors............................................................................................................................................ 36 Inland estate boundaries and 1-hide units ........................................................................................................ 38 Location of late Romano-British settlement sites chosen for excavation......................................................... 44 Cheese Hill, Holway; gradiometer survey, results and interpretation .............................................................. 45 Cheese Hill, Holway; finds from destruction layer (1004)............................................................................... 46 Cheese Hill, Holway; trench 2 plan and W facing section ............................................................................... 47 Englands, Charlton Horethorne; phasing of geophysical anomalies based on Evidence from excavation....... 48 Englands, Charlton Horethorne; earthwork survey .......................................................................................... 49 Englands, Charlton Horethorne; trench location .............................................................................................. 49 Englands, Charlton Horethorne; trench plans................................................................................................... 51 Early dispersed settlement and habitative place-names.................................................................................... 54 Nucleated villages formed through the amalgamation of two or more dispersed settlements ......................... 55 Settlement mobility, South Cadbury................................................................................................................ 57 Distribution of Saxon pottery recovered during SCEP fieldwork .................................................................. 60 Distribution of Saxo-Norman pottery recovered during SCEP fieldwork ....................................................... 60 Distribution of medieval pottery (c. 1150-1300 AD) recovered during SCEP Fieldwork............................... 61 Medieval and Romano-British earthworks and crop-marks in Ashington ...................................................... 64 Geophysical survey, Sigwells, Charlton Horethorne....................................................................................... 66 Rectilinear field systems ................................................................................................................................. 67 Horethorne hundred c.1840............................................................................................................................. 68 Modern field alignments in Horethorne hundred and N. Dorset ..................................................................... 69 Documented 1-hide units................................................................................................................................. 70 Gradiometer survey, Gilton and Stonchester, North Cadbury; results and Interpretation ............................... 73 System B and C alignments, Sigwells, Charlton Horethorne .......................................................................... 74 Middle Field, New Close and Palmer’s Barn, Sandford Orcas; Gradiometer survey; results and interpretation ................................................................................................................................................... 76 Palmer’s Barn; trench location ........................................................................................................................ 78 Castle Farm, South Cadbury, 2003; trench 1 fully excavated.......................................................................... 79 Castle Farm, South Cadbury, 2003; F009, F010, & F011 fully excavated .................................................... 80 The communications pattern between Ilchester and South Cadbury............................................................... 85 Magnetometer survey, Henehill and Stonehill, Sutton Montis........................................................................ 87 Gradiometer survey; Crissell’s Green, South Cadbury and East Field, Sutton Montis .................................. 88 Late and Post-Roman routes south of South Cadbury..................................................................................... 88 Cheese Hill, Holway; trench 1 W facing section............................................................................................. 89 Cheese Hill, Holway; trench 1, plan of upper road surface............................................................................. 89 Roman and medieval road earthworks ............................................................................................................ 90 Cheese Hill, Holway; trench 1, plan of earliest road surface .......................................................................... 91 Cheese Hill, Holway; finds from upper road surface ...................................................................................... 92 Romano-British and medieval routes through Corton Denham and Sandford Orcas ...................................... 94 Stratigraphic relationship between field systems, boundaries and roads in NE Blackford.............................. 95 Stratigraphic relationship between fields boundaries and roads in Sherborne .............................................. 96 Possible early routes for a ridge way in North Cadbury and Sparkford .......................................................... 97 Modern A and B class roads (prior to A303 improvements) ........................................................................... 98 viii

6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10

Roman or earlier communications pattern....................................................................................................... 99 Early medieval communications pattern........................................................................................................ 100 Hypothetical medieval communications pattern............................................................................................ 103 Rectilinear and radial communications patterns, Charlton Horethorne ......................................................... 104 Post-Roman religious foci around the Somerset Levels................................................................................ 110 Location of Hicknoll Slait and Camel Hill cemeteries .................................................................................. 113 Hicknoll Slait magnetometer survey ............................................................................................................. 114 Hicknoll Slait; distribution of finds from shovel pitting ............................................................................... 114 Hicknoll Slait; trench location plan............................................................................................................... 115 Hicknoll Slait; human burial 1 ...................................................................................................................... 116 Hicknoll Slait; flint recovered from mouth of hb1 ........................................................................................ 116 Hicknoll Slait; Iron Knife recovered from hb1 ............................................................................................. 117 Hicknoll Slait; human burial 2 ...................................................................................................................... 117 Hicknoll Slait; trenches 2 & 4, plan & section drawings............................................................................... 118

ix

x

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Chapter 1: Introduction clearly a coherent spread of sherds derived from imported amphorae. However, attempts to link this distribution to a particular structure have proved troublesome. The veracity of the celebrated post-built aisled hall was attacked on the basis of statistical analysis conducted on the morphology of the excavated post-holes. This revealed a lack of structural similarity between those pertaining to the proposed hall. However, the post-holes were all truncated suggesting that a statistical analysis of their morphology may not be the best way to study their interrelationships. Furthermore, there are other structural features securely dated to the period, such as gullies, pits and a possible wall trench. When these are taken together with the spread of imported pottery the interpretation of high status 5th-6th century habitation cannot reasonably be denied (ibid. 14-43).

South Cadbury Castle is a medium sized multivallate hillfort, located approximately 6 miles east of the Roman town of Ilchester, Somerset (figure 1). It is one of many hillforts in the south west of England whose impressive ramparts were constructed in the Iron Age. As such it is not out of the ordinary. Yet it maintains a status as one of the most famous and significant archaeological sites, not only in Somerset but also in the whole of the British Isles. Its fame, at least in the public domain, is largely due to the site having been linked with Arthurian legend and the mythical Camelot. South Cadbury has been linked with Camelot since at least the 16th century, when the antiquarian John Leland recorded such locally held beliefs. However, it was the excavations directed by Leslie Alcock in the 1960s that launched the myth of Cadbury-Camelot into a wider national orbit. These excavations were promoted by an organisation called the Camelot Research Committee (Alcock, 1971, 1). Despite such a dubious title, some members of the organisation (Mortimer Wheeler, for example) were highly regarded. Furthermore, it was these excavations from 1966-1973 that demonstrated the archaeological significance of the hillfort at South Cadbury.

This evidence for late 5th and 6th century occupation is rare, but it fits into a pattern of settlement for Somerset and the west of Britain in general. At Poundbury, Dorset there is excavated evidence for continuation of settlement into the 5th century outside the Roman town of Dorchester (Green, 1996). In Somerset, excavations at Cadbury Congresbury and Glastonbury Tor demonstrate that these sites were also occupied in the 5th and 6th centuries. This pattern seems to be, put simplistically, one of continued occupation on late Roman sites into the 5th century and then a settlement shift to hilltop sites in the latter part of the century. Elsewhere in western Britain sites at Tintagel, Cornwall, and Dinas Powys, Glamorgan typify this type of hill top settlement containing 5th-6th century imported pottery. If it is the nature of the evidence from this period that sets South Cadbury apart from the majority of Iron Age hillforts, what is it about the 5th and 6th centuries that is so important for British archaeology?

They revealed a long sequence of occupation on the hilltop beginning in the Neolithic. The occupation was episodic in nature and it is not unusual perhaps, that the first of these episodes dated from the Neolithic or that another indicated Post-Roman reoccupation of an Iron Age hillfort, there are many such examples from south west England, Wales, Scotland and France. What sets South Cadbury apart from a multitude of reoccupied hillforts is the nature of the excavated evidence. South Cadbury provides a rare excavated example of a British settlement datable to the 5th and 6th centuries AD. Alcock was able to demonstrate that ‘…at the summit of the four or five tiers of pre-Roman Iron Age ramparts…a new rubble-and-timber defence, some…eleven hundred metres long’ had been constructed (Alcock, 1995, 16-18). This contained residual late Roman pottery and building material and occasional sherds of imported pottery from the late 5th to 6th centuries. This defensive work was also associated with a timber gate at the south west entrance. Repairs to the stone revetment and the roadway to the south west gate suggest that this episode of occupation lasted a considerable time. A bronze pendant with Germanic style 1 animal ornament was recovered from the road surface associated with the gate. It may have been deliberately deposited during the last phase of repairs, which have been dated to the decades prior to 600AD. Thus the post-Roman reoccupation episode of the hillfort can be extended to the turn of the 7th century. Structural evidence for habitation on the hillfort in the 5th and 6th centuries is more difficult to establish. There is

It is a truism that the ultimate driving force behind all archaeological research, and indeed, all research in general is the quest for knowledge, the discovery of the unknown. The desire for discovery is most pronounced in fields where our knowledge is deficient. Similarly, the appeal of archaeology to the general public is at its height when it can elucidate enigmatic periods in our history. The 5th and 6th centuries are just such a period. Furthermore, it is specifically our knowledge of the non Anglo-Saxon population in Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries that has been described recently as an ‘…obvious black hole…’ (Esmonde Cleary, 2001, 93). There is more to it than this however. With reference to the study of complex societies and their collapse, it has been noted that the collapse of the Western Roman Empire ‘…is the one case above all others that inspires

1

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 1: South Cadbury Caste, location

2

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET are at risk from modern agricultural practices, particularly the ploughing of upland areas for arable farming.

fascination to this day…its vulnerability has always carried the message that civilisations are fleeting things. If the Roman Empire, dominant in its world, was subject to the impersonal forces of history, then it is no wonder that so many fear for the future of contemporary civilisation.’ (Tainter, 1988, 11).

The project was originally organised under the auspices of Glasgow University and then, from 1994, Birmingham University. In 1998 it was agreed that the University of Bristol would become the principle sponsor of the project (Tabor (ed), 2002, 6-8).

The importance of the post-Roman period then, lies partly in a fascination with how people survived and continued to live after the fall of such a dominant society; a society that bore many recognisable traits of our own, including urban areas constructed in stone, fine arts, and complex administration. Thus the importance also partly lies in a need to understand what might befall us if our modern society were to collapse.

Initially the project sought to redress a perceived imbalance in avenues of research in Southeast Somerset. It was noted that a large amount of research was concentrated on Romano-British settlement sites, notably at Ilchester and Shepton Mallet, and medieval settlement. Early objectives included the characterisation in greater detail of ‘…the cultural identity of a region centred upon the hillfort in later prehistory and through to the RomanoBritish period.’ (Leach & Tabor, 1994, 1). If the postRoman and Early Medieval periods were not originally of great importance in the research strategy of SCEP, it is hoped that this book goes some way to remedy that. More recent objectives of the project include exploring ‘…the processes of change identifiable in the local landscape of the 4th to 6th centuries which brought about reinvestment in the hillfort.’ (Tabor (ed), 2002, 8).

In purely archaeological terms, the importance of the 5th and 6th centuries lies in the fact that historical documents pertaining to this period are very rare. Those that do exist are, at best, later copies and, at worst, constructed centuries later by chroniclers and hagiographers with their own agendas relating to their own period. Unfortunately these are frequently taken to furnish us with a degree of historical fact. They actually serve only to perpetuate myth and legend. Renfrew has noted that societies arising from the ashes of collapsed complex societies often seek to legitimise their authority ‘…by claiming direct lineal descent from the previous state, or alternatively by claiming to have overthrown it by heroic force of arms, a claim often all too readily accepted by later historians.’ (Renfrew, 1984, 367).

This work, therefore, forms an integral part of SCEP. For the sake of consistency and ease of assimilation of results, data, resources and reports it has been necessary for this research to conform, to a large extent, to the stated aims and methodology of SCEP. For this reason, fieldwork has been mainly concentrated within the 8km x 8km square centred on the hillfort that is the stated core SCEP study area. This is not perceived as a great problem, the period under study is one of great regional variation. Simon Esmonde Cleary has suggested that ‘…we must be prepared to write a whole series of local or regional sequences, which may be incompatible with each other, rather than attempt to bend and stretch them all into a procrustean narrative’ (Esmonde Cleary, 2001, 92). This work will necessarily draw on and contribute to the body of research undertaken by SCEP (to be published circa 2008).

It is the role of archaeology, then, to ascertain the truth through careful and methodological recording and interpretation of empirical data. The combination then, of a society, which is poorly understood and also has great relevance to modern society, conspires to make this a period of particular importance. South Cadbury is therefore in a significant position in British and European archaeology. It is a rare dated settlement site pertaining to a period for which our knowledge is lacking. However, the settlement has already been excavated and published adequately (Alcock, 1995). What is required is greater research into the various political, sociological and economic systems that supported this defended, high status settlement.

Themes Having presented the broadest possible outline to this book, it is now necessary to address some of the issues inherent in it in more detail. This will take the form of an overview of the different themes current in post-Roman and Early Medieval archaeology that are relevant to this study. It should be understood that these themes are necessarily interrelated, and are only considered in isolation here for the purposes of literary clarity. They include; continuity and collapse at the end of the Romano-British period; the debate concerning the validity of a transistional ‘late Antique’ archaeology; the study of socio-political systems and their rise and fall; and issues arising from the study of trade systems and

To this end the South Cadbury Environs Project (SCEP) was established in 1992 (Tabor, 2000, 25). It is a landscape archaeological or hinterlands project set up initially to provide information about the archaeological remains around the hillfort for the Cadbury Castle postexcavation reports. This led to a realisation that no systematic research had been carried out in the Cadbury Castle hinterlands, an area likely to be rich in artefactual evidence. It is also an area whose archaeological remains

3

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY graphically and in terms of settlement distribution and type, there would appear at first glance to be a dramatic decline. Urban decay and the retreat to the countryside were features of late Romano-British society. The abandonment of villas and towns in the 4th and 5th centuries is attested archaeologically. However, this does not require a demographic collapse, rather a shift in construction techniques and preferred settlement site. Such issues will be addressed by the data from South Cadbury, through the evidence for continuity of field systems and settlement sites for example.

how they affect socio-political systems. These themes will be discussed briefly in this introductory chapter. The second chapter will outline the methodology employed in researching these themes and the South Cadbury environs. The following chapters will then present the data in the form of a narrative. This narrative will concentrate on the changing environs of South Cadbury during the late Antique and Early Medieval periods and how these changes relate to activity on the hillfort. The later chapters are ‘nested’ within a central theme of delimiting and describing a Cadbury estate. Once the evidence for this estate has been presented and established I will explore how settlement was arranged within it; how field systems related to settlement, and how communications linked it all together. It will only be in the concluding chapter that I return to the central themes outlined below and see how the Cadbury evidence corresponds with them.

Politically, at least in the impoverished historical record, there appears to be a collapse of Roman style authority. Even in areas where the Saxons are not believed to have arrived until the 7th century or later, such as Southwest England, Gildas tells of Tyrant kings in Dumnonia and Wales. It has to be noted, however, that the Roman Empire had been in the process of fragmentation from the 3rd century AD. This process led to the establishment of new economic and political centres close to the periphery (Bowersock, 1988, 165). From the late 4th century the imperial court was located at Trier, Northeast Gaul (Drinkwater & Elton, 1992, 1). This flexibility may have helped prolong the life of an ailing empire. It is also true that in a system of shifting centres of gravity it is necessary to examine individual places archaeologically in order to establish if they were in collapse or decline (Bowersock, 1988, 168). Thus, the Cadbury evidence adds to the debate and we must keep an open mind in the interpretation of the evidence. We also know that the province of Britannia was subdivided into four cantons and that these consisted of numerous civitates each with their own capital. Dorchester was certainly a civitas capital and it has been argued that Ilchester was also. Many of the sub-Roman petty kingdoms witnessed in the historical record are based, at least nominally, on Roman civitates (Dumnonia for example). It is possible then that these kingdoms represent political continuity as much as they do collapse. The Cadbury evidence for continuity, or otherwise, of political boundaries will contribute to this debate.

Continuity and Collapse This theme has been central to understanding the postRoman period for at least two centuries. It is inextricably linked with similar studies in late Antique Europe. Initially the debate focussed on whether Roman society could be considered to have collapsed or rather gradually transformed into medieval society. It has been a debate largely based on late Roman literary sources. In 1939 Pirenne published his influential work ‘Mohammed and Charlemagne’ in which he claimed that it was not until the expansion of Islam in the 7th century that northern Europe became separated from Mediterranean contacts and the late Antique world. This subsequently triggered the rise of northern European states and the beginning of the medieval period. Prior to this it had been considered that the Barbarian invasions of the late 4th and 5th centuries had irrevocably sundered northern Europe from the late Antique world. Recently it has become more acceptable to explore which aspects of Roman society may have collapsed and which may have continued. Sociologically we wish to know to what extent the inhabitants of 5th and 6th century Britain considered themselves Roman. This is almost impossible to ascertain archaeologically, although we may be able to identify individual polities or cultural groups that retained more of the Roman way of life than others.

Late Antiquity or ‘Dark Age’ This is a debate that has gained pace in recent years, culminating in the publication of a BAR volume dedicated to it (Collins & Gerrard (eds), 2004). It is essentially related to ideas of continuity in so much as; if we can describe the 3rd to 7th centuries as late antique, in line with Europe, then a degree of continuity or gradual transition is suggested. The alternative is a reaffirmation of the ‘Dark Age’ as a distinct period following on from the sudden collapse of the Romano-British period in the early 5th century.

Economically we can clearly see the collapse of the Roman monetary system at the beginning of the 5th century. Dark also notes that late Romano-British society was proto-industrial and, as such, hyper-coherent and vulnerable to collapse. These factors would have contributed to the collapse of the Roman economy in the late 4th and early 5th centuries (Dark KR, 1996, 18-19). However, industry is just one facet of the economy and environmental evidence suggests that, despite a possible retreat from marginal land, arable cultivation continued in Somerset, at the same rate in the 5th century as it had in the 4th (Dark SP, 1996, 35-50). Similarly, demo-

Elements of this debate include; the role of outdated culture-historical approaches in classical and post-Roman studies; what defines the medieval period, feudalism, land tenure or the rise of Northern European states; and when 4

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET medieval society; the fief (Poly & Bournazel, 1991, 1). Others have gone further and called for the term ‘feudalism’, an 18th century invention, to be stricken from debates concerning medieval society (Brown, 1974; Reynolds, 1994 for example). Nevertheless, some scholars of the Roman to Medieval transition have noted characteristics in late Roman society that contain elements of what later became associated with feudalism. Halsall, in his study of violence in early medieval society, unsurprisingly links the rise of feudalism to violence and the need to maintain a military elite (Halsall, 1998, 5). In other words, people, voluntarily or otherwise, tied themselves to a lord for protection. This is an interesting connection to draw. It suggests that in times of stress feudal type societies might evolve. Rowlands, for example has observed a feudalising tendency in the late Roman Empire. Invasions in the 3rd century necessitated taxation in kind in order to ensure supplies to the army. This resulted in the army commanders gaining direct control of taxation and the power to challenge imperial government (Rowlands, 1987, 10). A similar situation may have occurred in Southeast Britain in the 5th century. As the Romano-British administration weakened and the centralised economy collapsed, Saxon Foederati may have resorted to extracting payment in kind directly from the populace. Over the following decades a proto-feudal society may have developed. Faith links the rise of feudalism with the rise of Saxon kingdoms. Initially, in the 5th century, power was maintained by a system of ‘extensive lordship’ maintained through a complex of rights and services. The wealth of elites was derived from tribute extracted with the threat of force but also mitigated by the promise of protection. Elements of Roman taxation and organisation persisted in petty kingdoms but the outright ownership of land by elites was slow to develop. Kingship grew from the exercise of physical power. As kings emerged they rewarded loyalty in arms with grants of land and a proto-feudal society developed (Faith, 1997, 3-6). This connection with systems of land tenure is important. Roman law considered land as something that could be transferred from one individual to another; i.e. land could be alienated. This may have been the first time this concept had permeated British society. Eric John, in his study of early Saxon charters, concludes that book right entailed the right to alienate land and gave an exemption from secular services such as military service. These rights were originally only bestowed upon the Church and monasteries, and were seemingly derived from late Roman vulgar law. Prior to this the king bestowed land privileges on knights of his choice, i.e. land was inalienable from the king (John, 1960, 45-6). It seems that ecclesiastical institutions, used to owning their own land under Roman law, found themselves vulnerable to the whims of Saxon kings by the 7th century. Charters restored their security. In the Cadbury region there is a tradition of an early charter pertaining to 100 hides

is the major discontinuity in the archaeological record, 3rd, 5th or 7th century AD? i) The culture-historical approach to archaeological theory seeks to identify culture groups through the study of material culture. Thus a Germanic style of dress ornament in a grave would signify adherence to Germanic as opposed to British cultural ideals. For students of the prehistoric period this approach proved useful in the development of typologies and relative chronologies, as well as the exploration of inter-group relationships. This method has been superseded in prehistoric archaeology now by a processual approach to the subject in which students seek an understanding of the processes and causes of change rather than mere description. In periods characterised through myth and legend however, such as the Classical world or post-Roman Britain, adherents of a culturehistorical approach to archaeology sought to identify peoples and events described in these works of fiction. A ready made explanation for change already existed in legend for the post-Roman period consisting of Saxon invasions and migrations complemented by heroic, if ultimately futile, British resistance. Students of the period have, until recently, remained ensnared by such culture-historical models and largely ignored the social and economic processes that can more reliably explain change in the late Roman and early medieval periods. This is not to deny the usefulness of historical documents as evidential material; a multidisciplinary approach is essential to understanding a period in which any evidence type is at a premium. However, archaeological evidence is best suited to understanding social and economic process, which, as an explanation of change, is more dependable than historical models based on unreliable sources. As such the late antique paradigm provides a platform upon which processes of transition can be better understood. ii) Any discussion on the origins of the medieval period needs a clear idea of what defines it. The Pirenne thesis, itself rooted in the culture-historical approach of the early 20th century, suggests that the rise of northern European states such as the Carolingian Empire distinguishes medieval from late Antique Europe. This is a rather literal definition considering the term was coined to name a period between the ancient and modern. A more pertinent definition might comprise reference to feudalism, a social construct indelibly linked with medieval society in the British psyche. There are many conflicting definitions of feudalism, some of which allow for an early developmental stage in which vassals tied themselves to a Lord voluntarily, known as commendation (Bloch, 1961, 59-71). However, true feudalism arose from legal developments in 10th century France and only became dominant in Britain following the Norman Conquest. Poly and Bournazel argue that the term only strictly applies to one legal characteristic of 5

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY South Cadbury, in the 5th and 6th centuries, was located in a region that may be seen as intermediate between the civitas of the Durotriges and the shire of Somerset. The evidence from South Cadbury environs will illuminate the political and social nature of this region and its position within the wider late antique and early medieval world of Britain and Northern Europe.

at Lanprobi for the foundation of Sherborne Abbey. It is possible that after the conquest of the region by Wessex, lands previously owned by the church were taken by the king who later granted it a charter. This suggests that prior to the conquest of the region in the 7th century some form of Roman law persisted in the form of alienable land tenure. However, it is important not to confuse the rise of feudalism with that of medieval society. True feudal society did not begin to evolve in Britain until the 10th century, as witnessed by Saxon charters, and is most strongly associated in Britain with Anglo-Norman society. It is true that certain aspects of what came to be understood as feudalism, such as the growth of manors with tied serfs, can be discerned in late Roman society, but this book is concerned with elucidating the origins of medieval society and not post-conquest feudalism. It is dangerous to link the development of medieval society with the term ‘feudalism’ then. Furthermore, it may be this link that has encouraged the isolationist view that medieval society did not begin in Britain until the Norman conquest with earlier periods known as Saxon rather than early medieval. This is an historical construct that cannot be upheld archaeologically.

The rise and fall of socio-political systems Systems theory, very popular in the 1970’s and 80’s and still prevalent in the study of socio-political aspects of prehistoric archaeology, provides some useful general ideas pertinent to the study of the post-Roman and early medieval periods. Colin Renfrew developed the ‘cusp catastrophe’ model for the collapse of complex societies. In this model a system can support two levels of complexity for a given set of variables. Renfrew chose accumulated investment in charismatic authority as one of his variables. By this he meant ‘…the energy assigned to cultural devices used to promote adherence to the central authority’ (Renfrew, 1984, 376). For the other variable he chose a ratio between taxation and rural productivity, which he dubbed ‘net rural marginality’. Thus, in this model, the degree of complexity supportable by a system is dependent on levels of loyalty to the state and net wealth of the population. If both variables are high then a high degree of complexity can be supported by the system. Evolution of the state from simple to complex is dependent on these variables. If loyalty to the state increases initially then so can complexity. But if this then results in a drop in individual wealth a point will be reached when a higher and a lower level of complexity are possible. This point is the cusp. The delay rule means that the state will remain at the higher level of complexity until the edge of the cusp is reached at which point the state will collapse to the lower level of complexity. Conversely, if the value of the variables changes in the reverse direction over time then there can be a sudden dramatic increase in complexity, which Renfrew dubbed anastrophe as distinct from catastrophe. Renfrew suggested that the emergence of a single, united Saxon kingdom in the 9th century AD was an anastrophic event. This may be explained by the stresses of Viking invasions resulting in an increased investment in charismatic authority with no corresponding increase in rural wealth (ibid. 375-385).

iii) So the central question remains; what defines medieval society, and when can it be said to begin? We are left with the simple fact that the origins of early medieval society are rooted in an increase in sociopolitical complexity associated with the rise of kingdoms in Northern Europe in the 7th and 8th centuries AD. However, within this simple fact the debate still rages as to how this came about. The opposing views can be summarised for Britain as: a) Romano-British society collapsed at the beginning of the 5th century plunging Britain into a ‘dark age’ from which medieval society only began to emerge in the 7th-8th centuries. Exponents of this view include Faulkner and Reece (2002) and Faulkner (2004) b) Romano-British society continued in an impoverished form until the 7th century by which time it became subsumed within the emerging Northern European early medieval society (Dark, 1994, for example). c) Although there was clearly a collapse of the Roman imperially driven economy in the late 4th-early 5th century, the rural and agrarian economy continued allowing a gradual transition from Romano-British to medieval society. The evidence presented in this book supports this latter view.

We have a general model, then, that may explain major events at both the beginning and end of the study period. The collapse of the Roman Empire is explained by an increase in taxation at a time when the Empire was becoming less centralised and there was less investment in charismatic authority. This process started in the early 3rd century, although the delay rule meant that collapse did not come for two more centuries. However, Renfrew is careful to point out that in respect of British society, the collapse is not entirely endogenous.

The debate needs to be considered on a regional scale. Although Anglo-Saxon history has traditionally been written in terms of the major kingdoms that eventually emerged, it is the small region that is now seen as vital to our understanding of the political and social structure of early England (Faith, 1997, 8). 6

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET separated from large royal estates (Costen, 1992, 113122). It is possible that the king was forced to sell off royal estates in order to support his larger state structure and that manorial lords were forced to rationalise their estates in order to pay increased taxes for the support of the super state. These ideas will be explored in the light of the Cadbury evidence.

Renfrew’s anastrophic event corresponds with the rise in the fortunes of the house of Wessex and Alfred the Great, a dynasty with local relevance to Somerset. He admits that the model does not prove anything but rather attempts to describe change from a more formal and sound basis. Nevertheless, the model can ‘…never predict the infinite complexity and variety of each individual case’ (ibid. 387).

Kristiansen emphasises social evolution rather than catastrophe or anastrophe. In Denmark he noted a social transformation from chiefdoms to a more complex stratified society between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. However, the new productive regime of permanent field systems that facilitated the social transformation had been in place for several centuries prior to the beginning of the Iron Age (Kristiansen, 1998, 261). This kind of delay is consistent with Renfrew’s cusp anastrophe. An analogy may be drawn with the rise of the medieval feudal system. This was facilitated by the establishment of taxation in kind payable to and collected by the Roman army in the 3rd century. However, it was not until the collapse of the empire that the new social structures were able to develop. This suggests that the 5th-7th centuries in Britain may have witnessed a social transformation whilst there was continuity in other respects such as agricultural practice.

When the anastrophe model is considered in conjunction with a model of diminishing marginal returns developed by Tainter, developments in late Saxon Somerset become more understandable. Tainter’s model suggests that as a society becomes more complex, there will come a point when the costs of maintaining complexity will outweigh the benefits. The Roman Empire is a case in point. Rome expanded with great profit under the republic. However, as the empire become larger and more complex the benefits of expansion were outweighed by the costs. Rome ceased to expand profitably by the end of the Republic. By the end of the 2nd century AD imperial estates were being sold off to cover the costs of Germanic wars. The silver denarius was debased to 58% silver by the beginning of the 3rd century. Hyperinflation, civil war and Barbarian incursions characterised the 3rd century. The empire that re-emerged in the 4th century had a larger and more complex government, highly organised and commanding a larger and more powerful army. Citizens were taxed more heavily and labour could be conscripted, their lives and occupations were heavily regulated in order to ensure the survival of the state. Landowners and farmers were placed under such severe burdens to support the state that some seem to have welcomed the Barbarians in the 5th century (Tainter, 1988, 134-148).

This book will explore the correspondence between these theoretical models and the archaeological data from South Cadbury. Systems of trade and Exchange Rowlands and Frankenstein have described a model for the development of social hierarchies and complexity, based on anthropological models of exchange. Their ‘prestige goods system’ is centred on the political advantage gained through the control of prestige goods that are only available to a society through external trade. These prestige goods are required for social transactions. In the early stages of development tribal groups are held together in an alliance mitigated by the exchange of locally produced domestic goods in social transactions. One group is likely to have greater access to resources and will become wealthier and more able to gain prestige wealth objects through foreign exchange. Smaller groups will become dependant on the wealthier group for access to these prestige objects. A hierarchy develops in which poorer groups direct the produce of their labours towards the dominant group that controls external trade rather than becoming involved in such trade themselves. The dominant group, as long as it can maintain its monopoly on external trade, will become wealthier and be able to expand its state and levels of hierarchy (Rowlands & Frankenstein, 1998, 336-343).

This model is not entirely consistent with the archaeological evidence from Southwest Britain where we see an expansion in agricultural productivity and rural wealth as invested in villas, in the 3rd and 4th centuries. The majority of the Empires problems were at its centre and centres of gravity did shift to the periphery in the later empire. Thus Britain became less marginalised from the 3rd century. Parts of Britain, wealthy and productive, were therefore able to maintain a semblance of Roman style social systems into the 5th century. It will be possible to test this theory of continuity in Southwest Britain from the 3rd to 5th centuries and beyond with the evidence from South Cadbury. In terms of late Saxon England Renfrew’s anastrophe model suggests a sudden rise in complexity without a preceding rise in rural wealth in 9th century England. Tainter’s model of decreasing marginal returns suggests that as the Saxon kingdoms united into one large state, subsystems within it, such as agriculture and administration would have to become more rationalised in order to support the state. Costen has noted an increase in nucleation and a rationalisation of field systems in Somerset associated with individual manors being

Campbell has suggested that the importation of 5th- 6th century pottery from the Byzantine world into Southwest Britain was a trade directed by Byzantium in search of Cornish tin and Mendip lead/silver (Campbell, 1996, 837

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY those of SCEP as will the study area. The study then, will comprise a detailed narrative on social, political and economic structures at a regional level.

9). The fact that many of the find spots of these B wares coincide with fortified sites (Tintagel, Cadbury Congresbury, South Cadbury and Dinas Powys) suggests an elite control of metals and therefore of external trade. Control of exotic imports such as wine, oil and silk may have facilitated the maintenance of complex social structures in Southwest Britain through the ‘prestige goods system’ outlined above. A consequence of this may have been that when external trade with Byzantium ceased in the 6th century these social structures were weakened. This may explain the abandonment of South Cadbury Castle by the end of the 6th century. The system was no longer able to support such an elite site. The importation of E ware from Western France does occur in the 7th century but none is found in South Cadbury (Alcock, 1995, 112).

This narrative will begin by demonstrating that the Cadbury region under study is comparable with an early scir as described by Faith (ibid. 1997, 9-11). It is these subdivisions of early territories that can be considered to form coherent economic units forming the base for the political, economic and social structure of late antiquity and early medieval England. Evidence for the development of these units, centred on defendable late Roman settlements such as Ilchester and South Cadbury Castle, which had a substantial Romano-British settlement at its foot, is preserved in the modern landscape and is presented in Chapter 3. Furthermore chapter 4 argues that rural dispersed settlement patterns remained stable from the late Romano-British period until the 9th and 10th centuries. This may seem at odds with commonly accepted evidence for abandonment of late Romano-British farmsteads and villas at the end of the 4th century. However, the lack of evidence for any structural remains of post-Roman rural settlement suggests that there is more to this than a simple shift of preferred settlement site. In chapter 5, remarkable evidence for broad continuity of land division from the Iron Age to the modern day is presented. It will be argued that this compelling evidence for continuous development of the agrarian economy in the region, suggesting that there is no demographic collapse in the 5th century. Chapters 6 and 7 go some way to elucidating the timing of landscape developments. Increasing socio-political complexity associated with the unification of England contributed to the development of nucleated settlements, urban centres and new routes connecting central places maintained through military services.

Summary This survey, then, seeks to relocate South Cadbury within its proper context as an important archaeological resource for our better understanding of the end of antiquity and the rise of medieval Europe. This will be achieved through detailed archaeological survey of a small region around the hillfort. Renfrew has said that the development of Dark Age archaeology has been hampered by focus on the larger and more obvious central place sites of the vanished state (Renfrew, 1984, 369). Of course, focus on the more obvious central place sites is a necessary first step in the development of ideas about the period. Renfrew is correct in that, it is time the discipline moved on and looked for evidence of social structures at all levels. We also need to understand the non-elite population of Roman Britain better. This group was already living in timber buildings with an apparently low level of material prosperity (i.e. they were relatively invisible in the archaeological record). Their settlements and field systems are better understood than their material culture (Esmonde Cleary, 2001, 96). So it is that the techniques of landscape survey are well suited to the study of this period. Through geophysical survey over wide areas it is possible to map settlements and field systems through developmental stages and shifts.

This volume concludes that these developments, sometimes at variance with accepted historical accounts, are best explained through processes that can be modelled using systems theory. Internal problems in the late Roman Empire such as inflation, increasing tax burdens and political conflict led to its weakening and ultimate demise. In Britain complex social and economic structures were inevitably disrupted but the rural economy was still able to function. Thus there is little evidence for disruption to systems of land division in the environs of South Cadbury. Society became less complex and organised locally but with a strong rural economy that enabled the rise of kingdoms in the 7th century and, with increasing social complexity, the rise of England as a unified kingdom under Alfred of Wessex and his successors.

A consideration of the main models outlined above reveals that the underlying theme of the volume is the transformation from late antique to early medieval society. It is perhaps more useful to view this as a period of transition within the established framework of society rather than collapse, or even decline (Bowersock, 1988, 170-1). In this respect it will always be difficult to pinpoint the exact moment of transformation from antique to medieval society because aspects of cultural systems change continuously (Tainter, 1988, 40). As with all general models, it is very difficult to demonstrate their validity empirically. A large body of data gathered from a wide and comprehensive range of sources would be required to test many of the models outlined in this chapter, beyond the scope of this body of work. It has already been noted that research methods will conform to 8

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Chapter 2: Methodology estate. The region was considered to retain some of the best-preserved archaeological resources in Northamptonshire. This resource was under threat from development, a threat that the project aimed to evaluate and counteract. The main survey technique was to identify sites and evidence for early land division through aerial survey and fieldwalking and then excavate those under threat (Foard & Pearson, 1985, 3-6). Results included the discovery of a large scale Iron Age hill top settlement at Crow Hill, Irthlingborough. The site proved to be occupied in the Romano-British and Saxon periods and may have been the location of the original settlement that gave rise to the place-name Irthlingborough, prior to the establishment of the medieval village. Field walking at Mallow’s Cotton revealed associated scatters of Romano-British and Saxon pottery close to a deserted medieval village. Excavations at Raunds Furnells demonstrated that the early Saxon settlement began as a loose agglomeration of farms, which only developed into a planned village with property boundaries in the 9th century (Dix, 1987, 13-20). The Raunds Area Project was very fortunate to have a ceramic assemblage that spanned the late antique and early medieval periods however, enabling the identification and dating of sites. Unfortunately the Raunds approach is not suitable for this study for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Raunds Area Project initially adopted a site centric approach that, as discussed below, has been eschewed by SCEP in favour of a narrative generated through study of the landscape as a whole. Secondly, the cost would be prohibitive not only of labour and equipment but also carbon dating. Furthermore, the research outlined in this volume represents the results of a regional study; the input required for the identification and excavation of a major site would not be an effective way to sample the archaeology of a region.

Introduction Before outlining the methods chosen for the study there are a number of factors affecting the choice, which require consideration in this introduction. Some of these factors pertain to all archaeological surveys and include the period, scale and aims of the study. Also, the particular circumstance of this study in connection with how it relates to another research project, SCEP, requires examination. This study has been conducted as an independent piece of research, although borne out of SCEP through a need for the study of the historic period in that project. Furthermore, an independent methodology has been devised for this research, which has developed from, and built upon, that adopted by SCEP. For this reason the methodology of the South Cadbury Environs Project will be outlined at this initial stage. Following from these considerations, the specific methodology relevant to this research will be described and at the end of the chapter, an outline of how the geology and topography of the study area has influenced past and present land use will be presented. Firstly, the study period of 250-900 AD has a particular bearing on methodological considerations. In Somerset the period 400-900 AD is aceramic, rendering the dating of archaeological features through the analysis of pottery form and fabric impossible, without recourse to scientific methods such as radiocarbon dating. Furthermore, there is a restricted suite of material culture. Excavations at South Cadbury Castle itself recovered only a limited amount of imported pottery and metalwork of Germanic origin. But this was a high status site and similar finds are unlikely to be recovered from sites of lesser status within its environs. Another site datable to the post Roman period was excavated at Poundbury near Dorchester, Dorset. Again only a limited range of materials were recovered including an iron knife, a fragment of bone comb, two sherds of grass-tempered pottery and dress ornaments recovered from grave fills. Esmonde Cleary (2001) and Hamerow, in a comparison of British research methodology to that adopted on the continent (Hamerow, 2003), have both called for more large-scale open area excavations of sites displaying both late Roman and early Saxon features. The excavation of features stratigraphically later than the ultimate Romano-British phases, dated through radiocarbon, would enable the generation of a larger database of post-Roman material culture. Only then would it be possible to identify more post-Roman sites with ease (Esmonde-Cleary, 2001, 93). This approach has been very effective for the Raunds area project, which bears a number of similarities to this study. The project was established following the excavation of Raunds Furnells manorial complex from 1977-1982 in a study area comprising four medieval parishes that may once have constituted an early large

Esmonde Cleary made another suggestion more suited to this study and which will be discussed in more detail below. That is, in order to overcome the inequalities between the material evidence from the Romano-British to the post-Roman period, the study of just one type of evidence that spans the two could be considered (Esmonde-Cleary, 2001, 91). For SCEP, this evidencetype would be land division. Finally, The Shapwick project, based in Somerset and set up to look at the origins of settlement patterns within a medieval parish, was also faced with the problem of being unable to identify settlement sites between the late Romano-British and late Saxon periods. They approached the problem from a multi-disciplinary perspective, which crucially involved analysis of Soil chemistry. Sites identified as potential aceramic low status agricultural settlements through the study of habitative field names, field walking and geophysical survey, were subjected to 9

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY of cut features, in the last 20 years. Both magnetometry and resistivity have been shown to be very useful in identifying post-Roman, Saxon and medieval features. Even relatively ephemeral remains such as wooden beam slots, sunken-featured buildings and post-holes can be revealed through the use of magnetometry, notably at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire (David, 1994, 4-7). Even though the use of data loggers and computers means that large areas can now be easily surveyed and plotted, magnetometry is still a labour intensive survey technique if employed on a regional scale. Similarly, map regression is normally employed on parish surveys but less commonly on a regional scale. Recent work by Williamson however, has demonstrated the fruitfulness of such a method. In East Anglia he revealed an Iron Age co-axial field system fossilised in the modern landscape (Williamson, 1987). Map regression can also form the base onto which fieldwork results are plotted. A sampling strategy is necessary however for more intensive fieldwork. The SCEP sampling strategy is described below. It has been slightly modified for the purposes of this study, principally in an attempt to identify elusive post-Roman settlement patterns, which will also be described below.

soil analysis. The theory was that the heavy metal content of the soil would be enhanced on habitation sites by human and animal excreta and wood ash. This is because heavy metals occurring naturally in the soil are concentrated in some plants. The results were positive (Aston et al. 1998, 53-9) and SCEP has recently introduced the technique (Tabor, pers. Comm.) too late, however, for this study. The potential of soil chemistry analysis, as a technique for identifying low status rural settlement for this study, has only become apparent at a late stage. If the technique had been adopted from the outset soil sampling strategies could have been easily integrated within grids set up for geophysical survey. Moreover, the facilities necessary for the lab analysis were not available at the University of Bristol and would have required time to establish from scratch. Such time was not available in the latter stages of fieldwork for this volume. Future landscape studies of all periods with limited durable low status material culture (which effectively means all periods except the late Roman and medieval in SE Somerset) should consider integrating soil chemistry analysis within their sampling strategy. The problems inherent in an archaeological study of the Roman to medieval transition in the South West of England are an obvious imbalance in the archaeological record from the late to post-Roman periods. This imbalance affects perceptions of the transitional period due to the invisibility of certain types of evidence in the post-Roman period such as architecture in stone and durable material culture. This has encouraged some to view the post-Roman period as one of demographic collapse and decline in the rural economy. However, the evidence for reinvestment evident in South Cadbury Castle in the 5th century might contradict that outlook. This study aims to redress the imbalance in the archaeological visibility of the two periods through the use of techniques, which allow the examination of evidence types that span the divide. The main techniques are geophysical survey coupled with map regression in order to recover evidence for discrete systems of ancient land division that may continue in the modern landscape.

The aims of the study, to elucidate the Roman to medieval transition in the environs of South Cadbury, stem from an initial need for a member of SCEP to study the post-Roman and medieval periods (Davey, 2002b, 25). Indeed a number of the SCEP objectives are relevant to the study. These include a better understanding of: 1. The fluctuation of Cadbury Castle’s status as a central place within the wider landscape from the Neolithic to the late Saxon periods. 2. The changing patterns of access and movement in the landscape reflecting shifts in central place. 3. The rapidity and impact of the Roman occupation on the Cadbury landscape and its population, and the processes of change identifiable in the local landscape of the late 4th to 6th centuries which brought about reinvestment in the hillfort (Tabor (ed), 2002, 8). These are key objectives in understanding the Roman to medieval transition in the South Cadbury environs and the SCEP methodology is key to realising them. However, another major objective is to understand the socio-economic processes leading to the collapse of the Roman Empire, which although not reflected in the archaeology of the hillfort itself, should be reflected in the wider landscape. Furthermore, in order to understand fully the transistional period it is necessary to understand the socio-economic processes that led to the rise of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and the feudal/manorial systems of the late Saxon period. In order to understand these processes key modifications to SCEP methodology have been made which will be outlined below.

The second factor affecting methodological considerations is the scale of the study. Tabor has noted the difference between macro-regional surveys (Europe and world-wide in scale) that depend on a review of the literature, and regional survey, which is dependant on fieldwork (Tabor, 2004, 2). This is because smaller scale regional surveys ask more detailed questions of local relevance for which the literature is unavailable. This volume then must essentially be a presentation of fieldwork data for incorporation into a wider narrative. However, an attempt at initiating that narrative will be presented in the conclusory chapter. The use of geophysical survey has become an accepted part of archaeological methodology, for the identification

10

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET skills and labour required for the technique. Furthermore, the method adopted needs a means of control by which data from it can be tested. This is usually an intrusive method (ibid. 60).

SCEP Methodology The starting point for methodological considerations relating to this study must be the fact that, as already stated in chapter 1, it forms part of the South Cadbury Environs Project (SCEP). This project was initiated in 1992 as a response to requests for archaeological information relating to the hinterlands of South Cadbury Castle by the University of Glasgow for inclusion in final excavation reports of the excavations directed by Alcock between 1966 and 1973 (Alcock, 1995; Barrett et al. 2000). It quickly became obvious that there was a paucity of archaeological literature relating to the hinterlands of the hillfort. This was the result of a marked lack of systematic research in the area. An evaluation in advance of a new barn at Castle Farm (Leach & Tabor, 1996, 912) and observations made during construction of a water pipeline (Rawlings, 1993) provided no more than glimpses into the Romano-British landscape. It was clear that there was an urgent need for systematic research in an area likely to be rich in archaeological remains especially considering the increasing threat from modern agricultural practices (Tabor (ed), 2002, 7).

In considering the best technique for the South Cadbury Environs project he noted that the hillfort is under a military flight path, which ironically, meant that it had not been well covered by aerial photography. Thus whereas the Danebury Environs Project, in many ways similar to SCEP in that it was centred on a recently excavated hillfort in southern England, was able to postulate hypothetical phased landscapes based on the evidence of aerial photographs, Tabor looked for another technique to achieve this for SCEP. The Danebury Project was able to test these hypothetical phased landscapes through a number of open area excavations (Cunliffe, 2000, 9). It was not until 1995, however, that geophysical survey was chosen to form the backbone of SCEP methodology. A pilot study at Sigwells, Charlton Horethorne, had demonstrated the potential of geophysical survey “…to reveal discrete systems of landscape division from at least the later prehistoric period onwards.” (Tabor (ed), 2002, 11). It is partly this focussing on landscape division that sets SCEP apart from other regional surveys. The SCEP methodology reflects a change in survey objectives from the location of ‘sites’ to the creation of a landscape narrative in its own right (ibid. 9). SCEP is also distinguishable from conventional regional surveys in that geophysical survey is its principal technique.

Tabor made an extensive study of regional survey methods for a doctoral thesis in order to develop a coherent and rigorous survey strategy for SCEP (Tabor, 2004). This was necessary to avoid pitfalls associated with interpretative feedback loops. In other words, the interpretation of archaeological data is a subjective or hermeneutic process that is often guided by previous subjective interpretations made by earlier researchers. Archaeology can suffer from a reputation as a ‘pseudoscience’ due to the fact that higher order levels of interpretation, such as theories on political or ideological systems derived from empirical data, are wholly dependent on prevailing paradigms concerning those data sets. Errors in interpretation can only be reduced through better methods of data collection as well as improved techniques including scientific dating and the use of comparative studies such as experimental archaeology (ibid. 4). Tabor reviewed recent survey methodology from around the world and noted that literature reviews and mapping are the primary tools employed by archaeological surveys. The maps provide strata (such as geology, topography, political boundaries etc.) onto which data can be plotted. He also noted that map regression has usually been limited to parish surveys and did not consider the technique for SCEP (ibid. 36-7). He did consider an exhaustive list of field techniques in his thesis including aerial photography, earthwork survey, test pitting, environmental sampling, geophysical Prospection, fieldwalking, plough zone sampling, and trial trenching. However, soil chemistry analysis was not considered in detail initially (Tabor, 1998) although subsequent work was included in a later publication (Tabor, 2004, 42-3).

“Where suited to the conditions, geophysical survey is the most effective means for mapping buried landscapes and for providing an outline chronological sequence for all periods in which land has been divided and enclosed by ditches.” (Tabor & Johnson, 2000, 319 & 325). Geophysical survey has the potential therefore to reveal entire landscapes rather than work on known sites. In character its potential is similar to that of aerial photography but with better resolution. It can be time consuming but magnetometry is actually quicker than fieldwalking, shovel pitting and many other techniques (Tabor, 2004, 42). SCEP began by using a Geoscan FM36 fluxgate gradiometer but has recently switched to a dual sensor Bartington 601/2 fluxgate gradiometer. The dual sensors allow two transects to be walked in one traverse, effectively halving the distance walked by the operator in order to survey the same area. Surveys were conducted in 20m square grids with readings taken at 50cm intervals along traverses set 1m apart, although the frequency has been doubled since the introduction of the new equipment (Tabor, pers. Comm.). A control technique was also necessary in order to test the hypothetical phased systems of land division generated through geophysical survey. The Shapwick project in Somerset had used fieldwalking as a primary

Project directors need to be aware of the types of data a technique will provide as well as having access to the 11

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY survey technique and conducted research into its effectiveness (Gerrard, 1989). The experiments demonstrated that rates of artefact recovery varied according to the ground conditions, weather and experience of the worker. In order to reduce such errors and because of the predominance of pasture in the South Cadbury environs, a programme of shovel pitting was chosen ahead of fieldwalking as an effective method of plough zone sampling. 60 litres of soil were sieved through a 1cm mesh at 20m intervals, at the corners of 20m grids. It was hoped that the distribution of artefacts in the plough zone would help to establish a chronology into which the phased systems of landscape division could be placed. However, variations in soil depth meant that a programme of test pitting had to be introduced as a control to the effectiveness of plough zone sampling (Tabor (ed), 2002, 11-13). A 1m square test pit was dug to natural every hectare, located at 100m intervals and coincident with round numbers on the national grid. The idea was to elucidate the relationship between stratified and surface material as well as gaining geomorphological information, both of which informed the geophysical data (Tabor, 2004, 98). Many test pits have provided information on past land use. At a field called ‘Blacklands’ at the foot of the hillfort past rates of colluviation were recorded in the test pit section. This revealed that hillwash caused by cultivation was at its greatest during the post-medieval period. This coincides with a period when it is known that lynchets were in use on the sides of the hill. Of more relevance to this volume is the fact that rates of colluviation were consistent throughout the Romano-British, Post-Roman and medieval periods (Tabor, 2002 (ed), 58) see figure 2.1.

through this methodology are tested through a training excavation (Tabor (ed), 2002, 13).

The SCEP study area had been, rather arbitrarily, fixed as an 8km square centred on the hillfort. The reason for this was to try to limit the size of the survey due to the fact that intensive techniques were to be used rather than aerial photography (Tabor, 2004, 96). SCEP methodology treats activity within a landscape as spatially continuous. But resources dictated that, considering the intensive nature of the fieldwork, the landscape would have to be sampled rather than subjected to complete coverage. The sampling had to be carried out in large blocks in order to understand the ‘architecture’ of the landscape. These blocks were positioned in order to sample the full range of physical landscape presented by the study area and the immediate area around the hill fort itself. The blocks cover 11km2 of the 64km2 study area, one particular block (locality 5) was positioned in order to sample possible ‘early medieval’ archaeology but has since been abandoned (Figure 2.2). Moreover, only 20% of the targeted areas were covered by the intensive fieldwork techniques. This coverage was hoped to be sufficient to “…build a mapped geophysical database comprising diagnostic patterns of alignment and morphology.” More recently work is concentrating on complete transects across the topographical grain. The data from all fieldwork is presented in a GIS format. Each year the hypotheses concerning human activity generated

Figure 2.1: Test Pit section from a field known as ‘blacklands’ at the foot of the eastern slopes of Cadbury Castle. This section shows the occurrence of medieval, Romano-British and post-medieval pottery. The distribution of pottery combined with the thicknesses of the colluvial layers reveals that rates of colluviation were consistent in the Romano-British, post-Roman and medieval periods. Only in the post-medieval period has there been a dramatic increase in the rates of colluviation. (After Tabor, 2004, 58). The participation of the present author in the fieldwork outlined above has been limited to occasional geophysical survey, shovel pitting and test pitting in the core localities and the training excavations. Furthermore, it has been necessary to establish a medieval ceramic fabric series for the project and this study (Davey, 2004c) so that relevant data can be plotted in relation to the geophysics and known early medieval settlement. Due to conditions within the plough zone, providing a hostile environment for the preservation of ceramics, it has been necessary to study fabric in isolation as form rarely remains. Unfortunately due to the amount of Romano-British pottery generated by the project work on a RomanoBritish fabric series is still pending. These data remain unavailable at the time of publication. 12

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 2.2: SCEP study area (after Tabor, 2004, 97) Dorset Ridgeway: Woodward, 1991; Marlborough Downs, Wilts: Gingell, 1992; and Salisbury Plain, Wilts/Hants: Bradley, Entwistle & Raymond, 1994) focussing purely on various aspects of the prehistoric period or the late prehistoric to Roman transition (Cunliffe, 2000, 197). Implicit in this is evidence for a prevailing paradigm, in which prehistoric landscapes are separate and distinct from medieval ones. This perceived separation is the result of imbalances between different periods in terms of their visibility in the archaeological record. This variation in archaeological visibility is determined by the durability of material culture produced

Research Methodology Introduction Nine regional surveys have been conducted in recent years in the Wessex area only three of which (Chalton, Hants: Cunliffe 1973 & 1976; Berkshire Downs: Richards, 1978; and East Hampshire: Shennan, 1985) profess to be multi-period, the remainder (Danebury Environs, Hants: Palmer, 1984 & Cunliffe, 2000; Stonehenge Environs, Wilts: Richards, 1990; Cranborne Chase, Dorset: Barrett, Bradley & Green, 1991; South 13

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY historic times for example, any artefacts relating to this study period tend to be in the plough zone. Thus it is that ongoing survey and excavation at West Heslerton, North Yorkshire has been able to recover good structural and material evidence for post-Roman and early medieval settlement due to their protection from the plough by a gradual accumulation of wind blown sand (Powlesland et al, 1986, 53). In the environs of South Cadbury it is ephemeral evidence pertaining to the post-Roman and early medieval periods, which are most vulnerable to plough damage, particularly in recent times. Plough zone sampling or shovel pitting does not help however, because of the paucity of durable material culture dating to the transitional period. Shovel pitting has only been used twice, relatively early in the progress of the study, once on a field with a ‘chester’ name element and once at Hicknoll Slait cemetery.

in any given period. Such a situation often results from the imposition or development and subsequent collapse of a complex socio-economic system and associated durable material culture. This is most notable in Southern Britain during the transitions spanning the 1st to 5th centuries AD. Increasingly however research is demonstrating that, in terms of the rural population and economy, such separations are deceits. This is not to deny the validity and usefulness of dividing history into manageable periods. Rather it is to advocate caution to those who use such divisions, often based on historical, political or economic events, as evidence for sudden change in the landscape. These perceptions remain as contributory factors in project design. Tabor, for example chose to study examples of recent survey methodology from around the world, when devising the SCEP project design, exclusively from the perspective of a prehistorians (Tabor, 2004, 7-29). The resulting bias in SCEP methodology towards the prehistoric period is perceptible in a number of specific examples such as the choice of study area, lack of map regression and soil chemistry analysis. For the purposes of this study therefore it has been necessary to modify slightly the otherwise progressive SCEP methodology.

Map regression is a standard landscape survey technique often ignored by prehistorians as irrelevant to them. However, the work of Williamson in East Anglia has shown that late prehistoric landscapes can be preserved in modern field alignments. Map regression then, coupled with research into primary documentary sources such as Saxon charters, court rolls, and Glebe Terriers (Davey, 2004d, appendix 3) was the primary technique employed to provide a context for the study in general as well as the SCEP field data. Problems arose from the scale of the area to be mapped. The solution was to utilise 1st edition OS 6” maps as a base from which alterations from the tithe maps could be removed. The resulting base map of early 19th century field boundaries is displayed in figure 2.5. The fruits of this early documentary work have formed the basis for chapter 3 (estates and Boundaries) and map regression has formed a fundamental part of chapter 5 (field systems and the rural economy). Both techniques have proved vital to the overall conclusions of this volume (chapter 8).

Study Area The initial problem was to decide upon a suitable study area, which would be compatible with SCEP but also more suitable to the early medieval period than an arbitrary 8km square centred on the hillfort. This was achieved in the first place by extending the SCEP Square to include whole parishes. For early intensive documentary, cartographic and fieldwork this proved to be a suitable study area. However, later work revealed this area to be too arbitrary and it was extended to include the hundreds of Horethorne, Catsash, the northern parts of Stone and Tintinhull hundreds and the eastern part of Somerton Hundred to include the Yeo valley between Ilchester and South Cadbury (Figures 2.3 & 2.4). All fieldwork was concentrated in the initial core study area centred on South Cadbury Castle. The wider area was subjected to more limited desktop research including map regression, literature review, study of basic historical sources and place-names.

It was clear that further fieldwork, separate to that carried out by SCEP, would be necessary to elucidate the late antique and early medieval environs of South Cadbury. The SCEP methodology had the potential to be able to identify late Romano-British and late Saxon features in the landscape but the study required better chronological resolution in order to be able to address the themes outlined in chapter 1 (above). It became clear that it would be necessary to target transitional period settlement sites in the hope that some datable artefactual material would be recovered that could help to phase features identified through geophysical survey. Towards this end field and place names were collected from medieval and post-medieval documents to add to those already assembled from tithe apportionments by Cooper (2002) in order to identify archaeological indicators or habitative place-name elements. Cooper had also extensively field walked his home parish of Sandford Orcas and identified a number of previously unrecorded late Roman pottery scatters. In addition to this, aerial photographs, SMR entries, and other documentary

Methodology SCEP fieldwork has provided a solid and useful foundation upon which this study can be based. However, the lack of datable artefacts from the 5th to 10th centuries means that there is a lack of context for land division revealed through geophysical survey. Plough zone sampling and test pitting were never likely to contribute material evidence for the post-Roman and early Saxon periods. Test pitting is useful where deep soils render plough zone techniques inappropriate, valuable for the prehistoric period certainly. However, apart from instances where colluviation has built up soil levels in 14

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 2.3: Core study area

15

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 2.4: The wider study area and hundreds of SE Somerset (county boundaries at 1086 AD, Hundred boundaries after Thorn & Thorn, 1980) perpendicular across a geophysical anomaly or feature revealed through aerial photography. The technique has limited goals compared to full excavation, which are typically: the dating of the anomaly, stratigraphical relationships between anomalies and state of preservation. Carefully placed trial trenches, when used in conjunction with geophysical survey can provide a series of dated landscape phases. Although there is rarely any dating evidence from the transitional period recovered from these small trenches, their careful positioning can reveal phases that are stratigraphically later than the ultimate Romano-British phase.

sources were consulted in order to locate sites for further intensive fieldwork. Once sites had been identified each one was subjected to geophysical survey (Figure 2.6). Depending on the results of the survey a small number were chosen for further work which included shovel pitting (Stonchester), shovel pitting, test pitting and full excavation (Hicknoll Slait), sample excavation and earthwork survey (Englands), sample excavation only (Holway & Palmers Barn) and one site (Castle Farm) was subjected to a small excavation without geophysical survey because of a known potential for post-Roman features (Davey, 2004a). Sample excavation or trial trenching was the preferred control method for testing hypothetical phases revealed through geophysical survey in the latter stages of the study. A trial trench is typically a narrow trench laid

The methods employed in geophysical survey, test pitting and shovel pitting all conformed to SCEP methodology outlined above.

16

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 2.5: Early 19th century field boundaries

17

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 2.6: Area covered by geophysical survey (2003). Black areas denote surveys conducted by the author, grey denotes SCEP areas.

18

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET describe the period from 1066 to the 13th century. More recently it has become synonymous with the period spanning the 7th-11th centuries. It is in this latter sense that the term is used in this volume. Anglo-Saxon: This term is problematical for the study because it describes a period within a tightly defined political area that itself varies over time. There is no evidence for Germanic influence in the study area until the 7th century AD, and even then the evidence largely stems from historical rather than landscape sources. Furthermore, the period is subdivided into Early Saxon (c.450-600AD), Middle Saxon (c.600-800AD) and late Saxon (c.800-1066AD), the first of which is wholly inappropriate for the South Cadbury region. The last two terms have been sparingly used if they usefully apply to historical, political or economic events such as the discredited ‘Middle Saxon Shift’ in settlement patterns or the rise of ‘Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms’. The term has also been used to describe a range of pre-conquest pottery fabrics. Late Antique: Is a term that has sparked heated debate recently (see Collins & Gerrard, 2004). Aspects of this debate are addressed later in this volume (chapter 8). It will suffice here to say that the term can be usefully applied in the South Cadbury region to describe a transitional period from c.250-700AD.

Terminology The Roman to Medieval transition harbours a minefield of misleading terminology including Roman, late Roman, Romano-British, British, Celtic, post-Roman, subRoman, Dark Age, early medieval, Anglo-Saxon, early, middle and late Saxon, and late antique. Many if not all of these terms have been used in this volume and their various merits discussed. For the purposes of clarity it is necessary to define what is meant by each of them as they have been applied in this volume. Roman: This adjective applies to both a period and a suite of material culture as applied across the entire Roman Empire. Romano-British: This term can be distinguished from the one above by its application to a more restricted suite of material culture developed and used by the inhabitants of Britannia under Roman influence. Thus it possible to describe Roman Samian ware but Romano-British coarseware. The term also applies to the native populace of Britain between 43 and 411AD. British: Refers to those peoples and material culture pertaining to regions of Britain that did not come under strong Roman influence such as Cornwall and highland zones from the Roman to medieval periods. Late Roman: A period spanning the 3rd and 4th centuries AD notable for political and economic upheavals in the wider Empire and increased material wealth as revealed through durable material culture in SE Somerset. Also late Romano-British. Celtic: A very much abused term which strictly applies to a group of languages but has been used wrongly to apply to a race of people spanning the Iron Age, Roman, medieval and modern periods. The term is avoided in this volume unless it appears in a quoted passage. Post-Roman: This term is not as clear-cut as it might seem. It is generally used to apply only to regions in the west of Britain, which had a protracted period of autonomy prior to Anglo-Saxon expansion. In the South Cadbury region the period historically extends from 411 to 656AD, but is used extensively in this volume to describe the period from the 5th to 7th centuries AD. Sub-Roman: A term used by some to describe a period immediately following Roman imperial rule in Britain but in which Romano-British culture can be shown to continue. The length of this period varies according to the views of the individual author and for this reason has been avoided in this volume. Where it has been used it only relates to the 1st half of the 5th century, prior to the refurbishments on Cadbury Castle. Dark Age: A very emotive term which actually usefully describes the lack of archaeological and historical evidence relating to the 5th and 6th centuries. However, because it also conjures up images of poverty, climatic deterioration and pestilence, it has been avoided in this volume. Early Medieval: The problems with this term stem from the fact that different authors have used it to describe vastly different periods. In the past it tended to be used to

Geology, Topography and Land Use Whilst this study does not seek to explain social change through geographically deterministic models, it is clear that environmental factors such as soil type, drainage and proximity of fresh water will affect the distribution of archaeological artefacts and sites. The areas of most intensive cultivation and settlement tend to be located on well-drained fertile soils, whilst settlements might also cluster along a spring line. Geology and topography are constants in the landscape the impact of which, on the anthropogenic landscape, it is relatively straightforward to chart. If we can recognize these influences at the outset, it enables a clearer understanding of the social, political and economic influences that have helped shape the landscape. It is for the better understanding of the processes that have help to form patterns in the landscape then, that the way in which geology and topography have affected land use in the region is considered here. Geology (Figure 2.7) The geology of the study area derives almost entirely from the Jurassic period. The only rocks datable to an earlier epoch were deposited during the Triassic (c.250204 mybp). These outcrop in a small area on the south side of Camel hill, which is a narrow faulted anticlinal structure. Here Upper Triassic beds, Keuper Marl and Rhaetic clays, are raised against the upper layers of the lower Lias, which form the clays of the vale of Ilchester. This includes ‘Marston Marble’ notable for its richly fossiliferous nodules packed with ammonites, which used 19

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 2.7: Solid and Drift Geology because it forms the horizon between the middle and upper Lias. It is a ferruginous limestone, and the high iron content is sometimes picked up by the magnetometer (see middle field, figure 5.9). It was deposited very slowly which is reflected in the fact that it contains fossils, which elsewhere in the country are separated by vast thicknesses of sediment. Sometimes earlier rocks are eroded and incorporated into the later junction bed. This bed is somewhat more resistant to erosion than the sands on either side of it resulting in a slight terrace. This is most notable in the parish of Corton Denham where a low ridge runs due south from Parrock Hill.

to be cut and polished (Kellaway & Welch, 1948, 52). Blue Lias limestone outcrops on Camel Hill and there are old limestone quarries here and at Sparkford Hill. A number of archaeological discoveries have been made at these sites notably, for the transitional period, a Saxon cemetery at Camel Hill. The blue Lias is still worked today at Charlton Mackrell and Somerton. These quarries produce a flaggy limestone used extensively for local buildings and paving. To the north of Camel Hill the Blue Lias dips beneath the clays and shales of the middle zones of the Lower Lias, which form the vale of Sparkford (ibid.). These clays produce poorly drained soils and much of the settlement in this area is located on small outcrops of terrace gravels (Hazelgrove, South Barrow, Lovington, Podimore and Alford) or close to alluvial deposits on the rivers Brue, Cam and Cary. The Lower Lias clays and limestone were deposited in two basins separated by the Mendip Hills. Towards the end of the lower Lias these waters became shallower, depositing silts and marls before passing into the sandier sediments of the Middle Lias (c. 190mybp). These are full of fossils, notably belemnites, brachiopods, ammonites, fish and marine reptiles (Hardy, 1999, 139). The middle Lias silts and muds pass into Upper Lias Yeovil Sand via the Junction Bed, so called precisely

The Yeovil sands lie above the Junction Bed, they are silty at the base and sandy later. They follow a band, which includes Cotswold sands in the north, through Midford sands near Bath and Yeovil sands on to Bridport sands on the Dorset coast. They are diachronous in nature; they get younger in age towards the south. They are also very soft which has lead to the formation of many holloways over the centuries, often up to 10m deep or more. In the Yeovil area the sands were deposited in Upper Lias times over a N-S ridge, which formed a shallow sea. This ridge stretches from the Malvern Hills in the north to the south coast and follows N-S trends visible in the geology of northern England. This trend is 20

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Wychwood, Oxfordshire. When it is polished it has an attractive appearance but it is not a true marble, rather an unmetamorphosed limestone.

an important feature of the geology of southern England, influencing the deposition of the middle Jurassic beds that lie above the Yeovil sands. It seems then, that the NS alignment of anthropogenic features in the modern landscape such as field systems and communications routes may have their roots initially in geological events dating from 500 million years ago and later tectonic movements dating from 150 million years ago.

The Cornbrash is a rubbly limestone which forms a well drained stony but fertile soil. As the name suggests it is suitable for corn cultivation (Harding, 1999, 139-164). In fact the vast majority of settlements on the eastern side of the upper Cale valley are concentrated in this thin geological band. This is even more pronounced when compared to the neighbouring clay soils of the Forest Marble and Oxford clays, which are largely devoid of settlement (Figure 2.7).

The inferior Oolite is the basal bed of the middle Jurassic. The name relates to its stratigraphic position below the Great Oolite series not to its quality as a building stone. Nevertheless, it is a rubbly limestone, which can be worked into modest sized blocks for normal walling; it is not suitable for larger pieces of masonry such as lintels. It is used in buildings throughout the area from Yeovil to Castle Cary and in places is combined delightfully with the other major building stone in the region, blue and white Lias. This is perhaps best seen in the 13th century chapel at Chapel Cross, South Cadbury, a building constructed with bands of inferior Oolite and white Lias. Similar combinations have been used in the area since at least the late Roman period; At Holway white Lias roof tiles were combined with the deep yellow walls of inferior Oolite (figure 4.3). The middle Jurassic limestones are much more resistant to weathering compared to the Lias sands. The result is the major topographical feature in the region, the N-S aligned Inferior Oolite scarp, which runs from Castle Cary in the north to Sandford Orcas in the south whence it curves in a NE-SW aligned arc towards Bradford Abbas. This feature has profoundly influenced the archaeology of the region. South Cadbury Castle itself sits on an outlier of inferior Oolite; the Saxon cemetery at Hicknoll Slait sits on the edge of the Middle Jurassic scarp; Sigwells, also on the scarp, contains Bronze Age Barrows and Iron Age burials (Tabor (ed), 2004); the eponymous Norman castle at Castle Cary is located on the scarp slope above the town; and a major communications route has followed the scarp since at least the Romano-British period.

The Oxford clay belt produces a particularly heavy clay soil, which is heavily forested in the north around Bruton and to the south in the Forest of Blackmoor (Taylor, 1966). It marks the Somerset-Wiltshire border in places and is low lying, naturally boggy and wet. Wanstrow, just outside the study area several miles to the northeast, was famous for its medieval pottery, continuing into the 19th century. Some of this pottery has been found during the course of SCEP fieldwork (Davey, 2004c). Wanstrow is situated at a faultline, which brings Fuller’s Earth and Oxford Clays into juxtaposition. The Oxford clay, which fires red, was used for the body of the pots and the Fuller’s Earth clay may have been used for the white slip that characterises Wanstrow wares. Kiln wasters have been found in the village (Overend, 1985, 16). Topography (Figure 2.8) As mentioned above, the middle Jurassic ridge running in a curve from Castle Cary in the north to just south of Yeovil dominates the topography of the region. South Cadbury Castle is atop an outlier of this ridge and overlooks to the west the low-lying area of lower Lias clays. This basin is bounded to the west by a low ridge of hills running from just south of Street to just north of Ilchester in an eastern dogleg of the Polden Hills. The region is bounded to the north by the river Brue and subdivided by the low narrow ridge of Camel Hill. The southern of these subdivided basins is drained by the Rivers Yeo and Cam and known as the Vale of Ilchester, the northern basin is drained by the rivers Cary and Brue and known as the Vale of Sparkford. The drainage is generally eastwards with the Yeo and Cary joining the Parret, which empties into the Severn Estuary, as does the Brue. In the east of the region the N-S aligned Jurassic ridge dominates the drainage. The river Yeo rises below Seven Wells Down and flows south within a vale bounded by the Inferior Oolite and Forest Marble ridges. A number of settlements such as Blackford, Charlton Horethorne, Milborne Wick and Milborne Port nestle in this vale. The Yeo follows the vale as it curves westwards past Sherborne until just south of Yeovil where it breaches the Inferior Oolite ridge and flows north into the vale of Ilchester. The Brue also rises in this central vale of the Jurassic ridge north east of Bruton. It breaches the Inferior Oolite near Pitcombe from where it flows east to

After the middle Jurassic sands and limestone there followed a period of deposition of clays and shales starting with bands of Fuller’s Earth clay, then rock and then upper Fuller’s Earth clay, Forest Marble, and Cornbrash. These last two limestones are harder than the preceding rocks of the middle Jurassic forming another higher ridge that runs through the study area from Maperton in the north, to just east of Charlton Horethorne and Milborne Port in the South. These beds dip slightly to the east at angle of c. 5 degrees so that the earlier Forest Marble is at a slightly higher elevation than the later Cornbrash. This gentle slope continues to the Blackmore vale and the upper Cale valley in the extreme east of the study area before the Cretaceous rocks rise again at the Wiltshire border. The Forest Marble consists mainly of clays with some sandy and limy beds and limestone at its base. Its name derives from having been quarried in the Forest of 21

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 2.8: Relief and Drainage permanent pasture at that time. This was the 3rd highest level of permanent pasture by county in the country; only Yorkshire and Devon had more. Only 8.5% of Somerset land supported corn crops such as wheat, barley, oats, rye, peas and beans. Green crops such as potatoes, turnips, Swedes, mangolds, rape and vetches occupied 4.5% of Somerset land and apple orchards took up 2.5%. At this time Somerset had 14,000 smallholdings, 25% of which were of 5 acres or less. Only Lincolnshire and Yorkshire had more small farms. Furthermore, Somerset had the 9th highest number of sheep per county in the country, the 7th highest number of horses, 5th highest number of cattle and 3rd highest number of pigs. All industry in Somerset towns was based on the rural economy in 1907 (Knight, 1909, 78-84).

Glastonbury and the Somerset levels. East of the Jurassic ridge the river Cale flows south along the Oxford Clay belt into the Blackmoor vale with the Cretaceous ridge to the east. Land Use At the highest point the Jurassic ridge rises only to 193m above Charlton Horethorne and the lowest point of the clay vales to the west is less than 20m aOD, around Podimore and Ilchester. Elevation then is not an inhibiting factor to land use. In fact arable farming is more important on the higher ground where the soils of the Cornbrash and Fuller’s Earth allow it, than in the lower clay vales. Thus it is soil quality, drainage and gradient which are the factors influencing land-use.

In the 17th and 18th centuries the region has been classified as one of mixed arable and substantial dairying, with some sheep keeping (Thirsk (ed), 1984, xx-xxi).

Generally the area is given over to sheep and cattle today although maize as a fodder crop, rape and potatoes are becoming increasingly important. Wheat and beans are also grown. Woodland, along with sheep pasture, tends to be concentrated on the steep scarp slopes or heavy clay soils.

In the medieval period arable cultivation was clearly important; the number of lynchets surviving in the modern landscape are testament to this. Particularly fine examples can be found along the western slopes of the Inferior Oolite ridge around South Cadbury Castle, Littleton Hill and Corton Denham. It may be that, in a

Ordnance Survey statistics published in 1907 revealed that 67.5% of Somerset land as a whole was put down to 22

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET landscape already enclosed for pasture, previously marginal land on steep slopes or poorly drained soils had to be taken into cultivation in order to feed a burgeoning population, possibly in the 12th-13th centuries (Taylor, 2000, 91-2). However, it has been noted that in many areas of the southwest the arable acreage contracted at the expense of livestock husbandry in the 17th century (Harrison, 1984, 358). The fact that 19th century maps indicate that strip lynchets were still in use at that time might support a later date for their inception. The abundance of ridge and furrow in the region also indicates an earlier comparative importance for arable in the region. These earthworks survived into the middle of the 20th century in the clay vales east of Ilchester especially in areas where head and gravel deposits are found. They are visible on aerial photographs from the 1940’s but have been largely ploughed away in the modern era. Nevertheless, medieval documents demonstrate that sheep farming was also important in the local economy at that time. The 1327 lay subsidy reveals that names relating to pastoral trades such as tuckers, fullers, shepherds and dyers were more common than those employed in arable associated industries such as bakers and millers. This does not mean that there was less land put down to arable farming, rather that the arable economy was subsistence based whereas the pastoral economy was for the export market. Indeed by 1212 AD there was ‘Glover Street’ in Ilchester, a century earlier than the Yeovil Glovers. A 13th century fulling mill is known from Bruton, and dyers in West Camel were fined for allowing dye to enter the river and spoil the village water supply in 1436. By 1470 Somerset had become the 2nd largest producer of cloth in the country after Suffolk (Dunning, 1987, 17-19). It will be demonstrated in chapter 5 that the reasons for Somerset’s advantage over other counties, in terms of pastoral economy, can be traced back to investments made into the agrarian infrastructure during the late Romano-British period.

23

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Chapter 3: Estates and Boundaries collapse of central Roman authority in Britain. In some cases these re-emergent units may be coterminous with early medieval hundreds or similar small units such as scirs. Early medieval estates, possibly along the lines of Jones’ multiple estates, evolved from the relatively socially unstratified system of extensive lordship. Of particular relevance to this volume is the difference between ‘inland’ and ‘warland’ highlighted by Faith in these early medieval estates. Inland was an area immediately surrounding the estate centre in which peasants had stronger ties to lord and manor. Warland existed in areas peripheral to the core estate in which settlement patterns were varied and included small estates, dispersed farms and waste with weaker ties to the main estate centre. These arrangements will be discussed with particular reference to SE Somerset below.

Introduction This chapter will focus on the nature of territorial and tenurial organisation within the study area. It is commonly agreed among historians (Costen, 1992a, 87; Jones, 1976), archaeologists (Aston, 1986, 49), and geographers (Hadley, 1996, 3), that early medieval England was organised into a network of large estates consisting of a central place (caput) with a series of secondary vills arranged around it. Glanville Jones first expounded this multiple estate theory of land organisation in 1961 (Jones, 1961). Essentially, he proposed that early medieval society had been organised into a hierarchy of settlements within a large, often royal, estate. The highest ranked settlement, the royal vill or caput, was surrounded by a series of secondary settlements or vills, possibly with specialist functions. These were dependent on the estate centre, which had an administrative and economic role. These small vills or dispersed settlements practised agriculture using an infield-outfield system. Implicit in his model was the idea that these estates ultimately derived from a native British system taken over in tact by victorious Saxon nobles (Jones, 1976, 15-24). Jones’ theory has been refuted on the grounds that he used predominantly 13th century documents as evidence for a system he claimed to be post-Roman in origin (Gregson, 1985, 341).

Jones’ original multiple estate model has provided a basis upon which more sophisticated models can be constructed. Costen, for example, has argued strongly for British society being organised around multiple estates in Somerset from the 5th to 7th centuries with a civitas capital at South Cadbury (Costen, 1992a, 56-79). Whilst the evidence from the South Cadbury environs broadly supports the idea that Somerset was divided into large estates from an early stage, the role of the hillfort as a regional centre will be called into question. It has also been suggested that it was the disintegration of the multiple estate system that ultimately led to the creation of the manorial system witnessed in Domesday. This process began in the late 9th century when Alfred reorganised his army in response to Viking invasion. Large estates were broken up in order to provide thegns with land for the better military support of the King (Costen, 1992a, 112-4). These smaller units of land became the medieval manor. It was the socio-economic upheaval associated with this reorganisation coupled with a demographic increase that kick started the evolution of the midland system of open field farming described by Thirsk (Thirsk, 1964, 3), and its associated nucleated settlement. In SE Somerset it is debatable to what extent open field agriculture and nucleated settlement ever established itself. Recently Williamson has argued that local environmental factors were important in establishing a variety of different types of medieval field systems across Britain but that these were mediated through changing social and tenurial structures (Williamson, 2003, 182).

Recently Faith has outlined an updated model for the development of estate organisation from the Roman to medieval periods (Faith, 1997). Her proposals are based largely on documentary evidence from the 7th century onwards, but refreshingly, do not seek to highlight differences between a ‘British’ west and ‘Germanic’ east or to explain social and landscape differences in terms of Germanic migrations. Rather she applies her model to the entire region and seeks to account for both continuity and change between the Romano-British and medieval systems. She proposes that a system of ‘extensive lordship’ operated in post-Roman Britain. This was a transitional system between the imperial authority of Rome in which tenant farmers and landowners paid taxes into the coffers of a centralised bureaucracy, and the medieval feudal system in which social hierarchies were upheld through a complex system of rents and services. In extensive lordship autonomous elites were maintained by surpluses produced by dispersed farmers in the form of renders. The dominant/subservient relationship between the two classes was perpetuated through a complex of rights and services (ibid, 1-4). Faith envisaged these social relationships taking place within small territorial units that may have their roots in Iron Age territories similar to the Gaulish Pagus. Such small territorial entities may have formed the basis of the political landscape of Iron Age and Roman Britain and re-emerged as autonomous units following on from the

This manorial system, then, lasted throughout the medieval period. In fact, many manorial boundaries recorded in Saxon charters have been fossilised in modern civil parish boundaries. However, these parish boundaries were not crystallised until the medieval period. This started with the Gregorian reforms of the late 24

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET extension of the Polden Hills to the west. It is not surprising perhaps, that the northern part of this area broadly corresponds with the hundred of Catsash, given the use of natural boundaries. It has been proposed that Catsash is a 13th century division of Bruton hundred, and yet, this study suggests that it represents an older land division. The hundredal name of Catsash is not recorded until the 13th century but it is possible that it is coterminous with the unidentified Domesday hundred of Blachethorna (Thorn & Thorn, 1980, 372).

11th century. Their intended purpose was to bring proprietry churches under the control of the ecclesiastical authorities. The result, in respect of the historic landscape, was the development of parish boundaries that, to a great extent, are still with us today (Hase, 1994, 69-70). Thus we have a model for the organisation of land tenure through the late Roman and medieval periods. But how does the South Cadbury evidence fit into this pattern? There are several questions that need to be addressed:

One problem with conflating Cadbury Castle’s Iron Age territory with that of the Hundred of Catsash is that the central place is not very central; Cadbury is not actually in the centre. This must have been a common occurrence in central Somerset where topography demands that hillforts are arranged in a ring around the Somerset levels. Burrow’s study of Somerset hillforts utilised Thiessen polygons and ignored topography. Nevertheless the South Cadbury hinterland derived from this method does bear similarities to the one outlined above (Burrow, 1981, 25). In fact, figure 3.1 suggests that there is not only a broad correspondence between putative Iron Age territories and topography, but also with medieval hundredal boundaries. The boundaries generated through Thiessen polygons are only guides of course. However, where the polygons approximate to natural features such as rivers and ridges, which also match hundredal boundaries, it is possible to speculate that Iron Age political boundaries may also have followed these features. Thus, the Hundreds of Stone, Tintinhull and Houndsborough may be subdivisions of an earlier unit centred on the hillfort at Ham Hill. Similarly the territory associated with Small Down Knoll may correspond with Whitstone hundred; Dundon Hill’s with Whitley and Somerton Hundreds; and South Cadbury Castle’s with Catsash and Horethorne Hundreds. It is highly unlikely that hundred boundaries would exactly correspond with Iron Age territories, there having been over 1000 years of alterations before hundred boundaries are first recorded in 1086. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that two large multiphase boundary ditches, New ditch and another at Higher Hatherleigh Farm near Wincanton (Somerset HER 54017) are located at the junctions of Hundred boundaries that also correspond with proposed Iron Age territories.

1) What is the evidence for Iron Age and Roman estates in the study area and is there evidence for continuity of tenurial boundaries into the medieval period? 2) Alcock’s work in the late 60’s and early 70’s demonstrated that there was a high status fortified site on the hillfort in the 5th and 6th centuries (Alcock, 1995, 14-43). Is it possible to establish a context for this, presumably, central place in terms of estate boundaries and secondary settlements? 3) Can a wider context be established for the Cadbury estate? Can neighbouring estates be identified with which to draw comparisons and elucidate hierarchical relationships? 4) We know from Domesday (Thorn & Thorn, 1980, paragraph 36.5) that a shift in estate centre from South Cadbury to North Cadbury occurs at some point during the Saxon period. Is there any evidence to suggest when this shift occurred and why? 5) Does the South Cadbury evidence support the theory that multiple estates were dismantled in the 10th century to form separate manors and is it possible to delineate these Saxon manors? 6) How did these distinct manors give rise to the medieval parochial system? These questions fall rather neatly into four periods: Iron Age/Roman, Post-Roman, Saxon and Medieval. Iron Age Territories and Roman Estates To what extent South Cadbury functioned as an estate centre in the prehistoric periods is beyond the remit of this volume. It is clear however, that the hillfort, in its physical appearance, was unrivalled in majesty. If it had a role other than defence, its situation was ideal to serve as a very fine status symbol in the later Iron Age. Furthermore, the level of control exercised in construction, evidenced by its multivallate defences, suggests the presence of a powerful ruler in this region. Ham Hill, 14 miles away, is the nearest neighbour of a similar standing. Thus it is possible that South Cadbury served as an administrative and economic central place for a wide area. Natural features may have defined this hinterland. For example; the original courses of the Rivers Yeo to the south and Brue to the north; the Jurassic limestone escarpment running from Castle Cary to Sandford Orcas in the east; and the low ridge east of Dundon hill, another hillfort, that actually forms an

A second serious caveat to the theory that Hundredal boundaries may ultimately derive from Iron Age territories, or subdivisions thereof, is that this implies continuity of these units throughout the Romano-British period. The problem lies in the fact that no recorded Romano-British political or tenurial unit could correspond with such large subdivisions of a civitas. Salway and Faith have both alluded to the possibility of the Gallic Pagus equating to just such a unit (Salway, 1981, 535; Faith, 1997, 2). The modern words: peasant, pagan, and the french pays ultimately derive from the word pagus, meaning a district. Furthermore, Barnwell has noted the existence of large Roman estates in Africa 25

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 3.1: Putative Iron Age territories (after Burrow, 1981, 25) superimposed on hundred boundaries, drainage and 50m contour.

26

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 3.2: Major Romano-British sites in the South Cadbury Ilchester and Sherborne areas (after Leach, 1982,4) It is possible then that South Cadbury’s importance as a territorial centre was reduced from the late Iron Age. The question remains, was there a Roman estate, however diminished in importance, based on South Cadbury? Aston has suggested that a long boundary that clearly predates later parish boundaries might be part of a Territorium boundary for Ilchester in the Romano-British period (Aston, 1985b, 146-8). The evidence actually only suggests that the boundary predates the subdivision of large estates into manors in the 10th century. This boundary will be discussed in the next section where it is argued that it represents part of the boundary of a postRoman or early medieval estate centred on the old Roman town.

called regiones, which functioned as subdivisions of a province. He compares the Roman regio and administrative centre to the early medieval shire and estate centre (Barnwell, 1996, 57). It is possible then that, Roman administrators utilised pre-existing districts, as well as civitates. In fact, Chapter 5 below argues for the hundredal boundaries of Horethorne deriving from Iron Age land division. It has also been suggested that the late Iron Age saw the evolution of a northern Durotrigian tribal division, the Lendinienses (Leach, 1994, 3). The construction of a lowland oppidum at Ilchester may be associated with this. It is located at the junction of 3 hillfort territories; Ham Hill, Cadbury, and Dundon; and may represent a central place for a larger region. Epigraphic evidence from inscriptions on Hadrians Wall suggests that Ilchester was the civitas capital of the northern Durotriges in the later Roman period (Leach, 1994, 5).

Nevertheless, it has been noted that Ilchester is surrounded by an unusually high concentration of villas in the late Roman period (Branigan, 1977, 24; Leech, 1977, 180; Hingley, 1989, 136). Hingley also notes that 27

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY been dated to the Romano-British period through test pitting. This area may be contiguous with other known Roman buildings in the vicinity of the church, Saxon Hill cottage excavated in 1966 (Laidlaw, 1966, 25; 1967, 17), and Castle Farm in 1996 and 2003 (Leach & Tabor, 1996, 9-12; Davey, 2004a). In the Roman period then, we have a substantial settlement at the foot of the hillfort, near the NE entrance, aligned on the modern Church Road, with another possible farmstead immediately north west of the hillfort (Figure 3.4). Other significant late RomanoBritish dispersed settlements have been discovered as a

this part of the province of Britannia is characterised by distinct regions where villas are absent but non-villa settlements common, citing the large areas of Cranborne Chase and Salisbury Plain. In comparison to Ilchester, the area around South Cadbury had seemed devoid of major settlement suggesting that a large possibly imperial estate existed here (ibid. 124). This was until SCEP fieldwork filled in the gaps (Figure 3.2). Recent geophysical survey carried out by Tabor (SCEP) has revealed extensive settlement immediately south of the present village at the foot of the hill fort (Figure 3.3). These enclosures have

Figure 3.3: Geophysical survey, Church Road, South Cadbury, showing Romano-British settlement in Blacklands (after Tabor (ed), 2002, 113) and Castle Farm 2003, Trench Location

28

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 3.4: Geophysical survey at Milsom’s Corner, South Cadbury (after Tabor, 2002, 100) showing late and possible post-Roman Alignments 800m away may have belonged to the estate owner (Leech, 1982).

result of recent fieldwork for this volume at Englands, Charlton Horethorne and Holway, Sandford Orcas (Davey, 2004b; Cooper & Davey, forthcoming).

The exact economic role of the nucleated settlement at South Cadbury is not clear. The simplest explanation is that it represents the migration of the late Iron Age hill top settlement down to the foot of the hill. SCEP fieldwork however, suggests that there is a distinct break in settlement here spanning the late 1st and early 2nd centuries AD (Tabor, pers. Comm.). It is interesting to note that a Middle Iron Age precursor to the settlement has also been revealed further south from the RomanoBritish settlement (figure 4.11).

The sizeable Roman settlement to the south of the junction of the modern Church Road (demonstrated to be at least Roman in origin) and Castle Lane (probably a late Iron Age holloway leading to the NE entrance) probably represents a small, nucleated settlement, of a type that has been revealed to be part of the normal Romano-British settlement pattern in South Somerset. A nearby analogous settlement was excavated at Catsgore where it was suggested that it might have formed the nucleus of a late Roman ‘manor’. The settlement appeared to be aligned with densely packed buildings on one side of a road and a single ‘reeve’s’ house on the other side. A villa located

There is the hint of a villa-type building plan in a field known as ‘Blacklands’ (figure 3.3) and this may represent 29

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY period to serve pre-existing temples (Finch Smith, 1987, 9-10), and other hilltop sites in central Somerset such as Lamyatt Beacon and Brent Knoll have known Roman temples.

the residence of a landowner. Excavations at Castle Farm in 2003 (Davey 2004a) demonstrated that metalworking was carried out in the vicinity in the 3rd century, suggesting that this nucleated settlement provided at least one specialist function that might be expected from a lower order central place.

The evidence for a Romano-British estate centred on South Cadbury remains unclear. A small, nucleated settlement existed at the foot of the hillfort, which provided limited services for the surrounding population. The proximity of the walled town at Ilchester is likely to have inhibited the growth of the South Cadbury settlement by providing a much wider range of services. However, it is possible that a district or ‘pagus’ existed within the civitas of the northern Durotriges, perhaps partially coterminous with the medieval hundred of Catsash. The settlement at South Cadbury is the largest known within the described area.

Another possible explanation for the role of the settlement at South Cadbury is that it functioned as a service centre for visitors to the hillfort. It is known from Alcock’s excavations that a late Iron Age shrine persisted on the summit until 60-70AD and it is not unreasonable to suggest that some form of Roman temple or shrine also existed. This is highly speculative, although the presence of dressed blocks of tufa suitable for use in the construction of baths that may have accompanied a temple lends some support (Barrett et al, 2000, 176). Other roadside settlements have arisen in the Roman

Figure 3.5: Domesday Manors between Ilchester and Queen Camel 30

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET the eastern boundary of Queen Camel extends in a continuous line north and south of the parish. Moreover, several other parish boundaries: North and South Barrow, Sparkford, Weston Bampfylde and Sutton Montis, terminate against it as if it were already present when those manors were subdivided (Figure 3.6).

Post-Roman estates Aston (1985b, 146-8) suggested that the western territorium boundary for Roman Ilchester had been fossilised in modern parish boundaries. The literal meaning of the Latin word territorium is ‘lands or territory under a particular authority’ (Salway, 1981, 523). This could be a small area around a military fort, the hinterland of a town, a civitas, or an entire province. There are problems with this interpretation. Firstly, the dating evidence derived from the horizontal stratigraphic relationships between boundaries suggests that this ‘territorium’ boundary can only be dated to sometime earlier than the 10th century, when many of the manors, whose boundaries butt against the earlier division, are first recorded in charters. It is likely, however, that the ‘territorium’ boundary predates the 8th-9th centuries when manors were first being subdivided from large estates.

So Sparkford, Sutton Montis and Weston Bampfylde may all have once been parts of a larger unit, sharing as they do a continuous boundary and two directional placenames. This western boundary may follow alignments originating as early as the Bronze Age. If these three parishes are taken together with those of North and South Cadbury, we have the nucleus of a Roman estate centred on South Cadbury. It seems likely that the shrunken settlement of Whitcombe 1km SE of the hillfort would also have been part of this estate. The eastern boundary of an early Cadbury estate is more difficult to discern. However, it may have fallen along the approximate line of the eastern boundaries of North Cadbury and Compton Pauncefoot parishes. This boundary is fairly continuous, especially when a 1-hide unit at Woolston, added to North Cadbury in Domesday, is removed (figure 3.6). This then delineates an area approximately hexagonal in shape and covering about 2800 hectares, or nearly 7000 acres. This area forms a convincing early estate unit but is there any evidence for its organisational structure?

Furthermore, the putative Roman boundary divides the parishes of West Camel and Queen Camel (figure 3.5). Neighbouring parishes that share a common name, often differentiated by a compass direction, are normally interpreted as divisions of an earlier large manor or estate (North and South Cadbury, for example). In this case, if West Camel and Queen Camel were once part of a large estate called Camel, the boundary between them should be later. In Domesday the two manors were known as ‘camelle’ and ‘camel’ respectively, one held by Muchelney abbey and the other by Countess Gytha, prior to 1066 (Thorn & Thorn, 1980, paragraphs 1.22 & 9.7). Both of these manors were previously part of a royal estate; King Aethelred had donated West Camel to Muchelney Abbey some time before 995 AD (Finberg, 1964, 147). However, it is also true that Ilchester itself was royally owned at Domesday, being part of the Royal estate at Milborne Port (Thorn & Thorn, 1980, paragraph 1,10). Furthermore, several of the manors between Ilchester and Queen Camel were either royally owned (Mudford, Oakley and part of Lytes Cary), or owned by Glastonbury Abbey (Podimore, Limington and Draycott), or Muchelney abbeys (West Camel and Bridgehampton). Yeovilton had also been royally owned before 955 AD (Finberg, 1964, 139) (figure 3.5). These facts open up the possibility that Queen Camel had itself been added on to a larger royal estate centred on Ilchester. At a later date the Camel estate was subdivided from this larger unit. Later still the Camel estate fragmented into individually held manors with the boundary between them of early origin.

In the immediate post-Roman period there is a dearth of archaeological evidence. This situation is well attested in other parts of Britain. In South Cadbury we are fortunate to have the excavated evidence from the hillfort itself, providing a rare dated settlement site for this period. This is clearly an important central place. However, archaeological evidence for this period was entirely lacking in the hillfort environs until recently. Geophysical survey below the northwestern slopes of South Cadbury Castle as part of SCEP fieldwork, have revealed field systems that are very slightly off line to late Roman systems and have been interpreted as post Roman, although a late Roman date must also be considered. The suggestion would seem to be that there is broad continuity of land use but perhaps with a lull long enough for field ditches to become almost silted up and overgrown so that they are re-dug on a slightly different alignment (Figure 3.4). If the archaeological evidence is lacking, what then does the written record tell us? An examination of modern parish and county boundaries coupled with a study of place names indicates the presence of a patchwork of core areas separated in some cases by peripheral tracts of waste. For example, the county boundary between Somerset and Dorset in 1086 ran along the southern borders of Sandford Orcas, Corton Denham, Poyntington and Milborne Port parishes. This curved boundary delineates a protrusion of Dorset into Somerset centred on Sherborne consisting of the Parishes of Castleton, Oborne, Nether Compton and Sherborne.

Although the evidence clearly points to the existence of a large royal Saxon estate centred on Ilchester, the suggestion that the boundary between Queen and West Camel follows the course of a Roman boundary remains speculative. It is possible to postulate an early estate boundary for Cadbury itself in the Middle Saxon period or earlier. Here 31

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 3.6: Post-Roman Core and Periphery These, together with Bradford Abbas and Thornford comprise the Parochia of the early Minster church at Sherborne. These estates were assessed at 99.5 hides, which almost exactly matches the 100 hides mentioned as belonging to a British church at LlanProbi (Hall, 2000, 32). It is possible that this is another early estate boundary originating in the post-Roman period. Barker has proposed that a sub circular road defines this territorium or ‘Predium Monasterii’ (Barker, 1986, 38-9).

However it seems more likely that county boundaries from 1086 reused established boundaries from preexisting estates, suggesting that the Domesday county boundary mark the earlier estate boundary (Figure 3.6). In chapter 5 below it will be demonstrated that this Sherborne estate once formed part of an Iron Age system of land division, which was also coterminous with the hundred of Horethorne, plus that portion which makes up the Sherborne estate (figures 5.4, 5.5 & 6.12). 32

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 3.7: Putative early core estate centred on Milborne Port, defined by topography an abundance of wood and marsh place names (North and South Barrow, Marston Magna, Nether Adber, Verwood, Woodhouse, Weathergrove, Hazelgrove) had dominated the intervening area. The place names are largely old English and must describe the landscape in the middlelate Saxon period. It could be argued further that this area, peripheral to Ilchester, Cadbury and Sherborne, was used less intensively and comprised large tracts of woodland and unenclosed pasture in the Post Roman period.

Milborne Port is also interesting in that steep ridges define the southern portion of the Parish boundary, including Goathill, with the settlement located in a natural bowl. The northern approach is defended by a putative promontory fort, which Ian Burrow (Pers Comm. Somerset HER, PRN 54262) thought to be Saxon in origin due to the lack of Iron Age material from the site (Figure 3.7). In the northern part of the parish, boundaries with Poyntington and Charlton Horethorne suggest that the area between Cadbury and Milborne Port once consisted of shared, unbounded down land (Figure 3.6).

It is possible then to build up a picture of the area in the post Roman period. Cartographic and place name evidence suggests a retraction from marginal land to core

We have already delineated the early estates at Ilchester and Cadbury. A Saxon Royal estate (Queen Camel) and 33

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY of tribute by otherwise independent farmers to estate owners and ultimately the king, and the fully established manorial system.

areas possibly centred on defendable sites. There is limited environmental evidence to support this in 5th century Somerset, notably from the Quantocks and Exmoor (Dark, 1996). However, the evidence from geophysical survey implies continuity of land division. The conclusion must be that field systems remain in tact but are less intensively used, i.e. Pastoral farming becomes more important than arable. This is supported by cores taken through alluvium at Ilchester, which suggests that less alluvium was deposited from the end of the 4th century AD (Thew, 1994).

The core estate boundaries around South Cadbury, Ilchester, Sherborne and Milborne Port probably represent increasing social complexity corresponding to the rise of kingdoms in the middle Saxon period. However, it has to be mentioned that contemporary documentary sources, notably Gildas, mention petty kingdoms in the sub-Roman west of Britain in the 5th or 6th centuries (Higham, 1994). If these were organised along tribal lines or extensive lordship, could the establishment of inland around estates signify the arrival of Saxon lords taking over and rationalising British estates in the 7th century? Archaeology cannot answer what is essentially an historical question. It could be said that the establishment of inland was an improvement in the efficiency of labour organisation and production, as such the development might have been an initiative established by British kings in response to Saxon threats. Either way, a 7th century rather than a late or sub-Roman date for these boundaries seems plausible.

It seems then, that new estate boundaries slowly crystallise around old Roman central places, on defendable sites such as walled towns and hillforts from the 5th century. Similar estate boundaries centred on old Roman walled towns have been suggested for Silchester in which the parishes of Mortimer West End and Silchester combine to form a continuous roughly circular boundary around the old Roman town (Esmonde Cleary, 1989, 198). Esmonde Cleary also notes that large buildings with Roman-style elements to their architecture are constructed within walled towns in the 5th century, notably at Wroxeter and Verulamium. These, he suggests, represent continuity of estate centre rather than urbanism (ibid. 147-53). However, there is no known late Roman unit of administration that could correspond to the Silchester, Wroxeter, Ilchester and Cadbury estates suggesting that they are post rather than late Roman in origin. Esmonde Cleary notes the existence of Merovingian estates established around Gallo-Roman towns (ibid. 198). It is unlikely that the boundaries fossilised in the modern landscape were established early in the post-Roman period, in the 5th century AD. Furthermore, it will be seen below (chapters 4 & 5) that few Romano-British settlements in areas peripheral to these estates were abandoned in the 5th century. In fact, it has already been suggested above that the medieval hundred might represent the continuity of a RomanoBritish administrative unit the ‘pagus’. What was the role then, of these roughly circular boundaries centred on old Romano-British settlements?

A further point arising from the delineation of these areas of inland is that the Cadbury inner estate is much smaller than that of Ilchester or Sherborne. Despite this there is no suggestion of ranking between them. The central place at South Cadbury castle is obviously wealthy in the 5th and 6th centuries and the presence of imported pottery is also reported from Ilchester (Leach, 1994, 11). The implication is that suggestions claiming a shift of central place from Ilchester to South Cadbury in the middle of the 5th century must be reconsidered. Both places maintained certain central place functions in the RomanoBritish and post-Roman periods. Instead the post-Roman estates fit into a pattern of ‘flat’, equal ranked places that probably paid tribute to an itinerant petty king staying at each centre on a circuit. This point will be discussed further below. How the inland of the South Cadbury estate was organised in this period can only be inferred from indirect evidence. We have mentioned the multiple estate model distilled from documents pertaining to a British society in Wales in the 13th century. In this model we would expect secondary settlements dispersed around the estate centre. This clearly is the case in the middle-late Saxon period with a proliferation of ‘tun’ place names relating directly to the Cadbury estate, notably directional names such as Weston (Bampfylde), Sutton (Montis) and Northtown (North tun), North Cadbury. It is now becoming more widely accepted that, by the time the kings of Wessex finally gained control of Somerset, possibly in the late 7th or early 8th century, there had already been a great deal of cultural intermixing between the British and the Saxons. It is therefore likely that the integration of Somerset into the kingdom of Wessex involved little in the way of upheaval. Estates almost certainly changed hands but remained organised along similar lines.

In order to answer this question it is necessary to return to the concept of inland cited by Faith: Its essential – and presumably its earliest – meaning is ‘inner estate’. But inland was not simply part of an estate, it was an area which had particular functions and which was recognised as privileged, in the sense of being exempt from a wide range of public service and eventually from the payment of geld. Such areas, often enclosed or marked by long enduring boundaries, survived, although often in a vestigial form, to appear as geld exempt areas in Domesday book…(Faith, 1997, 16) Warland conversely applied to land outside the core estate in which workers were not tied to the estate but farmers were eligible for geld and other services. This system is seen as transitory between the simple payment 34

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET of Sutton and Crowthorne (Creut Ham), see figure 4.10. Other tuns in the estate include Yarlington, Woolston, Compton (Pauncefoot), Weston (Bampfylde), Galhampton and possibly Maperton, and Clapton.

So the evidence suggests that the reorganisation of the Cadbury estate occurred in stages. In the immediate post Roman period the change was from central control and privately farmed estates paying taxes, to flat ranked estates organised along tribal lines paying tribute to itinerant petty kings. By the middle Saxon period larger kingdoms were forming with an attendant rise in social complexity so that landowners now controlled their inner estates more fully but also ran them more efficiently. This trend towards larger kingdoms and increasing social complexity coupled with a drive for more efficient exploitation of the landscape continued into the late Saxon period with the dismantling of large estates and the establishment of the manorial system.

The last two tuns, together with Yarlington, are located at the watershed for the drainage basin of the River Cam and its tributaries. Inclusion of these manors within the Cadbury estate would help maintain control of its water source. Maperton and Clapton also fall within the medieval hundred of Catsash. A predominance of place names ending in ‘tun’ has been cited as evidence of an early medieval administrative unit (Costen, 1992a, 90). Some of these names should have meanings that pertain directly to the estate or to a secondary function of the settlement within the estate. In the Cadbury area Weston (Bampfylde), Sutton (Montis) and North Town (north tun) have directional place names in respect to the estate centre. Compton (Pauncefoot) has a descriptive name derived from its appearance when observed from the estate centre. Whitcombe, a shrunken settlement 1km south of the estate centre, may have a functional name relating to the crop grown (wheat combe) and also appears as a combe when viewed from Cadbury Castle (Figure 3.8).

The dismantling of the Multiple Estate System In the late Saxon period the pattern of landholding and manorial organisation becomes much clearer again. Direct evidence for the period is available from a number of historical sources, although archaeological evidence is still largely lacking. The main sources for elucidating the estate pattern in this period are Saxon charters, place names and the Domesday Book. Only two Saxon Charters survive in full from the study area, at Rimpton. These date from AD 938 and AD 953-5 (Grundy, 1935, 102-9) and the bounds have been successfully traced in the modern landscape by Costen (1985). Nonetheless, lists of charters written by medieval monks such as Adam of Domerham do still exist preserving a little of the information that was contained within the lost charters. This information includes the date, name of the manor and of the grantor and grantee. Thus we know that the king was still granting manors at Yarlington, Blackford and Holton as late as the 10th century (Sawyer, 1968, 431, 464 & 468). However, the likelihood is that this process began at an earlier date but the information was only preserved from the 10th century for secular landlords, partially as a result of monastic reorganisation in which land charters were copied and kept by scribes.

The estate centre is taken to mean a core area encompassing both settlements of North and South Cadbury. That there was some duality here is suggested by the fact that North Town (north tun) seems to relate to North Cadbury and Sutton (Montis) and Weston (Bampfylde) relate to South Cadbury. It may be that the core of the estate was itself divided through partible inheritance at an early date. Later in the Saxon period however, it is clear that North Cadbury had become the estate centre, being a sizeable settlement by Domesday. Costen maintains that, in Somerset, multiple estates were starting to be dismantled by the 9th century (Costen, 1992a, 112-4), although some remained intact longer than this if they stayed in Royal hands or in the hands of the church (North Petherton, Wells and Cheddar for example; Aston, 1994, 133). In these cases the resulting large parishes probably represent the former inland of the early estates. In the case of the Cadbury estate, North Cadbury remains a large parish of three tithings demonstrating that the process of fragmentation was not fully completed here either.

The pattern of land holding at the end of the Saxon period is documented in Domesday. Apparently the Cadbury estate was held by several different men in 1066 and yet in 1086 it is almost all held by Thurstan son of Rolf. Many of the Saxon landholders had similar names (they all begin with ‘Al-‘) suggesting that they may have been related and the estate had become divided through partible inheritance.

We have seen above, from the evidence of lost charters, that the king was granting manors in the Cadbury area to thegns and Glastonbury Abbey as late as the 10th century but that this may reflect the recording of a process that began a century or more before. Blackford has two lost charters dating from 959 and 979 AD (Finberg, 1964, 139 & 143). They reveal that the king passed this small estate of 3 hides to Glastonbury Abbey by the late 10th century. Blackford was almost certainly part of the Cadbury estate in the early medieval period. Four hides are assessed here

Conversely, place names, or more specifically, distributions of ‘tun’ place name elements, furnish us with the estate pattern early in the period. Many of the modern nucleated villages seem to have derived from an amalgamation of dispersed ‘tuns’. North Cadbury, for example, is composed of North Cadbury, Brookhampton and North Town (North tun). South Cadbury consists of Littleton and South Cadbury. Sutton Montis is composed 35

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 3.8: Domesday Manors

36

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET That these enclosures pre-date the dismantling of multiple estates is revealed through the evidence from Blackford. We know that the single hide unit here, integral to the Cadbury estate, was already in existence when the manor was detached. The boundaries of this unit can be identified from the North Cadbury tithe map. It appears to be an irregular oval or lobed enclosure. This unit then, fits the model for an oval infield of a dispersed secondary settlement connected to a multiple estate.

at Domesday; the fourth is recorded as a detached part of North Cadbury on the 19th century Tithe map. It is possible that when the 3 hides at Blackford were passed from the king, North Cadbury and the one remaining Blackford hide were still royally owned. It would seem logical to dismantle an estate from the periphery whilst retaining control of the estate centre. This is backed up by numismatic evidence. 11th century coins reveal that royal mints were probably moved to the hillfort from Ilchester, Bruton and Milborne Port, suggesting that South, and probably North Cadbury were still royally owned in the early 11th century. Furthermore, Alcock’s excavations demonstrate that the hillfort was extensively refurbished at this time (Alcock, 1995, 44-60).

The fact that this enclosure was assessed at one hide from at least the 10th century is also of interest. The word hide is also derived from the old English ‘higan’ meaning family. Thus the hide was the unit of land required to support a family (Costen, 1992b, 65) unequivocally linking these enclosures with dispersed settlement. There are a small number of these enclosures in the study area exhibiting a considerable variation in size (see figure 3.9). However, the variation is not so extreme that they might not all have been assessed as a hide for the purposes of taxation. The variation in size might rather be a function of productivity. Some of these enclosures also exhibit a remarkable degree of regularity suggesting an element of planning in their clearance and enclosure. Sutton Montis is a fine example as are those at Wales and Camel Farm in Queen Camel. The former was certainly part of the Cadbury estate and Queen Camel is recorded as a royal estate at Domesday. It is possible that a central estate authority may have been an important force in the direction and execution of this process of enclosure from wasteland.

The evidence suggests therefore, that the Cadbury estate was progressively dismantled possibly from the 9th but certainly from the 10th century onwards. However, the residual large parish of North Cadbury, together with the smaller South Cadbury, were still royally owned in the early 11th century. It is through this process that dispersed settlements, secondary to the estate centre, became individual manors. The new manors, as mini estate centres, attracted nucleated settlement. The earliest stage of this process visible in the archaeological record is the dispersed settlement with its appendant infield. We have already noted above that many of these settlements are associated with the place name element ‘tun’ meaning enclosure. Occasionally an oval or lobed enclosure, fossilised in the modern field pattern, can be associated with these settlements. The oval shape is derived from the fact that there were few restrictions to their enclosure and suggests that they were enclosed from waste. Figure 3.9 shows that the majority of 1-hide units in the study area, oval or otherwise, occur in the areas that are peripheral to the inner estates. This is the area that may have partly reverted to waste in the post-Roman period and became warland in the middle Saxon period. A full description of the oval enclosures is given below. At this juncture it is sufficient to say that they occur throughout Somerset and have been associated with multiple estates in the Cheddar and Wells areas (Davey, 2000, 9-10). It seems then that warland is capable of supporting newly enclosed settlement in the middle Saxon period.

We know then, that these enclosures were in existence by the 10th century, we do not know however, when they were formed. One problem is that excavation of early medieval features produces little in the way of datable evidence, another is that many of the boundaries have remained in use up to the present day meaning that ditches have been cleaned out and re-dug at regular intervals. Steve Rippon has identified a small oval enclosure at Church field, Puxton on the North Somerset levels. This has been interpreted as an infield with associated settlement enclosed from an undeveloped landscape. Puxton also has a ‘tun’ place name, but it must be noted that Church field is much smaller than a hide. Excavation here in 1996 highlighted the problems in dating outlined above and the enclosure could only be pinned down to between the end of the Roman period and the 11th century (Rippon, 1997, 47-51).

One such unit with curved boundaries is recorded in the 10th century charters from Rimpton. This is described as a ‘hiwisc’ a word derived from ‘higan’ meaning family. Costen suggests that the Hewish or Huish, as it generally survives in modern place-manes, was a unit of land for the support of a family and that they were often enclosed from previously unused marshy areas. (Costen, 1992b, 72-3). The Rimpton hiwisc is on the eastern edge of the vale of Ilchester and may have required some drainage prior to cultivation.

It has been noted that these oval enclosures are so shaped because they are enclosed from waste and therefore unrestricted in their boundaries. The oval shape gives maximum enclosed area for minimum length of boundary. It follows therefore, that they are indicative of new settlement. However, not all 1-hide units occurring in areas of warland have curved boundaries. Examples such as Holway, Woolston, Woodhouse and Weathergrove have 37

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 3.9: ‘Inland’ estate boundaries plotted with 1-hide units known from documents (solid lines) and putative 1-hide units (dashed lines) distinctly rectilinear boundaries often with N-S long alignments (figure 5.6). Evidence will be presented that these alignments are 3rd century or earlier in origin and that some of these units, notably Holway, have contained dispersed settlement from at least the same time. The possibility is then, that the less intensive nature of exploitation in areas of Warland has allowed some

aspects of ancient dispersed settlement patterns to survive intact, whilst providing some areas of waste for newly enclosed settlements. The implication must be that the 1hide, or family farm, unit is a basic tenurial unit of agriculture that existed at least from the late RomanoBritish period. Barnwell (1996) has reached the same conclusion through the study of Saxon and Roman 38

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET A document from the Close Rolls of Henry IV dated 1409 reveals that a land unit of 160 acres existed at ‘Stoke Galampton’ at that time (Stamp, 1927-32, 423). This settlement was probably located on Stoke Lane in North Cadbury parish on a low spur between the River Cam and a small tributary. It may well have originally been assessed at a hide. The fact that Romano-British features have also been excavated here on similar alignments to modern fields (Rawlings, 1992, 41-2) suggests that this promontory may have been occupied continuously for at least 1700 years.

historical sources. Furthermore, the emphasis on the extended family unit as the basic tenurial, and surely societal, structural block suggests that this type of landscape organisation originated in the tribal societies of the late prehistoric period. We have seen, then, that secondary settlements within the inland of multiple estates formed the core of detached manors from at least the 10th century in the Cadbury area. However, the situation seems to have been slightly different in the warland. At Rimpton the present parish boundary largely follows that set out in a Saxon charter from 938 AD. These charters, together with the will of Brihtric Grim (Finberg, 1964, 146), suggest that the land in this area was divided into series of one-hide units (Costen, 1985, 21). The charters actually record the process by which these basic units amalgamated into the larger manor of Rimpton. The shape of parish boundaries and the distribution of dispersed settlements in the neighbouring parishes of Corton Denham and Sandford Orcas suggest that this process of amalgamation was widespread in the warland.

A 1-hide unit is recorded in Domesday at Goathill near Milborne Port (Thorn & Thorn, 1980, paragraph 19.70) and the morphology of Milborne Port parish suggests another to the east of the inner estate at the modern Gospel Ash Farm. The shape of parishes also points to a number of larger units having an early origin. Poyntington and Charlton Horethorne, before the addition of part of Whitcombe, both display coherence in form with curved and continuous boundaries. The parishes of North and South Barrow, when joined together, similarly form an integral unit with curved boundaries. In the latter case the Domesday names, Berue and Berowene, suggest that this boundary may mark the limits of an earlier wood (from the Saxon bearu- a wood). However, both villages are located on low hills and it is possible that the names derive from beorg- a hill. Marston Magna also forms a coherent unit. This is rectangular in plan however with regular N-S alignments that may be Roman in origin (see Aston, 1985, 74-7). Compton Pauncefoot, North Cadbury and South Cadbury parishes similarly have subrectangular plans with N-S alignments. Finally, the core of Corton Denham; when detached from the settlements of Whitcombe, Stafford’s Green and Holway; forms a coherent shape with partly curved and partly N-S aligned boundaries (Figure 3.8).

Thus, in the late Saxon period the process of ‘manorialisation’ seems to effect a rationalisation of tenurial relationships. Rather than a series of large inner estates with peripheral small independent farmsteads, ‘manorialisation’ creates a series of equal sized manors capable of supporting a thegn. Medieval Parishes From the Norman Conquest onwards we have a wealth of documentary material pertaining to land tenure. However, it is not in the remit of this research to study genealogies or examine in detail the history of land ownership in the Cadbury area during the medieval period. Instead we look to patterns in the landscape and models, which can be supported or refuted by the archaeological and documentary evidence.

The evidence for landholding in the 11th century is much more complete. We can see from Domesday that the entire study area was subdivided into manorial units assessed at from one half to twelve hides. It is possible that some of the larger manors represent amalgamations of 1-hide units and that some of the half hide units represent subdivision of earlier ones. Others, as we have seen above, probably originated as large units possibly in the post-Roman period. This manorial system, well established by the 11th century, very closely resembles the medieval parish system preserved in the 19th century tithe maps.

As we have already noted above, Costen proposed that the pattern of land division in the parishes of Rimpton and Sandford Orcas prior to the 10th century consisted of a number of one-hide units. These were amalgamated during the 10th century to form larger estates, the precursors of medieval parishes. Unfortunately direct evidence for land division in the 10th century is fragmentary at best, all we can tell from lost charters is that there was a 10 hide unit at Yarlington; 5 hides at Holton; a 3 hide manor and a 1 hide holding at Blackford. Other 1-hide units are suggested through studying the morphology of parishes. It could be suggested, for example, that the dispersed settlements of Holway and Stafford’s Green in Corton Denham parish were earlier 1 hide units tacked on to the south of Corton Denham. Part of the Domesday manor of Whitcombe was also tacked on to the north of the parish.

There are a few exceptions. Yarlington is recorded in a lost charter of 939-46 AD as a holding of 10 hides (Finberg, 1964, 134). By 1066 AD this has been subdivided into Yarlington, a 7-hide manor, and Woolston, 3 hides held by 3 thegns (Thorn & Thorn, 1980, paragraphs 19.54-5). The Woolston entry in Domesday suggests that this small manor may have been 39

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY composed of three 1-hide units. The tithe map reveals that the medieval parish consisted of both Yarlington and Woolston. There may be a discrepancy between the original 10-hide unit and the modern parish however. The border between North Cadbury and Yarlington at Woolston deviates from the N-S alignment followed along the remainder of the eastern boundary of North Cadbury. It may be that one of the 3 Woolston hides became incorporated into North Cadbury when parish boundaries were consolidated in the late 12th century. This may be the one hide recorded as being added to South Cadbury in the Domesday Book (ibid. paragraph 36.7)(figure 3.8).

Summary The single most noticeable thread running throughout this chapter is the remarkable degree of continuity of land division exhibited in the evidence. It is perhaps becoming more widely accepted among archaeologists that continuity of settlement site is a relatively common occurrence. Where dispersed farmsteads have been excavated they are frequently shown to be the latest in a long sequence of farmsteads often starting in the prehistoric period (Parry, 1992; Russell, 1990 for example). However, continuity of estate boundary has been more difficult to demonstrate archaeologically. Nevertheless this is a goal that has been pursued in southeast Somerset since 1985 when Aston proposed a territorium boundary for Ilchester (ibid.). There are convincing boundaries for large estates at Ilchester, Sherborne, South Cadbury and Milborne Port in the postRoman and early medieval periods. It is also clear that similar estates existed elsewhere in the Country, as well as in Merovingian Gaul.

Similarly, Clapton and Maperton are listed as separate manors in Domesday. Two hides at Clapton had been added to the estate at South Cadbury and Maperton itself consisted of 5 hides. When the parish of Maperton was created the two hides at Clapton were conjoined with Maperton to form a coherent unit. Clapton has consisted of two farms, Lower and Higher Clapton Farm, since at least 1791 (Collinson, 1791). Again, Clapton may have originally consisted of two single hide units (figure 3.8).

This chapter then has become a regressive exercise in identifying cumulative small changes in the landscape from the modern day to as far back as the RomanoBritish period. The latest of these differences from the modern landscape, apart from post-medieval boundary alteration, is the rationalisation of parish boundaries, probably in the late 12th/ early 13th centuries. This was on a relatively small scale with the majority of medieval parishes equating to Domesday manors. Nevertheless, it is noticeable that the stronger manorial centres were able to hold on to detached portions. North Cadbury, which had a chapel at South Cadbury, retained a detached hide at Blackford as well as one at Woolston, previously held by South Cadbury and Yarlington (but never North Cadbury). Maperton, with a chapel at Blackford, received 2 hides at Clapton.

Furthermore, in 1292, the church at Blackford is listed as a chapel of Maperton (ibid.). The boundary between the two parishes follows a tortuous course around fields extant in the 19th century. It seems likely that this boundary is late and that Blackford and Maperton had originally been part of a larger estate. We have already seen that Charlton Horethorne forms a coherent unit and its boundaries are probably early. Nevertheless, it is not listed as a separate manor in Domesday. The fact that it is unhidated suggests that it was an integral part of the Royal estate at Milborne Port in 1086 AD but by 1140 AD a separate parish had been formed (Dunning, 1999, 91).

It must be remembered that the parochial system was distinct from and yet co-existed with the manorial system. The latter did not cease to exist with the rationalisation of the former. They are different systems with different functions. What happened during the later medieval period is that the parochial system came to the forefront of the English mindset, and became fixed and unchanging from the 11th/12th century to the 19th century.

Whitcombe, a separate Domesday manor, was probably also a separate parish by the 13th century. A church is mentioned in 1499 in an Inquisition Post Mortem. It is also recorded on 17th century maps although it seems to have disappeared by 1673 (Harfield, 1958, 177). Moreover, the manor house is described as ‘…a poor mansion place…’ in 1540 and may have been demolished after 1612 when a dovecote was recorded (Dunning, 1999, 86). Subsequently the manor was divided between the parishes of Corton Denham and Charlton Horethorne. Nevertheless, it is possible to suggest the boundaries of the original manor (Figure 3.8). It is clear then, in the cases of Woolston and Clapton that, where parish boundaries differ from earlier manorial boundaries this is the result of an attempt to rationalise parochial units. In this way parishioners were not too far removed from their parish church.

Prior to this a fully formed manorial system had emerged from the earlier multiple estates between the 9th and the 11th centuries. Some of these manors exhibited coherence in form and boundary that suggests they originated early, and peripheral to the core areas of large estates. The morphology of North and South Barrow, Charlton Horethorne, Poyntington, and Marston Magna, for example, suggests that they formed as early, small estates. Rimpton, Sandford Orcas and Corton Denham on the other hand represent amalgamations of small, often 1hide units. The latter we know were being formed during the 10th century from charter evidence. 40

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Evidence from a variety of sources suggests that these alignments originated as droves perpendicular to major river courses in the Iron Age and developed into intensively exploited long fields by the 3rd century. Some of these alignments are certainly used as boundaries in the Saxon period. One in particular marks the eastern boundary of a post-Roman estate at South Cadbury.

Within the core area of the Cadbury estate, charter evidence reveals that these manors, notably Yarlington and Blackford, were becoming detached from a royal estate, also by the 10th century. Numismatic and excavated evidence suggests that South Cadbury was still royally owned in the early 11th century but fully divided into individually held manors by 1066. Thus, although many of the present day boundaries between these parishes are probably of 10th or 11th century date (or earlier economic units), their external boundaries are coterminous with those of the Cadbury multiple estate. The core estates in the post-Roman period, Ilchester, Cadbury, Milborne Port and possibly Sherborne, are royally owned in the mid-Saxon period. It is only the waste peripheral to these estates that is held by individuals, sometimes through their own efforts of enclosure. This simple fact may reflect inalienable rights of the king over land in the post-Roman period, which in turn might reflect elements of late Roman vulgar law in which the ownership of land was never wholly independent of imperial authority. In this respect, Faith’s (1997) model for the development of Feudal tenurial and social relationships in stages, from the late Roman empire through extensive lordship, multiple estates and on to feudal manors, is useful in that it takes into account the influence of early organisational structures rather than assuming a clean break at the end of the Romano-British period. The evidence from the environs of South Cadbury supports this gradual change, or developmental model in that there is clearly continuity of field alignment, estate centre, larger political or social entities such as districts or pagi and civitates (some of which develop into subKingdoms) and possibly the tenure of elementary farm units, from the Roman to post-Roman periods. A major caveat must be the retreat from marginal land. Faulkener however, has recently decried this evolutionary approach as a return to the old Whig interpretation of history (Faulkener, 2004, 5) and it is important to not lose sight of the great changes that did sweep Britain and the western empire in the 4th and 5th centuries. Nevertheless, life goes on and the farmers of Britain in the 5th century continued to farm the same land as they had in the 4th (or 1st) century. These points will be discussed further in chapter 8.

This intensive exploitation of the landscape in the 3rd century has masked earlier boundaries. Fragments of earlier field systems are being recovered through geophysical survey by SCEP and how these relate to larger scale land divisions will be discussed in chapter 5.

It has also been noted that some modern parish boundaries are, in part, coterminous with those of 1-hide units. These predate the manorial system and some, such as Holway, may be 3rd century in origin. Others have curved boundaries and are probably associated with dispersed settlements peripheral to the Cadbury multiple estate. They seem to represent enclosure from waste and may be associated with a demographic increase in the early/middle Saxon period. A dominant feature of the historic landscape between Cadbury and Ilchester is a series of N-S alignments common to fields, tracks and parish boundaries. These are perhaps most notable at Limington, Draycott, Ashington, Marston Magna and Corton Denham. 41

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Chapter 4: Settlement Patterns and Form estate centres consisted of dispersed farmsteads, possibly within continuing primary tenurial units or hides. The final episode of refurbishment at South Cadbury is dated to the last decades of the 6th century (ibid. 30) and it may have been abandoned by the early 7th century. From this period a number of Saxon royal estate centres, notably Ilchester, Milborne Port, Somerton and Bruton, inherit the administrative role in south central Somerset, themselves at the centre of districts or hundreds. But what archaeological evidence is there for the low status rural settlement pattern served by these central places? The problems inherent in identifying low status settlement sites from the 5th-10th centuries have been discussed in chapter 2. This chapter will describe the efforts in detail.

Introduction The study of Settlement patterns in Somerset has come a long way since 1971 when only 27 deserted or shrunken medieval settlement sites were listed for the entire county (Beresford & Hurst, 1971). This is due in large part to the work of Mick Aston for the medieval period and Roger Leech for the Roman period in the late 1970’s and 1980’s (Leech, 1976; 1977; Aston & Leech, 1977; Aston, 1982; 1985a; 1986; 1988; 1989a; 1989b). Aston proposed a model for the development of Settlement patterns in Somerset from AD 500 to 1500 (ibid. 1989b, 19-20). In this model he emphasised dispersal and continuity as important factors in the origins of the medieval model.

Scholars, since 1912, have divided Roman Britain into a lowland and highland zone (Haverfield, 1912, 24). Central and eastern Somerset falls into the lowland zone characterised by urban centres, with villa settlements and market centres in the countryside. This lowland region was quickly conquered and more completely Romanised. Hingley has noted that non-villa settlements were also common in the lowland zone where they are interpreted as representing the lowest level in the settlement hierarchy, occupied by villa estate workers, slaves or poor land-owning classes (Hingley, 1989, 134). Furthermore, within the lowland zone, there are discreet areas dominated by non-villa settlements. One of these non-villa areas stretches from Salisbury Plain to Cranborne Chase, only 20 miles east of South Cadbury.

In this chapter we will examine models for the development of settlement patterns in Somerset from the Roman to the medieval periods. It will then be possible to see how well the detailed evidence for the South Cadbury area fits these general patterns. Where there is a departure from the expected norm explanations will be proposed. We will also look at settlement form and how modern village plans have evolved in the study area. Perhaps the most striking feature of the settlement pattern in south central Somerset, from the late prehistoric to early medieval period, is the fluctuating relationship between the important central places. The hill forts of Cadbury, Ham Hill and Dundon dominated the settlement pattern in the middle Iron Age. Then, in the late Iron Age, an oppidum was founded in the lowlands immediately south of Ilchester (Leach & Ellis, 1994, 119-20). It is possible that this functioned as a precursor to Roman Ilchester, an administrative centre for a larger tribal territory, superseding the individual hillfort territories. Ilchester itself probably functioned as the civitas capital of the northern Durotriges, the Lendinienses, from at least the 3rd century (Leach, 1994, 5). During this period the civitas of the Lendinienses seems to have been subdivided into a number of districts possibly similar to Gaulish pagi, which may have had their own central places. The settlement pattern around Ilchester consisted of dispersed hamlets and farmsteads with some villas around the urban centres. Some of the hamlets resembled manorial centres in the late Roman period and may have functioned as central places for their respective districts. The settlement at South Cadbury was probably one of these minor central places. Ilchester seems to have started a decline in the early 5th century and the hillfort at South Cadbury was reoccupied from the later 5th century (Alcock, 1995, 15). However, the evidence from early medieval boundaries suggests that there was little in the way of ranking between settlements in the post-Roman period, with each major estate, possibly at the core of a continuing district or pagus, having a defendable redistribution centre. The settlement pattern around these

If we focus in on SE Somerset, Roman settlement patterns have traditionally been studied in relation to the putative civitas capital at Ilchester. It has been noted that there is a relatively densely populated hinterland around Ilchester consisting of farmsteads, villa estates and larger rural settlements (hamlets and villages) (Leach, 1982, 5). There are few early villas in the Ilchester area. Their construction in large numbers from the 3rd century has been explained by an injection of funds through Gaulish immigrants (Branigan, 1976, 124-7) and exploitation of the Somerset levels (Leach, 1994, 7). Leech however, notes that many of the sites of 3rd century villas were occupied before this. He rejects the idea of Gaulish immigrants (Leech, 1977, 192-5). The building of villas on a variety of sites, old and new, in the Ilchester area in the 3rd century, may simply reflect economic growth around the new northern Durotrigian civitas capital at Ilchester. The evidence from the Cadbury area, however, suggests a more fundamental reorganisation of the landscape in the 3rd century (p.124). What is clear is that Ilchester was a thriving administrative and market centre, the high number of villas indicates that wealth was not only created but also openly displayed. The villas are often accompanied by non-villa settlements, particularly to the north of Ilchester (Hingley, 1989, 136). A number 42

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET rural settlements in the 3rd and 4th centuries are replaced by dispersed hamlets and farmsteads from the 5th century. In the 9th-11th centuries there is a tendency towards nucleation but this is never complete. How does this pattern fit the Cadbury Evidence?

of larger rural settlements have been identified by Leech in the Ilchester area, notably at Catsgore 4km north of Ilchester and Westland 6-7km south of Ilchester, but none were known in the Cadbury area (Leech, 1977, 22, 48 & 77-8) until the work of SCEP. A large Romano-British rural settlement is now known at South Cadbury (Leach & Tabor, 1996; Tabor (ed), 2002, 107-119; Davey, 2004a)(figure 4.11). Furthermore, hamlets, or perhaps settlements occupied by extended family units, are now also known to be abundant in the Cadbury area, notably at Sigwells (Leach & Tabor, 1994; 1995; 1996), and Englands, Charlton Horethorne (Davey, 2004b)(figure 4.5).

The 3rd and 4th Centuries It is important for us to understand the settlement pattern in the late Roman period because, to a certain extent, this defines the pattern in the following centuries. The 3rd century is chosen as the cut off point because the evidence suggests a major reorganisation of settlement and land use at this time. It has already been noted that a large number of villas were built in the Ilchester area from the 3rd century. The evidence from recent excavations at Yeovilton suggests that field systems already established in the middle-late Iron Age were utilised more intensively in the 3rd century (Lovell, forthcoming). This N-S alignment can be recognised in parish boundaries earlier than the 11th century and in field systems in the Ilchester area. Branigan suggests that the lack of villas prior to the 3rd century indicates that the entire Durotrigian tribal area was under Imperial authority until this time, when the civitas of the Lendinienses was created (Branigan, 1976, 123-4). According to Branigan this is because the Durotriges fiercely opposed the Roman conquest and needed to be restrained. Branigan has suggested two phases of villa development in the area of the Durotriges Lendinienses. Initially Villas appeared in the immediate vicinity of Ilchester in the early 3rd century. A second expansive phase can be discerned in the late 3rd and early 4th century (Branigan, 1977, 40-43). Leech rejects the theory of a Durotrigian wide imperial estate based on a lack of villas until the 3rd century. He maintains that villa sites were occupied prior to the 3rd century and some early villas may also have been constructed out of wood (Leech, 1977, 87-126).

Higham has noted that the late 4th and 5th centuries are characterised in Britain by a remarkably high level of settlement site abandonment (Higham, 1992, 115). This is explained by factors such as Demographic decline; changing economy resulting in less intensive agricultural regimes and a shift in preferred settlement site; and increased problems in identifying settlements in an aceramic period. He concludes that settlement is highly mobile in the 5th and 6th centuries (ibid. 115-20). This chapter will demonstrate that, although many of the above points are valid, it is a decline in the archaeological visibility of low status settlements that gives the false impression of site abandonment in the 4th and 5th centuries. Aston has suggested that a pattern of dispersed farmsteads and hamlets should be regarded as the norm for rural settlement in Britain. These are only replaced by nucleated settlements at certain times and in certain areas (Aston, 2000, 96). Somerset today has a variety of settlement patterns ranging from predominately dispersed in the west to more nucleated in the east. In the medieval period however, hamlets were the dominant settlement form in the county. In the west these were accompanied by dispersed farmsteads and in the centre, south and east, parishes with many hamlets are common. Very few parishes in Somerset ever contained a single nucleated village (Aston, 1994, 219).

Fieldwork The study of place-names combined with field walking has revealed a number of previously unknown RomanoBritish sites in the South Cadbury Environs notably in the parishes of Sandford Orcas (Cooper & Davey, forthcoming), Charlton Horethorne (Cooper, 2004) and North Cadbury (Davey, 2004, 48-9). Those considered to have field-names or surface finds indicative of late or post-Roman occupation were chosen for geophysical survey. These were: Gilton & Stonchester, North Cadbury (figure 5.7); Englands, Charlton Horethorne (figure 4.5); Cheese Hill, Holway, Sandford Orcas (figure 4.2); and New Close, Middle Field and Palmers Barn, Sandford Orcas (figure 5.9). The location of these sites is shown on figure 4.1 together with Castle Farm where earlier excavation (Leach & Tabor, 1996, 9-12) had demonstrated the potential for late and post RomanoBritish settlement.

Costen has suggested that nucleated settlements occurring in Somerset formed between the 9th and 11th centuries as part of the process by which large royal estates were divided up and given to knights, monasteries or royal servants. This resulted in the creation of numerous smaller estates each with their own manorial centre. Coupled with demographic pressure and the need for the new landowner to create a surplus from a smaller land unit, this led to the reorganisation of agriculture and settlements into the manorial system with attendant strip field system and nucleated settlement (Costen, 1992, 113122). We have then, a general model for the changing rural settlement patterns in Somerset from the 3rd century to the Middle Ages. Dispersed villas, farmsteads and larger

43

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 4.1: Location of late Romano-British settlement sites chosen for fieldwork Gilton & Stonchester (figure 5.7), two fields on opposite sides of Corkscrew Lane, North Cadbury, were chosen for survey because of the juxtaposition of chester and tun habitative name elements. It was hoped that evidence for continuity of settlement site from the Roman to Saxon periods might be forthcoming. Geophysical survey, coupled with a program of shovel pitting in Stonchester did indicate the presence of a small Romano-British settlement. It has been suggested that this might be the

site of a small fort considering the playing card shape of features in the northern part of the field. Unfortunately no evidence for post-Roman settlement was uncovered although the continuity of field alignments revealed through the survey in the modern corkscrew lane suggests at least some continuity of the agrarian economy and land tenure (figure 5.7).

44

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 4.2: Cheese Hill, Holway. Gradioneter survey, results and interpretation necessary to better understand the sequence revealed by the gradiometer, and hopefully date some features to the Post-Roman period. Figure 4.2 depicts a revised interpretation of the settlement phasing from that published previously (Davey, 2004, 47) following excavation. The full excavation report is to be published elsewhere (Cooper & Davey, forthcoming) and the track (trench 1) is discussed further in chapter 6 (figures 6.5 & 6.6). At this point it will be sufficient to discuss the evidence for a substantial building recovered from a destruction layer from above the road surface.

New Close, Middle Field and Palmers Barn (figure 5.9) was identified as a potential Romano-British settlement site by Cooper from pottery scatters revealed through field walking Geophysical survey produced excellent results although subsequent excavation in Palmer’s Barn suggested that this is probably associated with livestock management rather than settlement. For this reason this site is considered fully in chapter 5, although the presence of fine tableware amongst surface finds in Middle Field suggests that there may have been a small settlement in that field. It may be that the magnetometer failed to locate stone structures.

The Destruction Layers: (figures 4.3 & 6.5)

Cheese Hill (figure 4.2) also produced excellent survey results, this time unequivocally associated with settlement. The field was initially identified through fieldname survey (Cooper, 2002); the name is a 19th century bastardisation of chesil, which might be derived from the Old English Chestle (rubble) or ceosol (pebbles). Field walking revealed a dense scatter of Romano-British pottery sherds on a low spur close to a spring below Holway Mill. Some late RB sherds were included among the assemblage. This, together with the possibility of continuity of settlement site from the Romano-British period to the modern day (considering the juxtaposition of the modern hamlet), suggested that this site might be of relevance to the study. The ensuing gradiometer survey revealed a multiphase RomanoBritish settlement, aligned on what appeared to be a double ditched track. Excavation was considered

These comprised dark, charcoal rich soil layers, which yielded some possibly late 4th century sherds of Nene Valley, New Forest and Oxfordshire wares, overlying densely packed oolitic limestone masonry rubble (some of which was faced) and white lias roofing slates (see figure 4.3). Some of the stones were burnt to a red hue. There were discrete patches where roofing slates had pitched vertically into the soft sandy subsoil. These tended to lie below the masonry rubble. The implication is that a building standing in the immediate vicinity had collapsed. First the roofing slates slid off, then the walls collapsed on top. The presence of some large lumps of charcoal suggested that a fire might have been associated with the deposition of these layers. It is not clear whether the fire precipitated the collapse of the building or followed sometime after. There is also an ambiguity 45

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY truncated and a discussion of its profile may be meaningless, however, it appears to have a ‘u’ shape. Generally the pottery recovered from this trench suggested a 3rd to 4th century date for the features. However, one particular context (2003), the primary fill of the later phase ditch (F002), produced an assemblage of black burnished sherds dating from the 4th and 5th centuries. Four dropped flange rim sherds, including two conjoining sherds were from Greyhound yard type 25 bowls. Also, one of two widely everted rim sherds was part of a type 18 jar (Seager Smith & Davies, 1993). These two vessel forms are part of a suite of late black burnished ware forms recently identified by James Gerrard as dating from 350 AD to 450 AD or later (Gerrard, 2004). The conclusion must be that the earlier ditch (F004), part of the phase 3 enclosure aligned on the road, dates from the 3rd-4th centuries AD. The later ditch (F002), part of the phase 4 linear that cuts the road, may have been cleaned out for the last time as late as the middle of the 5th century. These dates correspond well with those for the construction and closure of the road in trench 1. Discussion At Holway then we have a Roman road constructed in the mid-late 3rd century AD, resurfaced probably around the turn of the 4th century, and closed in the late 4th/ early 5th century. At this time at least one well-constructed stone building collapsed into the road rendering it useless. Ditches containing 4th/5th-century pottery later cut the line of the road.

Figure 4.3: Cheese Hill, Holway. Finds from destruction layer 1004. A: Lias roof tiles, B: Metalwork, C: Pottery

It seems that in the 3rd century AD there is an upturn in the economy of Roman Somerset. Villas throughout the region were constructed in stone as well as the reasonably wealthy agricultural settlement at Holway. The phase 1 ring ditch (figure 4.2) might suggest early settlement on this site but the first dateable material culture is from the 3rd century.

about the function of the building. Domestic items such as kitchenware and fine tableware (figure 4.3) were found. Some large iron nails were also present but these could relate to an agricultural building. The high number of large bovine bones amongst the rubble could support the theory that this building had been a barn. However one bovine humerus did display signs of butchery. One of the Black Burnished sherds from this context, a Greyhound Yard type 25 dropped flange rim, suggests a 4th century or later date for the destruction of this building. It seems likely that the building was constructed at the same time as the road (3rd century AD) and destroyed, possibly in a deliberate attempt to divert the road and smooth over the cut made by its earlier course, in the 4th or 5th century.

In terms of the phasing outlined through interpretation of the geophysical survey it seems that phase 1 certainly pre-dates phase 2. Evidence for the ring ditch has been destroyed in the vicinity of the phase 2 road. Phase 2 can now be dated to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. Phases 3 and 4 must be broadly contemporary and dated from the late 4th to the middle of the 5th century, and possibly even later. The excavations have realised part of their aims, the site at Holway is certainly occupied into the 5th century and beyond. However, there is also dramatic evidence for a shift in function for the excavated area. Stone buildings collapse and a well-constructed road is closed. The area of the road is later converted to agricultural enclosures. This event is likely to be connected to political and economic upheavals in the late 4th and early 5th centuries culminating with the refortification of Cadbury Castle. However, Holway continues to be settled and farmed through these upheavals and into the medieval period.

Trench 2 (figure 4.4) This small 4x1m trench was opened in order to date a multiphase ditch, spanning late and post-Roman phases 3 and 4 (figure 4.2). The plough soil (2001) lay directly on top of the top fills of the multiphase ditch (F002 and F004) indicating that the cut features had been truncated by the action of the plough. The earliest ditch (F004) had a ‘v’ shaped profile. The later ditch (F002) was severely 46

Figure 4.4: Holway, Trench 2 plan and west facing section. Scale 1:20

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

47

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 4.5: Englands, Charlton Horethorne. Phasing of geophysical anomalies based on evidence from excavation culture exists for the intervening period then the most likely conclusion must be that settlement has continued at Holway from the late Roman to medieval period. Moreover, it seems that there is not only continuity of settlement site at Holway, but also of tenurial unit associated with it from at least the late Romano-British period.

Although it is not possible to conclusively prove that the settlement at Holway bridges the gap between the late 4th century and the 13th century when it is first mentioned in documents, there are some further points that support the conclusion. Firstly, the site at Holway is situated within a 1-hide unit with rectilinear boundaries (figure 3.8). The morphology of Corton Denham parish, of which it was part, suggests that the Holway unit comprised a preexisting hide tacked on to Corton Denham in the late Saxon period. This narrows the settlement gap to a few centuries. Furthermore, the site taphonomy at Cheese Hill, situated on a spur, implies that upper stratigraphic layers have been lost there due to plough erosion. If this is considered with the fact that little durable material

Englands (figure 4.5) Cooper (2004) conducted a field examination of a site listed in the Somerset HER under PRN 53668. He discovered earthwork remains and surface pottery relating to a Romano-British settlement of at least 3 buildings. It was considered that the earthworks at Englands might provide an important example of 48

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET boundary and modern field boundaries in the immediate vicinity.

continuity of settlement site from the Romano-British into the middle Saxon period. The reasoning for this stems from the field name ‘Englands’, generally accepted to derive from the Middle English inlands (Field, 1972, 72-3) that is, fields farmed intensively and situated close to settlement. The field called Englands in Charlton Horethorne is located on the modern boundary between Charlton Horethorne, North Cheriton and Horsington parishes, on top of a watershed above the western slopes of the Blackmore vale. It is possibly as far from modern settlement as it could be in this area. The nearest dispersed settlement is 1km to the NE at Clare Farm and the village of Charlton Horethorne is 1.5km to the SW. The name Englands, therefore, is likely to refer to the Romano-British settlement described by Cooper. Furthermore, ‘inlands’ as a field name must be Saxon in origin at the very earliest. This implies that a settlement was still in existence on the site at the beginning of the late Saxon period.

However, the morphology of the settlement, at least in its major phases, appears Romano-British rather than postRoman or Saxon. It was considered that earthworks in a neighbouring field to the east, also called Englands, might provide a clue to the location of the Saxon settlement. To this end Dr. Wykes of the University of Bristol conducted an earthwork survey of the field assisted by the author (figure 4.6). However, although enclosures could be recognised on a similar alignment to those revealed through geophysical survey, permission was not granted to excavate in this field. It was felt, therefore, that in order to demonstrate whether the settlement continued into the Saxon period, sample excavation of the geophysical anomalies would be necessary.

Figure 4.6: Earthwork survey, Englands, Charlton Horethorne Gradiometer Survey (figure 4.5) It is clear from the survey that a considerable settlement existed on both sides of a holloway consisting of at least three buildings through at least three separate phases. The holloway itself is aligned on a section of the main road from Sherborne to Wincanton. This alignment in turn follows that of modern fields throughout Charlton Horethorne, Sherborne and the western slopes of the Blackmore vale, which can be shown to follow alignments originating in the Iron Age; the settlement is also laid out on these alignments. Further geophysical anomalies are aligned on the Charlton Horethorne parish

Figure 4.7: Englands, trench location 49

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY substantial road running NE-SW. This system of enclosures seems to fall into disrepair by the 3rd-4th centuries when it is replaced by another set of rectilinear enclosures on a similar alignment. This later settlement appears to have slighter earthworks although this may be a reflection of their being higher up the stratigraphic sequence and more vulnerable to erosion by the plough. This final point brings us back to the place-name ‘Englands’ and the predicted post-Roman and early Saxon settlement. The presence of a single type 25 dropped flange rim in F001 cannot be taken as evidence for continuity of the settlement into the 5th century; this sherd could date to anytime from the mid 3rd to the mid 5th century. However, it has been noted that the plough has truncated the latest Romano-British phases. It is clear, therefore, that any evidence for settlement after the 4th century has been ploughed away.

Excavation (figure 4.8) An interim excavation report has been published elsewhere (Davey, 2004b), here it is sufficient to give a brief summary of results pertaining to evidence for continuity of the settlement into the Saxon period. Two trenches were opened up in early September 2003 (figure 4.7). Trench 1 was located at the junction of two linear anomalies, the first (F001) being associated with one of the main settlement phases and the other (F003) with a group of alignments running diagonally N-S across the settlement. Trench 2 was located at the junction of the continuation of the first anomaly in trench 1 above (F002), and another linear anomaly associated with another major settlement phase (F004). Ideally the trenches would have been positioned where house platforms had already been identified. This would be the prime location for uncovering evidence of what happened to the settlement at the end of the Romano-British period. It is possible that evidence for ‘squatter’ settlement would also be found there. However, the resources were not available to process the level of finds expected from the excavation of a Romano-British house. For this reason it was decided to sample alignments associated with particular phases which, by association, would enable the dating of the rest of the settlement.

Ultimately the program of fieldwork at Englands in 2003 has not achieved its aim of recovering evidence for continuity of settlement site from the Romano-British period into the middle Saxon period. However, the case for continuity has not been disproved and remains the best explanation for the field-name. The fieldwork in Englands has been far from fruitless however. Fieldwalking combined with geophysical survey and sample excavation have revealed the plan of a substantial, planned, multiphase Romano-British settlement previously recorded in the HER as nothing more than a find spot.

However, almost the entire assemblage of RomanoBritish ceramics was badly abraded and very few datable or diagnostic sherds were recovered. It has not been possible, therefore to refine Cooper’s (2004) assertion that the settlement was occupied during the 3rd and 4th centuries (other than to say that an earlier 2nd century phase has also been recognised. It has also been possible to demonstrate the stratigraphical relationship between the various phases to enhance the settlement plan revealed through geophysical survey.

Castle Farm, South Cadbury was chosen for a small 3m x 3m excavation in September 2003 following the gradual accumulation of evidence for a substantial Roman settlement in the vicinity, including geophysical survey in fields to the south west and south of the modern village (figure 3.3), and excavation from the area south of the church and Castle Farm (Laidlaw, 1966, 1967; Leach & Tabor, 1996, 9-12). No structural settlement remains were uncovered except for two post-holes and a ditch associated with iron working slag and dating from the 2nd century AD (figure 5.12 ). The quantities of slag made it clear that a substantial amount of Iron working took place here, if only for a short period. This does provide limited support to the theory that the South Cadbury settlement functioned as a central place for a small district in the Romano-British period. The only evidence for post-Roman settlement was in the form of a ditch that was probably re-cut in the 5th century, perpendicular to the main N-S road through the settlement. The excavation has been published elsewhere (Davey, 2004a) and is discussed fully below. In the case of South Cadbury a settlement is known to exist on the hillfort in the 5th-6th centuries. The question remains, however, as to whether the settlement at Castle Farm also continued or the inhabitants moved permanently into the fortified hilltop. The small-scale excavation undertaken in 2003 has not been able to shed any light on this matter.

However, a single sherd of a type 25 bowl with dropped flange rim, dating from the 3rd to 5th centuries AD, was recovered from the cultivation soil. This layer sat directly on top a severely truncated ditch (F001). This opens the possibility that the ditch dates from the 3rd to 5th centuries. Furthermore, any evidence for later occupation had been removed through the action of the plough. Discussion Although no secure dating evidence for F003 in trench 1 was found, stratigraphically it is the earliest excavated at Englands. It may be of prehistoric origin and associated with a N-S aligned co-axial field system. North-South aligned systems are known at Sigwells, in the extreme west of Charlton Horethorne parish, where they have been dated from 200 BC to 70 AD (Tabor (ed), 2004). The sherds of Black Burnished ware found within it suggest that it was open in the 1st or 2nd centuries AD. At this time a small settlement was built, possibly replacing an earlier ‘native’ settlement, consisting of a series of planned, rectilinear enclosures aligned on a 50

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 4.8: Englands 2003 trench plans Larger Rural Settlements

Sigwells and Englands, Charlton Horethorne. The evidence seems to suggest that these are ‘native’ villages and hamlets established in the 1st century, shortly after the abandonment of hillforts. Alcock went as far as to suggest that the dispossessed occupants of South Cadbury might have moved to Catsgore (Alcock, 1972, 171). This seems unlikely, especially in the light of recent discoveries at Castle Farm.

The South Cadbury late Romano-British settlement pattern conforms to that of the surrounding area in terms of the distribution of larger agricultural settlements. Leech identified many of these including examples at Pinford Lane, Sherborne, Podimore, Charlton Mackrell and Catsgore (Leech, 1976, 143 & 154). SCEP fieldwork has identified three more at Castle Farm, South Cadbury, 51

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY It seems that the town walls were reused for a defendable estate centre at this time. Similarly at Holway, a polygonal ditch enclosing the low spur there, dating to the 4th or 5th centuries (phase 3 figure 4.2), bounded the later Roman settlement. At Sherborne, the site of the Romano-British settlement at Pinford Lane is not intrinsically defendable. The historical and cartographic evidence suggests that a post–Roman estate formed around this settlement. A chapel dedicated to St. Probus is recorded as being located close to the site of the old Castle, which is itself near to Pinford Lane (Keen, 1984, 217). This is now the preferred site for the location of the British monastic site of LlanProbi. So, the post-Roman settlement may have shifted slightly to the defendable site of old Sherborne Castle. These small shifts in preferred settlement site do not represent a major disruption to the settlement pattern but a pragmatic solution to the prevailing political climate within a stable pattern of land holding.

It is possible to plot a distribution of known RomanoBritish settlement sites within the study area (Figure 3.2). Unfortunately this is more a reflection of the distribution of fieldwork rather than settlement. 3 sites were observed during the construction of the Codford to Ilchester water pipeline (Rawlings, 1992), 2 more during SCEP fieldwork, 2 others during development at Hazelgrove House and Milborne Port, and various other chance discoveries. However, despite these drawbacks, the distribution pattern of larger farmsteads and hamlets does suggest a higher number of sites to the east of South Cadbury along the Jurassic limestone ridge than immediately to the west in the predominately clay vale of Ilchester. A single Romano-British settlement located by SCEP to the west of the hillfort at Nineacres appears to be industrial in character. Branigan noted that throughout the SW a disproportionately high percentage of villa sites are situated on limestone. 60% of villas occur on limestone, which covers only 40% of the land area (Branigan, 1977, 24). This study suggests that all types of RB settlement and not just villas favoured limestone soils. The lack of villas in the immediate vicinity of Cadbury Castle may still be significant, perhaps suggesting the existence of a Romano-British estate centred on South Cadbury.

Furthermore, the implication from modern sites that have evidence for Roman occupation such as South Cadbury, Sparkford, Camel Farm, Sigwells, Poyntington and Milborne Port, is that there is broad continuity of settlement site from the Roman period to the present day. Continuity of settlement site does not necessarily constitute continuity of settlement pattern however. The hierarchical pattern of urban centres, hamlets, villas and farmsteads was severely disrupted. The post Roman settlement pattern forms a much ‘flatter’ hierarchical structure of just estate centres and farmsteads. Both types of settlement tend to reuse old Roman sites. Of course preferred settlement sites have shifted throughout history and this process continued across the Roman-medieval transition. It may be that the settlement at North Cadbury was founded at this time. Its nucleus, around the church and Court, is located on a low spur sloping away steeply to the south and west and more gently to the north. However, a sudden abandonment of settlement at the end of the Romano-British period, as sometimes proposed on the basis of urban and villa decline and lack of material culture at low status settlements, is clearly not tenable. The place-name, field alignment and tenurial evidence from low status settlements in the study area is suggestive of continuity; unfortunately the hard archaeological evidence is still lacking. This is a result of decline in durable material culture rather than demography or settlement shift.

The settlement pattern in the South Cadbury area in the 3rd and 4th centuries, then, is one of dispersed farmsteads and larger rural settlements or hamlets. It may be that the settlement at South Cadbury had an administrative function for a Roman estate. The wealthier settlements, those with more durable material culture, tend to favour the limestone soils to the east of Cadbury. Furthermore, the archaeological visibility of these sites increases from the 3rd to 4th centuries. This suggests an economic upturn in the region in the 3rd century accompanied by intensification of land use. The collapse of the Roman imperial superstructure is recorded in the settlements of the Cadbury region in that their buildings and material culture become less substantial. However, there is evidence that many settlement sites continue at least into the 5th century and maintain economic links with the southern Durotrigian region as revealed by the continuing use of Black burnished ware. Furthermore, some settlements are associated with discreet tenurial units, probably established by the 3rd century, and still in use today. Post-Roman Settlement

Higham also warns against the simple interpretation of re-use of settlement site in the medieval period as evidence for continuity however. The re-use of settlement sites abandoned at some time in the past is to be expected because social, economic and environmental conditions that dictate preferred settlement site today could have parallels in the past (Higham, 1992, 119).

Unfortunately we have very little in the way of direct evidence, archaeological or otherwise for the post-Roman period, that is, the 5th to the 7th centuries. We know, of course that an elite settlement reoccupied the hillfort at South Cadbury and that this probably functioned as the central place for a large estate. In fact there is a general trend towards the occupation of defendable sites in this period. It has already been noted that the presence of imported Mediterranean pottery from the 5th-6th centuries has been reported at Ilchester (Leach, 1994, 11).

A number of models have been proposed for settlement change at the end of the 4th century. Faulkner, for example, has suggested that a revolutionary overthrow of 52

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET landowners and tax collectors in the late 4th and early 5th centuries led to the control of resources by the producers rather than elites, utilising only local exchange networks. This would imply the destruction and abandonment of elite sites in favour of low status units. In the South Cadbury environs sites of varied status continue in use and abandoned sites tend to be those dependant on a highly organised state driven economy such as villas and urban centres. Higham also proposed a model for settlement mobility in the 5th and 6th centuries:

nucleated settlement. The only other archaeological evidence is an 8th century coin, one of only three found in Somerset, recovered from a gully at Castle Farm, South Cadbury during excavations directed by Paul Johnson (University of Glasgow) in 1998 (Tabor, Pers. Comm.). This coin suggests either continuity of settlement site from the Roman period or re-occupation of an old site with a brief hiatus while the hillfort was refortified. South Cadbury probably still functioned as an estate centre at this time.

a) Villas remain occupied but in decline in the early 5th century whilst other dispersed farmsteads become abandoned due to population decline. b) In the 5th and 6th centuries, environmental downturn alters the pattern of preferred agricultural land. This, coupled with social and demographic change, results in a settlement shift to small hamlets and farmsteads on well-drained land. c) In the late Saxon period demographic growth and environmental improvement enable landlords to reorganise their estates into nucleated villages and strip fields (ibid. 120).

The majority of our evidence for the settlement pattern in this period must come from habitative place and field names. Figure 4.9 shows the distribution of cot, tun, worth, ham, bury and other habitative place name elements along with known early settlements. A number of points become apparent. i) Many modern villages seem to have formed through a process of amalgamation of dispersed farms and hamlets. These include North Cadbury, South Cadbury, Sutton Montis, Sandford Orcas, Woolston and Queen Camel (Figure 4.10). Less than one third of the 19th century parishes contained a single nucleated village. This is discussed further in the next section. ii) There are two broad areas that can be distinguished in figure 4.9. Firstly parishes where a single modern settlement is surrounded by a number of fields with habitative name elements but no surviving dispersed settlements. These include Charlton Horethorne, Milborne Port, Poyntington, Marston Magna, Yarlington and Sparkford. The remainder of the study area is typified by a continuing pattern of dispersed settlements with some larger nucleated villages. The first group have formed through the abandonment of dispersed settlement in favour of a single nucleated settlement, and tend to be concentrated on the limestone ridge to the east. iii) It is clear that dispersed settlement, prior to nucleation was spread evenly across the landscape, whereas, in the Romano-British period, there was a concentration of settlement sites on the limestone areas to the east. This implies that the social, demographic and economic factors that promoted a shift to well drained soils in the post-Roman period, were no longer prominent. In other words population may have been on the increase, climate may have ameliorated and a more intensive agricultural regime may have been established. However, a note of caution: this explanation has a couple of implicit assumptions: hamlets existing by Domesday had their origins as farmsteads at least in the Saxon period. Furthermore, habitative name-elements are reliable indicators of early, dispersed settlement. This last assumption will be explored further below. iv) There are an extraordinarily high number of settlement sites with the place-name element ‘tun’, meaning enclosure. This often indicates dispersed secondary settlement associated with a multiple

Higham suggested that hillforts were occasionally occupied whilst villas were still in decline (stage a, above). The evidence from South Cadbury suggests that the hillfort was occupied from the later 5th century (stage b, above). As a general model Higham’s is useful, however it has been noted that there are no known villas in the Cadbury area, although a single hypocaust tile was recovered from excavations at Castle Farm, South Cadbury in 1996 (Tabor, pers. Comm.). This means that stages a and b above can be simplified to a gradual decline of Roman dispersed farmsteads and shift to well drained soils throughout the 5th and 6th centuries. Secondly, the majority of known Roman sites in the Cadbury area were already on well-drained limestone soils. This simplifies the matter even further so that we generally see a gradual decline in the number of occupied settlement sites in the post-Roman period, coupled with re-occupation of the hillfort and the establishment of some new hilltop sites such as North Cadbury. Neither Higham’s nor Faulkner’s models take due account of variations in consumption and production of durable material culture however. As a result the decline of rural settlement is exaggerated. The Middle Saxon Period (7th-9th centuries) According to general models outlined at the start of this chapter we should expect this period to be vital for the transformation from a dispersed to a nucleated settlement pattern. Unfortunately there is very little archaeological evidence that can be securely dated to this period. The 7th century cemetery at Hicknoll Slait, Compton Pauncefoot (Davey, 2002a) provides a glimpse into the dispersed pattern of the time in that it is isolated from settlement as opposed to a later church graveyard associated with 53

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 4.9: Early dispersed settlement and habitative place-names

54

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 4.10: Nucleated villages formed through the amalgamation of two or more dispersed settlements

55

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY Bampfylde follows these alignments in a rectilinear layout.

estate. 52% of 19th century parish names, and approximately 44% of all habitative field and place names, in the study area contain the element ‘tun’. v) Two of these are also associated with the field name worthy (Galhampton and Weston Bampfylde). Worthies are mentioned in the laws of Ine (late 7th century) and seem to be substantial enclosed arable farms (Costen, 1992b, 74).

Upper Parish & Orchard, North Cadbury (Davey, 2004d). These fields were targeted for their proximity to the church and manor at North Cadbury. It was hoped that evidence for the origin of the village would be found. It is clear that North Cadbury was the central place for the medieval estate by Domesday. It is not known at which point it took over that role from South Cadbury however. The 8th century coin from Castle Farm, South Cadbury might suggest that the shift of central place did not occur till after that time and possibly as late as the early 11th century when royal mints are briefly moved to Cadbury Castle from Ilchester, Milborne Port and Bruton.

The reliability of many of these observations is dependent on the usefulness or otherwise of 19th century placenames. In order to verify the observed patterns it is necessary to sample some of the proposed deserted settlements identified through field names. Fieldwork

Survey in upper parish did reveal elements of a rectilinear grid on the same alignment as the modern village. This is likely to have been deserted and the village shifted north as part of emparking associated with North Cadbury House. The presence of wire guards around apple trees in orchard meant that magnetometry was ineffective in Orchard.

Following the identification of potential settlement sites through the study of field-names as many as possible were sampled using geophysical survey over the 2002 season. The resulting surveys are shown in appendix 1 the following is just a brief description: Gilton & Stonchester, North Cadbury (figure 5.7) has already been discussed above and revealed evidence for Romano-British settlement. Unfortunately no evidence for Saxon settlement that could have given rise to the Gilton field name was visible on the geophysical survey. Shovel pitting in Stonchester produced only RomanoBritish and post-medieval ceramics. Because the period we are trying to elucidate is aceramic this alone does not discount the possibility for continuity of settlement site from the Romano-British to medieval periods.

Henehill & Stonehill, Sutton Montis (figure 6.2). A programme of geophysical survey coupled with shovel and test pitting carried out by SCEP has revealed a rectangular feature adjacent to a track. It is associated with a few sherds of late Saxon and Saxo-Norman pottery, which have elsewhere only been found close to late Saxon manorial centres. It is possible that this represents an early medieval dispersed farmstead abandoned as a result of the ‘manorialisation’ of Sutton Montis in the later Saxon period. Excavation would be necessary to confirm whether this was indeed a dispersed settlement site. This has not been possible to date.

Brockington & Dustone, Yarlington (Davey, 2004d) were surveyed because of their tun name elements and because they appeared to fit the pattern of dispersed upland settlement abandoned in favour of a lowland nucleated settlement at Yarlington village. Unfortunately the survey results were disappointing; with no cut archaeological features visible. For this reason it was decided that further work would not be particularly helpful although heavy metal analysis at Brocklington may have proved fruitful. It is possible that the Dustone name may actually refer to oolitic limestone quarries in the neighbouring field.

Geophysical survey has not been very successful in identifying early medieval settlement sites, although possible post-Roman features at Henehill and Milsom’s Corner (figure 3.4) warrant further investigation. The settlements of the period must have existed, we have seen that there is a reasonable case for continuity of many Romano-British settlement sites into the 5th century at least, and sometimes into the modern era. The identification of possible settlement sites at which there is no remaining evidence, Roman or otherwise, suggests two things. Firstly that these settlements are relatively short lived; they must be formed later than the 5th century and abandoned before the 10th. This is the period for which little durable material culture was produced in Somerset. Secondly, evidence for their structure has been destroyed or did not comprise any cut features.

Bruscotts, Sandford Orcas (Davey, 2004d) also revealed no settlement anomalies from geophysical survey. The name may actually be a shot element (meaning slope) rather than a cot name. Worthy, Weston Bampfylde (Davey, 2004d). A programme of targeted test pits carried out by SCEP followed geophysical survey in this field (Tabor (ed), 2004, 74-5). This revealed alignments originating in the late prehistoric period as a double ditched track were followed by medieval ridge and furrow. This is interesting in itself and the village plan of Weston

This fits with a pattern of settlement described by Hamerow at Mucking (Hamerow, 1991) and observed on the continent, where the archaeological methodology of excavation in large open areas is more conducive to the unearthing and understanding of ephemeral settlement

56

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 4.11: Settlement mobility, South Cadbury settlement slowly shifts its focus. Hamerow suggested that this phenomenon of settlement mobility occurred within stable political and tenurial units. This process would allow for continuity of field alignment and 1-hide units whilst explaining the apparent absence of early medieval settlement sites. It is possible then to have a stable rural economy during a period, which has normally been described as one of economic and demographic collapse.

remains. This is a pattern of wandering settlement in which the populace are free to build wooden structures anywhere within a settlement (with the consent of the other villagers). Once these buildings have reached the end of their useful life a completely new one is constructed rather than repair the old one. After a few years, the area of the old building, rich in nutrients from human and animal excreta, fires and domestic waste, is put under the plough, which removes the majority of any ephemeral structural remains. By this process the 57

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY Cadbury village. It can be assumed that the core of the settlement is in the area of the church and manor, which today is at the extreme south of the village. Running north from this point is a double rectangle formed by roads and footpaths (figure 4.10). This is similar to part of Cheddar village, rectilinear in plan and thought to be late Saxon in origin (Blair, 1996,110-12). This also extends northwards from the core of Cheddar near the Saxon palace. Blair also notes, as does Aston for Shapwick (Aston, Martin & Jackson, 1998, 55) that these rectilinear village plans fit into a pre-existing landscape of prehistoric or Roman fields and lanes. Chapter 5 clearly demonstrates that the alignments of many village plans in the study area (North Cadbury, Weston Bampfylde, Queen Camel, and further afield at Charlton Mackrell, Lovington, Babcary and Butleigh) fit into a pattern of field alignments originating in the Iron Age and developed in the late Romano-British period.

This phenomenon of settlement mobility also fits well with Faith’s concept of extensive lordship for the early medieval period. Landlords receive tribute or taxes from farmers who are otherwise free to run their farms and settlements as they will. Excavation at Raunds Furnells has shown that the middle Saxon settlement had no firm property boundaries and the development of crofts and plots only became evident in the later Saxon period (Dix, 1987, 20). It seems that modern ideas of property and land ownership would have been fundamentally alien to the early medieval peasant and that what we frequently take to represent estate ownership was actually only the right to exact tribute from the inhabitants. Firmer evidence for this kind of settlement mobility has survived in South Cadbury itself. Geophysical survey coupled with shovel and test pitting carried out by SCEP, as well as numerous excavations over a 38-year period, has revealed some of the settlement history here. Figure 4.11 shows that settlement in the vicinity of South Cadbury village has shifted approximately 1km northwards from middle Iron Age origins near Eastcombe Farm. This is via the Romano-British hamlet at Blacklands and Castle Farm, to the 8th century evidence for Castle Farm, slightly north of this is the medieval focus of church and manor, with the crossroads at the focus of the modern village slightly further north.

The modern village of North Cadbury is a composite of three parts; the old core to the south; the planned late Saxon rectangular element; and the old dispersed settlement of Brookhampton, which became joined to North Cadbury through expansion. This is a common feature of nucleated villages in the Cadbury area (figure 4.10). Sutton Montis originally consisted of the two dispersed settlements of Sutton and Crowthorne, probably in the region of Sutton Farm. Crowthorne was in existence by 1315, the Nomina Villarum lists two separate landowners at Sutton, one of which was a Matheus de Creutham (Dickinson, 1889, 56). Thus Crowthorne is revealed as originally having a habitative name. These two settlements, Sutton and Crowthorne, are located at either end of an oval enclosure (see above), the modern village is stretched out along the road that joins them. The fact that Crowthorne is a separate settlement as late as the 17th century, when a glebe terrier mentions the duties of the parishioners of Crothorne in Sutton Parish (Davey, 2004d, appendix 3.6), indicates that Sutton may not have amalgamated into a single nucleated village until the 18th/19th century.

The evidence for settlement mobility at South Cadbury has been preserved in brief snapshots of time for periods in which settlement structures were more substantial. Throughout much of prehistory and historic time periods dispersed settlement has left little or no structural trace. The Later Saxon Period (9th-11th centuries) There is good evidence from Saxon charters that the Cadbury estate was being subdivided into smaller manors in the 9th and 10th centuries. Although the majority of the new manors created were derived from the warland outside the core estate. From the Cadbury warland, Yarlington was passed to a secular landlord and Blackford to Glastonbury Abbey. Rimpton, probably part of the warland connected to the royal estate at Milborne Port, was also passed to a secular landlord originally. By 1066 the entire Cadbury estate had been divided up between private individuals into the manors recorded in the Domesday Book. It has been mentioned above that this process encouraged intensification of agriculture and nucleation of settlement.

Sandford Orcas is similarly stretched out along a road. Originally this settlement consisted of 3 dispersed settlements; the manorial core to the north; Sandford Farm south of this, adjacent to an oval enclosure; and higher Sandford even further South. These three foci have now been joined by expansion along the connecting road. Sparkford is similar in plan but the disparate elements are more difficult to date. It may be that some post-enclosure farms are involved here.

Furthermore, plotting the lands held by Thurstan son of Rolf in 1086 reveals the Domesday estate boundary. Domesday also informs us that it was North Cadbury that functioned, as estate centre, by this time. A shift of estate centre to North Cadbury would have been expedient for the control and administration of the new estate.

Queen Camel is also a composite village. Here two early, dispersed, settlements, at Camel Farm and in the vicinity of the church, are joined by a later medieval, putative, planned element, which will be discussed in the following section.

This is of course conjecture, although support for it might be forthcoming from the settlement plan of North 58

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET nucleated settlements but no evidence for earlier dispersed sites.

The vast majority of parishes in the study area, whether they have nucleated settlements or not, contain numerous dispersed farmsteads and hamlets. In addition to those listed above:

It is important to distinguish between nucleated settlements that arise through agglomeration of former dispersed settlements and those that arise at the expense of dispersed settlement. The former grow through expansion due to demographic increase, but may still keep their individual infields in tact, South Cadbury, for example, has Littleton and Chapel fields still existing as late as the 19th century (Hardwick, 1978, 29-35). This process does not require a reorganisation of land use at its inception although that may follow later. The latter does require reorganisation because dispersed settlements with their infields are abandoned for a single nucleated site with fields farmed in common. There are a few Domesday manors in the study area that display some evidence for nucleation at the expense of dispersed settlement. These are listed below.

Thus, of the 19 parishes in the study area, only 6 have evidence for nucleation to the detriment of dispersed settlement. These fall into 2 groups. Firstly, Milborne Wick, Charlton Horethorne, Poyntington and Yarlington are situated on or near the limestone ridge to the east of the study area. The second group, Rimpton and Marston Magna are located on poorly drained clay soils. So the more nucleated manors occur in marginal locations, i.e. high moor or low marsh. This may be because a reorganisation of settlement and fields was required for the landowner of these newly created manors to generate the required income. The manors located on the richer, more fertile, better drained and sheltered sites were able to turn a profit with no reorganisation of settlement. Williamson has suggested that environmental restrictions such as the time available for sowing and ploughing encouraged the development of open field farming (Williamson, 2003, 182). In other words, in wet places such as Marston and Rimpton it was necessary to plough communally because the land would only have been dry enough to enable ploughing for a short period prior to the growing season. Once it became expedient to plough together nucleation of settlement would be a logical next step. Similarly, it may be that the environmental and climatic regime on the high limestone ridge also restricted the time available for ploughing etc.

Marston Magna contains two fields with ‘tun’ names, Netherton and Brinston. It is possible that these were dispersed settlements that became deserted on nucleation of the village of Marston Magna, which Aston has suggested was planned (Aston, 1985b, 74-7).

Again the evidence for this period is largely derived from documentary sources. However, in the 10th century the production of durable material culture does return to Somerset and it is possible to seek corroboration from the archaeological evidence.

There are Four fields in Poyntington with names that may indicate deserted settlement sites: Boyston, Smokeham, Hares Castle/Ham and Long Chisel. Some of these may indicate Roman sites but ham and tun at least suggest some desertion of dispersed medieval settlements in favour of Poyntington village.

Fieldwork

Weston Bampfylde also contains Little Weston. Maperton contains Higher and Lower Clapton as well as Elliscombe Farm. South Cadbury contains Littleton and Chapel Cross. Corton Denham contains Whitcombe, Stafford’s Green and Holway. Finally, North Barrow contains Higher Farm, which has shrunken village earthworks.

As part of this research I undertook the task of establishing the medieval ceramic fabric type series for SCEP (Davey, 2004c). It was necessary to establish a fabric series as opposed to one based on form or decoration because of the small size and abraded nature of the ceramics recovered from plough zone sampling. Figures 4.12, 4.13 & 4.14 show the distributions of early medieval ceramics plotted against geophysical survey for the entire area covered by SCEP methodology up to 2003. The first point arising from these plots is that pottery in the 10th and 11th centuries is rare, certainly in comparison to the proliferation of sherds recovered from the 12th century onwards. Figure 4.14 shows that, by the 12th century, pottery was a substantial component of domestic waste and finding its way onto the arable fields as manure. Prior to the 12th century the distributions are concentrated close to medieval manorial centres. Figure 4.12 then, suggests that manorial centres had been established at Sparkford and Weston Bampfylde by the 10th century. The only places where Saxon and SaxoNorman pottery has been recovered from fields that are not adjacent to manorial centres is at Henehill and

Milborne Wick has fields to its north and south called Middleton and Wickstone that may indicate consolidation of dispersed sites into the nucleated village. Charlton Horethorne has fields to its south called South Town and Amesbury, to its north called Stone Burrough and Englands to the east. Finally, Yarlington parish still contains the dispersed farm of Woolston Manor. This was a separate manor at Domesday. Near Yarlington village are fields called Brockington and Dustone, which may indicate the desertion of dispersed settlements in favour of the nucleated site. Only Compton Pauncefoot, Blackford and South Barrow have not been discussed above, they all contain single 59

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 4.12: Saxon (AD 950-1050). Distribution of pottery in test and shovel pits

Figure 4.13: Saxo-Norman (circa AD 1000-1200). Distribution of pottery in test shovel pits 60

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 4.14: Medieval (circa 1150-1300). Distribution of pottery from fieldwalking (East Field), test and shovel pits

Stonehill, Sutton Montis. It has already been mentioned above that these fields contain geophysical anomalies resembling a large rectangular structure, which may represent an early medieval dispersed settlement. The fact that all other find spots of Saxon pottery are close to settlement supports the theory. As already mentioned it has not been possible to test this through excavation to date.

Discussion This section will review how well the evidence from SE Somerset fits with the general models for settlement patterns outlined at the beginning of the chapter. 1) The general models suggest that in the late RomanoBritish period villas, farmsteads and larger agricultural settlements should typify the Cadbury area, proximate to Ilchester. Actually, no villas have been positively identified in the immediate South Cadbury environs. However, it is still possible that one exists at Blacklands, South Cadbury, although excavation would be necessary to demonstrate this. The settlement at South Cadbury is certainly the largest in the area and may represent a late Roman nucleated settlement similar to Catsgore. It has already been suggested in chapter 3 that a tendency to nucleation and ‘manorialisation’ from the 3rd century AD may reflect increasing levels of state control following the anarchy of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Such expansion of state bureaucracy would lead to higher taxation and impetus for improved agrarian production. As is recognised for the late Saxon period, ‘manorialisation’ and nucleation represent a method by which greater efficiency and control of labour can be achieved. The lack of villas in the Cadbury region might be explained partly by the

It is clear then that the later Saxon period is crucial to understanding not only the medieval settlement pattern but also patterns of land holding and tenure. Earlier systems of extensive lordship were found wanting in a society gradually increasing in social, political and economic complexity. Concepts relating to individually held land gradually replaced an earlier tribal and family oriented agricultural and settlement practices. Settlements then, became more firmly fixed within ditched boundaries and manorial lords exercised tighter, feudal controls over the populace. In SE Somerset however, this did not always result in nucleated settlement, the pattern of dispersed farmsteads continued but perhaps more firmly fixed so that those identified in Domesday still occupy the same site today.

61

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY destroyed. Periods in which rural settlement is stable and durable material culture is produced are rare. Furthermore, it is the juxtaposition of one of these materially wealthy periods, the 3rd-4th centuries in Somerset, with a period in which settlement patterns revert to the rural norm (the 5th-9th centuries) that creates the enduring impression of a ‘Dark Age’. 4) Models suggest that settlement patterns in SE Somerset should tend towards nucleation in the late Saxon period, accompanying the subdivision of large estates into manors. This only took place on a limited scale; there is little evidence for the wholesale replanning of villages and fields. Some nucleated villages formed only gradually through the amalgamation of dispersed farmsteads during periods of increasing population. Many of the manors were still occupied by dispersed settlement at Domesday. This may be because this part of Somerset was rich, fertile, and already organised into a pattern of fields and land holding established by the 3rd century. This meant that small estates could survive without reorganisation. A number of manors however, notably those in areas where arable farming was more difficult did find it necessary to pool resources in open fields and nucleated settlements. 5) In general the Cadbury evidence furnishes us with a picture of great rural stability in terms of farm, field and land tenure from the 3rd to 11th century. This fits with Aston’s overall scheme for the prevailing Somerset settlement pattern consisting of dispersed hamlets and farmsteads, nucleation only occurred at restricted times and places.

existence of a late Roman estate in the area then, and partly by the fact that the soils of the region closest to Ilchester (where villas would be expected) are derived from moisture retentive clays. We now know that the limestone region east of Cadbury, more distant from Ilchester and less likely to contain villas, is typified by larger rural settlements or hamlets and dispersed farmsteads. This pattern of greater settlement density in limestone areas fits well with patterns elsewhere in the county for the Romano-British period (Branigan, 1977, 24). 2) Higham’s model suggests that villas might remain in use until the mid 5th century with occasional occupation of hillforts and declining dispersed settlement. The evidence from the Cadbury region however implies that Romano-British settlement sites remain occupied into the 5th century and frequently beyond. The apparent shift in the late 4th/early 5th century is more a reflection of a lack of durable material culture rather than demographic or agrarian collapse. Higham’s suggestion that a shift of preferred settlement site to areas with well drained soils in the 5th and 6th centuries might be supported by environmental evidence indicating a retreat from marginal land. This is reflected in the Cadbury region by a regeneration of woodland in areas peripheral to the estate centre. Cadbury has no villas and many Romano-British sites were already located on welldrained limestone geology. Changes in the Cadbury settlement pattern in the 5th century are therefore minimised although on a wider scale it is clear that urban and elite centres declined at this time. The change then is one of settlement hierarchy from a stratified settlement pattern of towns, villas, hamlets and farmsteads to a ‘flatter’ hierarchical pattern of estate centres occupying old Roman defendable sites surrounded by dispersed farmsteads continuing on Romano-British sites and within continuing land units. 3) The Cadbury evidence fits the Middle Saxon model in so much as dispersed hamlets and farmsteads dominate the landscape. However, the search to recover structural evidence for such settlement has been thwarted by the paucity of remains. The extensive nature of SCEP sampling and survey means that such negative evidence is very suggestive, the evidence for continuity of land division (chapter 5) demands that there must have been settlement in the region throughout this period. So, rather than using this as evidence of demographic decline, the implication is that settlements were highly mobile, with transient remains, from the 5th to 9th centuries AD and possibly throughout much of prehistory. In a tribal society in which modern concepts of land ownership do not apply, it is more expedient to pull down a wooden building at the end of its useful life, and build a new one on a new site, than repair it. As the settlement slowly migrates soils enriched by domestic use become available for cultivation. It is at this point that the ephemeral structural remains are 62

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Chapter 5: Field Systems and the Agrarian Economy 2000), the Chalk Downs of Wiltshire (Fowler, 2000) and countless others. In general Romano-British field systems are considered to be the direct descendants of late Iron Age systems. Fulford maintains that it is very difficult to distinguish between Iron Age and Romano-British landscapes. With specific reference to the Fens he notes, “What appears to be evidence of radical change under Roman auspices may rather represent expansion of what went before, with localised examples of re-ordered landscapes” (Fulford, 1990, 28-30). Fowler takes the opposite view, claiming that the Roman conquest of Britain led to economic growth and comprehensive changes in the landscape, driven by the need to feed the Roman army (Fowler, 2002, 282-3). This seems ill thought out; Fowler, of all people, should know that Britain was a highly populated and extensively farmed region in the late Iron Age. The increase in numbers due to the presence of the Roman army would have been insignificant, especially if the number of Britons killed by the invaders is accounted for. It would be more profitable for the Romans, as it is for all conquerors, to utilise and slowly improve upon the existing landscape. Taylor maintains that by 1000 BC there was a fully developed agricultural system in lowland Britain comprising rectilinear co-axial fields planned on a wide scale (Taylor, 2000, 38). The most recent research suggests that in fact, only the bare bones of co-axial systems, the parallel, linear, ranch or territorial boundaries and droves, were laid out initially. The enclosed fields only gradually filling in the gaps (Wykes, 2003, 46-7). Nevertheless, excavation of fields in Dartmoor and northern England have demonstrated that prehistoric fields were ploughed in Roman times with little change apart from the breaking up of field divisions to create larger blocks. This gives rise to the typical Roman ‘long field’ generally 2-5 times longer than they are wide, up to 1 hectare in size, and usually arranged in blocks of parallel fields (Taylor, 2000, 51-2). They are found in regions as diverse as the chalk and limestone uplands of southern England and the coastal wetlands of the Severn Estuary. Taylor sees the development of the long field as a result of the introduction of the heavy plough, replacing the beam ard. The heavy plough, with coulter to cut the sod and mould board to turn it over, rendered cross ploughing redundant and the use of long fields expedient (ibid, 59).

Introduction Field systems are a severely neglected class of archaeological remains, the result of their relatively dispersed and ephemeral physical nature and a site centric approach to fieldwork. Fowler noted that the study of estates and boundaries is the physical expression of tenurial frameworks (Fowler, 1981, 271). Similarly, field systems are the physical expression of rural economies. To ignore field systems is to ignore the mechanics of past society. Although historians have been interested in the origins of common fields since the 19th century, the study of ancient fields as a class of archaeological monument may have first gained legitimacy with the identification of ‘Celtic fields’ by OGS Crawford in the 1920’s through the medium of aerial photography (Crawford and Kieller, 1928). However, it was not until the post war period with the work of Beresford and the publication of WG Hoskins’ ‘The Making of the English Landscape’ (1955) that archaeologists, as well as the general public, took a greater interest in the palimpsest that is the agrarian landscape. The 1960’s and 70’s saw a comparative rash of publications concerning field systems (Bowen, 1961; Baker & Butlin, 1973; Taylor, 1975; Bowen & Fowler, 1978; for example). Much of this early work was carried out under the auspices of the Royal Commission. Interest in field systems peaked with the description of co-axial systems such as the Dartmoor Reaves (Fleming, 1984) and the Scole-Dickleburgh field system (Williamson, 1987). These comprise large tracts of land divided by long, parallel linear boundaries, not respecting topography, filled in with geometric fields on axial lines (Wykes, 2003, 47). Recently, with the rise of landscape oriented archaeological research, field systems have become an integrated part of a holistic approach to archaeology. While such an approach is highly desirable, the advancement of research into field systems per se has faltered. So much so that 25 years on, in the preface to a revised edition of his seminal work ‘Fields in the English Landscape’, Christopher Taylor was able to write ‘…no work has superseded the original intention of this book…’ (ibid, 2000). Archaeological treatises on Roman field systems are few and far between. The traditional bias towards sites as opposed to landscapes has been stronger, and lingered longer in classical archaeology. The current interest in rural landscapes is reflected in Romano-British studies (Dark & Dark, 1997), although publications have tended to focus on rural settlements rather than field systems (Miles, 1982; Hingley, 1989; for example). Nevertheless, an increasing number of Romano-British field systems have been identified, notably Roman ‘long fields’ on reclaimed wetlands (Allen & Fulford, 1986; Rippon,

Fowler again emphasises discontinuity in the landscape at the end of the Romano-British period. He sees a province, already in decline by the 3rd and 4th centuries, experiencing ‘…local economic shock when the garrison withdrew.’ (Fowler, 2002, 285-7). In an estimated population upwards of 4 million, it seems simplistic to explain long term economic or landscape changes by the withdrawal of several thousand men. Furthermore, this chapter addresses the theory of economic decline in the Durotrigian Civitas during the late Romano-British 63

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 5.1: A) Medieval arable in Ashington from 1940s Aps (after Aston, 1985, 108). B) Romano-British Settlement and fields from recent Aps (after Rawlings, 1992, 38) see what in fact early Saxon fields looked like, we can, perhaps, merely look back to the Roman fields and suggest that they were much the same.” (ibid, 65).

period and finds it wanting. Conversely, Taylor seeks to stress the case for continuity in the landscape at the end of the Romano-British period. He notes, “The fields and field systems of Anglo-Saxon England are the most difficult of all not only to explain, but even to find…” (Taylor, 2000, 63). The problem lies in the fact that Roman fields can be distinguished from Iron Age fields by the presence of Roman pottery for manuring, even though the two systems are on the same alignment. However, the period from the 5th to 10th centuries is largely aceramic in southwest Britain. This means that Saxon field ditches contain only residual Roman pottery rendering them indistinguishable from their earlier counterparts. In fact it is this negative evidence that argues strongly for continuity from the Roman to Saxon periods. If there were discontinuity in agricultural systems, Saxon fields would be distinguishable from their Roman counterparts by the fact that they contained residual Roman pottery but were morphologically different to the Roman fields. It will be shown in this chapter that there is a small group of morphologically distinct Saxon fields, on the whole however Saxon fields developed in the context of tenurial control over an

Initial interest in the Roman to Medieval transition, with specific reference to field systems, arose from the debate concerning the development of the Medieval open, or common field system. The notion that the Saxons brought open field agriculture and nucleated settlement with them from the continent and planted it, fully developed within a sparsely populated forested country (Orwin & Orwin, 1938) has long since been dismissed. Thirsk’s evolutionary model, in which population growth and more intense cultivation led to full development of the classic Midland system first recorded in the 12th and 13th centuries, has probably been superseded following the work of landscape historians such as Costen who have established that, in Somerset at least, newly planned open fields are frequently associated with the fragmentation of large estates in the 10th century, itself connected to sweeping social changes and the rise of Alfredian Wessex (Costen, 1992a, 126-9). However, even Costen saw the post-Roman period as one of “catastrophe and collapse” (ibid, 50) suggesting that medieval field systems had developed hundreds of years later on a ‘blank canvas’ of underused pasture and regenerated forest. All of these

“…older agricultural way of life, which submitted to change only at a very slow rate…Therefore if we wish to 64

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET arable fields, 2 of them (Littleton field and Chappel field) with names pertaining to dispersed settlement (Hardwick J, 1978, 30-33).

historical models failed to take due account the preexisting pattern of settlement and fields inherited from the Romano-British period (Taylor, 1974,19-20). Furthermore, the classic Midland system never really took hold in Somerset where parishes containing just one nucleated village are rare (Aston, 1988). In this chapter it will be shown that, even in parishes containing a single nucleated village, arable cultivation took place within enclosed fields, often Romano-British or earlier in origin, rather than in large open fields.

The most recent work into field systems in SE Somerset has been carried out by SCEP under the direction of Dr. Richard Tabor. The most significant site for the dating of field systems is that at Sigwells, Charlton Horethorne (figure 5.2), where a palimpsest of superimposed but broadly similar geophysical anomalies have been dated, through excavation, from the Bronze Age to the RomanoBritish period (Tabor & Johnson, 2000; Tabor (ed), 2002, 57-80).

There have been a number of studies into Roman and later field systems in Somerset and Dorset, and more specifically, southeast Somerset. Taylor was probably the first to notice the remarkable degree of continuity of parish and property boundaries in Dorset from the Roman period to the present day. This represented important evidence for continuity of land tenure and population (Taylor, 1995, 12). The use of aerial photography has led to the discovery of a network of relict field systems covering parts of the Somerset Levels (McDonnell, 1979 & 1985) some of Roman date and others early medieval (Rippon, 1997b, 210-12). At Ashington near Ilchester, Aston plotted the extent of medieval ridge and furrow from 1940’s aerial photographs (Aston, 1985b, 108). Several years later Rawlings looked at recently taken air photographs of the same area and plotted Romano-British settlement and associated fields (figure 5.1), preserved under the ridge and furrow and exposed since the 1940’s through modern ploughing (Rawlings, 1992, 37-8). Leech also plotted late Iron Age and Romano-British settlement and associated fields at Podimore near Ilchester (Leech, 1977, 82-6). Significantly, Aston’s work in SE Somerset led him to identify a series of parallel N-S alignments followed by the medieval road network and manorial boundaries (figure 6.1). Aston suggested that these were the legacy of a Romano-British or earlier field system. Furthermore, he identified two linear landscape features on an altogether different NW-SE alignment, left unexplained (Aston, 1985b, 146-8). This chapter will demonstrate that Aston was correct in his interpretation of the N-S alignments and offer an explanation of the NW-SE alignments. Other studies into medieval field systems have been undertaken in SE Somerset, largely based on documentary and cartographic evidence. Whitfeld examined Glebe Terriers, enclosure awards and other documents to elucidate the nature of medieval common field farming in SE Somerset. She concluded, from field names, that open field agriculture began in the late Saxon period as a two-field system, later modified. Unfortunately she did not consider pre-existing field systems, preferring to assume that the majority of enclosures were medieval or later in origin (Whitfeld, 1981, 18-28). Hardwick carried out a study of strip lynchets throughout Somerset using aerial photographs and enclosure maps. In the parish of South Cadbury he demonstrated, from a pre-enclosure map of 1830, that the strip lynchets formed an integral part of the village’s arable fields, bringing 27% of marginal land into cultivation. Hardwick noted that South Cadbury had 5

The most effective of the studies outlined above are those that combined a number of disciplines such as aerial photography, geophysical survey, excavation, map regression and documentary analysis. Fowler emphasised the importance of Aerial photography (Fowler, 1981, 267-8). However, Taylor makes a cautionary point that most fields that have been definitely dated to the Romano-British period have survived because they are situated in areas that have been marginal since that time. For this reason they may not be representative of Romano-British field systems in lowland areas (Taylor, 2000, 48). Fowler laments that fields surviving in the modern landscape would be our main source of evidence for 1st millennium field systems “…if we could but see it…it is distinctly possible that extensive areas of first millennium field system survive in the existing landscape, but as yet unrecognised and therefore incapable of being studied.” (Fowler, 2002, 136). Attempts have been made at identifying landscape zones from modern field patterns, notably in the North Somerset Levels (Rippon, 1997, 148-9). However, in this case post-Roman inundation created a discontinuity between Roman and medieval systems. This chapter will demonstrate that in southeast Somerset and north Dorset, evidence for Roman and earlier field systems can be discerned from modern field boundaries. In order to achieve this cartographic evidence has been combined with geophysical survey, excavation, documentary evidence and place-name evidence. The method of dating hedges by the numbers of different hardwood species within their enclosing hedges was considered to be an unreliable technique and not used in this survey. The above disciplines are brought together to examine all aspects of the landscape on a wide scale. It is only when this has been achieved that fossilised ancient field systems, can be extricated from the palimpsest that is the modern landscape. Evidence for Romano-British and early medieval field systems from cartographic and documentary sources are presented first. This is then backed up and, elements of field systems thus identified, dated through the evidence of excavation. Implications highlighted from this work 65

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 5.2: Geophysical survey, Sigwells, Charlton Horethorne (After Tabor (ed), 2002, 61)

System A (figure 5.3, 6.1)

are discussed, along with a comparison of field systems from neighbouring regions.

It has already been mentioned that Aston identified a series of N-S and E-W alignments influencing the road pattern to the west of South Cadbury. A cursory glance over modern maps suggests that these alignments may extend as far as Baltonsborough, Butleigh and Pilton near Glastonbury in the north and Yeovil to the South, an area covering the medieval hundreds of Catsash and Stone as well as parts of Somerton. In the core study area the alignments are particularly evident around the villages of Queen Camel, Marston Magna, North and South Barrow, Weston Bampfield and North Cadbury. Road alignments are influenced by field alignments preserved in broad swathes to the north of North Cadbury around Galhampton, to the west around North Barrow and to the South around Corton Denham. Political boundaries following these alignments include the proposed eastern boundary of the Cadbury Estate (figure 3.6) as well as parish boundaries of Sandford Orcas, Rimpton, Marston Magna and Corton Denham. Fields on these alignments tend to be rectangular and 2 to 5 times longer than they are wide. They have all the hallmarks of an extensive

Documentary and Cartographic Evidence The first task in identifying early field systems fossilised in the modern landscape is to employ map regression in order to identify the earliest recorded field boundaries. This enables filtering of the modern ‘chaff’ from potentially medieval or earlier field boundaries. Tithe maps, generally dating from the late 1830’s and early 1840’s following the Tithe Commutation Act of 1835, provide the earliest accurate cartographic representations of field boundaries. This is particularly true in this part of Somerset where enclosure by Act of Parliament was rare. The size of the study area dictated that it was impractical to trace tithe maps directly. Instead OS 1st edition 6” maps were traced for the entire study area to provide a base map onto which tithe boundaries could be sketched and from which later 19th century boundaries could be erased. The results are shown in figure 2.5. Close inspection of these field boundaries has revealed four distinct phases of field system, depicted in figure 5.3. 66

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 5.3: Rectilinear filed systems system of Romano-British long fields. However, Williamson has noted that co-axial field systems tend to originate in the late prehistoric period as droves perpendicular to major river valleys (Williamson, 2003, 40). The wider area described above has three major rivers: the Yeo, Cary and Brue flowing westwards and perpendicular to the field alignments. If the fields in the study area resemble Roman long fields, that is probably the result of later infilling of earlier alignments.

The field system is not continuous, restricted mainly to the NW part of the study area and particularly well preserved around North Cadbury, North Barrow and Marston Magna. A caveat must be that it is conceivable that this field system is medieval in origin, having arisen piecemeal in each parish, with each section cutting across the dominant landscape features the river valleys or following the Inferior Oolite ridge. Yet in places the field alignments are respected by parish boundaries and, in 67

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY features on similar alignments. For example, the eastern and western boundaries of Milborne Port, and many of the fields within the parish are aligned with their long axes NNW-SSE. Similarly a number of prominent alignments are perpendicular to this, the southern boundaries of Sandford Orcas, Rimpton and Netherton in Marston Magna. The most notable example however, is the continuous alignment forming the northern boundaries of Marston Magna, Corton Denham, Charlton Horethorne and North Cheriton Parishes which is largely coterminous with the northern boundary of Horethorne hundred (Figure 5.4). Furthermore, there is a remarkable consistency in field alignment throughout Horethorne hundred. Figure 5.5 shows selected modern field boundaries in parts of Horethorne hundred and North Dorset. It is clear, particularly in those parishes situated on the western slopes of the Blackmore Vale (Henstridge, Templecombe, Horsington and South Cheriton, that the fields are arranged in parallel blocks with long axes aligned ENE-WSW. The field alignments continue across Milborne Port, Charlton Horethorne and the County boundary into Sherborne and also into parts of Sandford Orcas, Rimpton and Marston Magna to connect with those identified by Aston. Topographically they run perpendicular to the contours on the western slopes of the Blackmore Vale and the river Cale. West of the watershed however, they cease to respect topography. Morphologically the fields resemble Roman long fields in places, in others they are squarer. It is not suggested that

others, cut across them. If the fields were medieval or later they would be expected to follow parish boundaries in places but in others, terminate against them. Sample excavation is necessary to date the field system; fieldwork results are outlined in the following section. There are distinct patches where the system has not been preserved. These approximately coincide, with areas peripheral to the putative early medieval estate of Cadbury identified in chapter 3 above (see figure 3.6). The almost complete preservation in the parishes of North and South Barrow lends weight to the theory that this too is an early medieval estate. Similarly the rectilinear block that forms Marston Magna parish may be an early estate. The assumption behind these hypotheses is that the field system is Roman or earlier in origin and particularly well preserved in estates that have been continuously farmed since that time. However, secure dating evidence for the field system is required to support this. System B (figures 5.4, 5.5, 5.6) Aston also identified a pair of NW-SE alignments. The first forms part of the eastern boundary of Queen Camel parish, which is also the SW boundary of the proposed early medieval Cadbury estate (figure 3.6). The other follows the line of the Sherborne-Marston Magna road (figure 5.3). Closer examination revealed more landscape

Figure 5.4: Horethorne Hundred c. 1840 (after Dunning 1999, 73)

68

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 5.5: Modern field alignments in Horethorne Hundred and North Dorset

69

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 5.6(i): Documented 1-hide units with curved boundaries

Figure 5.6(ii): Documented 1-hide units with rectilinear boundaries A crucial area for understanding the interrelationship between systems A and B is around the parishes of Marston magna and Rimpton (figure 5.5). Firstly it appears that the N-S aligned system (A) has encroached upon part of the area covered by Horethorne Hundred, presumed to be contiguous with the area covered by system B, in the parishes of Marston Magna, Rimpton, Sandford Orcas and Corton Denham. This suggests that system A is later than system B. Aston was the first to note the existence of two superimposed alignments at Marston Magna during his analysis of the moated site and mill leat there (Aston, 1985b, 74-7). He suggested that the N-S alignments (system A) are earlier than the 11th century and that the NNW-SSE alignments (system B) are earlier still.

the modern fields depicted in figure 5.5 represent the actual boundaries of ancient fields. Some may, and other ancient boundaries will survive as buried ditches on similar alignments. It is clear however that these fields have been continuously farmed from the time that this system was first imposed upon the landscape. Although it would not be possible to securely date this system without sample excavation, some clues to its date are to be found in the cartographic evidence. The earliest securely dated political boundary within this system is the 1086 county boundary between Dorset and Somerset. It has already been noted in chapter 3 that this boundary may mark the northern limit of a post-Roman 100-hide estate at Llanprobi. Whether that is the case or not, it is very likely that the Saxon ecclesiastical 100-hide estate at Sherborne is coterminous with the 1086 county boundary (Hall, 2000, 10 & 30). Figures 5.5 and 5.6 suggest that this estate was carved out of an earlier rectilinear estate the bulk of which now comprises Horethorne Hundred. The specific stratigraphical relationship of the field system within these political shuffles is made clear along the boundaries of Poyntington and Corton Denham with Sherborne and Dorset. Here the 1086 county boundary goes through a number of right-angled bends to accommodate the pre-existing field system (figures 5.3, 5.4).

System C (figure 5.3) This fragmentary system on the NE fringe of the study area is most clearly preserved around the border with Yarlington and North Cadbury parishes in the vicinity of Galhampton, a separate tithing in the north of North Cadbury parish. Several fields in this area have ‘Stoke’ names and a lost settlement of ‘Stoke Galampton’ is mentioned in a calendar of 15th century Close Rolls (Stamp, 1927-32, 423). The system is aligned NE-SW and may be followed by a short section of parish boundary in the northern tip of Yarlington and on the 70

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET enclosures then. They have curved boundaries, they occur in areas that would have been peripheral and underused in the early medieval period. They are stratigraphically later than rectilinear field systems outlined above. They are associated with dispersed settlement, which tends to be located on the edge of the enclosure. One in Rimpton coincides with a ‘huish’ name element (hiwisc) and another in Blackford is recorded as a hide in Domesday. The others all approximate to 1 hide in area. Saxon charters suggest a 10th century or earlier date for the enclosure of at least two of them (hiwisc, Rimpton and Blackford). They are usually associated with arable cultivation in lowland areas.

west of Galhampton tithing. The western parish boundaries of Sparkford and North and South Barrow are on similar alignments. It is possible that system C once extended westwards to include the area now covered by these parishes. The topography of the area in which system C is preserved is undulating upland and peripheral to the lowland areas dominated by major river valleys leading to the preservation of this small area of system C. Lobed Enclosures (figure 5.3) Although the three sets of alignments described above survive into the present day in wide sections of the study area, there are patches or ‘lacunae’ where they have not been preserved. Some of these are coincident with marginal areas such as Seven Wells Down, which was probably unenclosed upland pasture until the postmedieval period. Unfortunately recent SCEP fieldwork has been unable to identify whether early alignments survive as buried ditches in this area because of geological interference with the magnetometer, although medieval furlongs have been identified in one field (R.Tabor, Pers. Comm.). Large parts of Maperton and Yarlington parishes may also have been upland pasture or forest in the early medieval period. Another marginal area exists in the north of Queen Camel parish, including parts of Sparkford and South Barrow. The soils in this area comprise heavy lower lias clays and are moisture retentive.

This final point distinguishes the Cadbury examples from similar oval enclosures identified in upland areas of the north of England and on Mendip which are usually smaller than 1 hide and probably connected with pastoralism. Furthermore, Other 1 hide units are recorded in Domesday or in 10th century charters, Woolston, Woodhouse, Clapton, and Weathergrove for example. Still more can be surmised from the morphology of parishes and the distribution of dispersed settlement (Holway, Netherton and the northern part of Sparkford for example). Complete boundaries cannot be determined for all of these units but where they are discernable they tend to be rectilinear (figure 5.6ii). It seems that in many cases these small 1-hide units, lobed or rectilinear, have been tacked on to larger manors in the 10th and 11th centuries and may comprise the basic building blocks from which certain manors were constructed. Some of the rectilinear boundaries follow system A alignments, which suggests that they originate at the same time or later than system A. The stratigraphical relationship between system A and the oval 1-hide units is not clear-cut. The Queen Camel oval enclosures are a case in point. Both have areas of rectilinear N-S aligned fields similar to system A within them. There are two possible explanations. Either, the 1-hide units predate system A and remained as 1-hide units after the rectilinear system had been imposed on the landscape. Or, there was some retreat from marginal land after the creation of system A and regeneration of waste. There is limited palaeoenvironmental evidence from Somerset suggesting that, even though arable cultivation continues at the same rate from the 4th to the 5th centuries, there is a retreat from marginal land (Dark SP, 1996, 35-50). Once this waste was cleared for the initial creation of the oval enclosures, earthwork remains of earlier field boundaries encouraged subdivision along the old alignments. This second option may at first glance appear unlikely, but support for it is forthcoming from a number of sources. At Sutton Coldfield, Warwickshire, 13th century assarts unusually had regular rectangular shapes. Hodder suggested that this was because the land had been re-cleared from an earlier Romano-British field system (Hodder, 1992, 180). Furthermore, excavation through a lynchet at Fyfield Down, Wiltshire showed that rectangular fields were sometimes abandoned for many centuries before being reused within the same boundaries. The particular field was

Large modern fields or parkland now enclose most of these areas, however, there are some places where morphologically distinct enclosures have replaced the pre-existing rectilinear field systems (figure 5.3). This group of enclosures are distinguished by their curved boundaries and have been mentioned in chapters 3 & 4 above in connection with 1-hide units. They are most common in areas peripheral to the early medieval Cadbury estate. It has been suggested by Rippon that oval enclosures on the North Somerset Levels are the primary colonising features following post-Roman flooding of the levels. Their oval shape results from few restrictions in the existing landscape. They enclose maximum space for minimum circumference or effort. Rippon noted a number of characteristics common to these enclosures including worth or huish name elements, medieval settlement on their edges and finds of Roman or medieval pottery (Rippon, 1997, 45). Some of these characteristics are shared by the South Cadbury enclosures but with one crucial difference; the North Somerset Levels enclosures are usually only a few hectares in size compared to 100acres or more for the Cadbury enclosures. Costen maintains that the huish place name pertains to a 1-hide enclosure newly enclosed from marginal land (Costen, 1992b, 72-3). The Cadbury enclosures, considering that the hide was a measurement of tax rather than area, all seem to approximate to 1-hide in size. In fact a number of them are documented as being a hide in documents that date them to the 10th century or earlier (figure 5.6i). Another set of characteristics can be put forward for such 71

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY developed in the study area on different alignments, probably in the later prehistoric period. Elements of these have been modified, probably in the late Romano-British period, and are still in use today, notably in the areas of Horethorne and Catsash Hundreds. Probably in the Roman period and certainly before the Saxon period, a third system of long fields was developed on a different alignment conforming to that of the Jurassic scarp (N-S). This system extended at least from Ilchester to South Cadbury and encroached upon areas occupied by earlier field systems. Probably some time after the 5th century marginal areas had reverted to waste or woodland from which oval 1-hide units were newly enclosed prior to the 10th century.

originally cultivated during the later Bronze Age and Middle Iron Age (700-200 BC). It was then abandoned and not re ploughed until the early Roman period (100150 AD) (Taylor, 2000, 41). Taylor and others (Baker & Butlin, 1973; Aston, 1985b) maintain that agriculture, from the later Romano-British period and into the Early Medieval period, was based on an infield-outfield system associated with dispersed settlement. The fields closest to the farm would be intensively manured and cultivated with fields further from the settlement put down to pasture (Taylor, 2000, 62; 1974, 14). Taylor does not clarify if there is any documentary or archaeological evidence to support this theory. It is possible that Blacklands field names might provide some circumstantial support. Furthermore, the results of SCEP fieldwork suggest that an infield-outfield system may have been employed at Sigwells, Charlton Horethorne in the Late Iron Age and Romano-British periods (Tabor, pers. Comm.). Geographical models also suggest that dispersed farms are best served by an infieldoutfield system (Chisolm, 1968, 62). In such a system the 1-hide units might represent the holding of an individual farm, the infield-outfield system works best with cohesive blocks of land attached to each dispersed farmstead. Bede mentions the hide in the 7th century as being the unit of land required to support a family. Charles-Edwards also maintains that it was the land required to maintain the status of a normal freeman, ploughed by 1 plough with origins earlier than the Saxon kings who used it as the basic unit of taxation (CharlesEdwards, 1972, 4-5). Barnwell (1996) goes as far as to suggest that the hide represents a continuation, under a different name, of the Roman centuria. The presence of such farm units possibly dating from the creation of system A suggests a remarkable degree of continuity, not only of field system but land tenure and social organisation as well. The presence of a few oval 1-hide units, however suggests that system A did go out of use in a limited number of marginal areas. These areas of waste were then re-colonised, still by 1-hide units, prior to the 10th century. A number of studies, from varied parts of the country, have demonstrated that oval or lobed enclosures are the earliest fields associated with medieval dispersed settlement or the earliest element of a nucleated settlement. At Holne Moor in Dartmoor a number of lobed enclosures, each of about 30 acres (1/4 of a hide) and associated with dispersed settlement, formed the earliest elements in a later medieval field system (Fleming & Ralph, 1982, 103-9). Similarly, at Cockfield, Durham, an oval field possibly associated with dispersed settlement forms the earliest element of the nucleated village of Cockfield and its medieval field system (Roberts, 1981). Queen Camel is a particularly fine example of medieval arable fields and nucleated settlement developing from two separate dispersed settlements with their associated oval enclosures.

Medieval arable farming in strips associated with nucleated settlement seems to have developed from an infield outfield system attendant to dispersed settlement. Where nucleation has not occurred then infield-outfield farming remained. Some of the original infields were the direct descendants of Roman fields; others were the oval 1-hide units enclosed from marginal land. The chronology of this scheme is rather sketchy and relative, dependant on typologies of field shape and documents from no earlier than the 10th century. The next section describes the fieldwork undertaken to rectify this situation. Fieldwork Results 1) Gilton and Stonchester, North Cadbury (Figure 5.7). These fields were initially selected for geophysical survey because their names contained the habitative elements, ‘tun’ and ‘chester’, thought to pertain to Saxon and Roman settlement, in close proximity. It was thought that they might provide evidence for continuity of settlement site from the Late Antique to Early Medieval periods. What they actually demonstrate is that modern fields and roads, notably in the tortuous course of Corkscrew Lane, follow earlier N-S field alignments (system A). The field system revealed through this geophysical survey consists of long thin fields with a length to width ratio of 5:1. These strip-like fields have been categorised by Fowler as typically Roman long fields that are frequently superimposed on a pre-existing field system. One particular example excavated in advance of the construction of Heathrow Terminal 5, has been dated to the second to fourth century AD (Fowler 2002: 134-5 and 143-6). The field system in North Cadbury can be dated because an archaeological evaluation was carried out during the construction of the Codford-Ilchester water pipeline (Rawlings 1992). This pipeline is visible on the geophysical plot as a strong linear anomaly just inside and parallel to the western boundary of Gilton. Rawlings recorded a number of ditches perpendicular to the pipe trench, one of which contained exclusively third to fourth century pottery (Rawlings 1992: 41). Although the assemblage was very small, shovel pitting in the adjacent

To summarise, the cartographic and documentary evidence clearly suggests that three co-axial field systems 72

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 5.7: Gradiometer survey, Gilton & Stonchester, North Cadbury; results and interpretation

silting up of several ditches in the 3rd-4th centuries) may actually be spread over several hundred years. All we can say with confidence is that the ditches were in existence by the 3rd century and silted up before the 10th century. The lack of residual prehistoric or earlier Roman pottery in the ditch silts suggests that these fields were not used for arable cultivation prior to the late Romano-British period. This may be significant because long fields are likely to have been created specifically for arable cultivation.

Stonchester also produced almost exclusively RomanoBritish pottery, with a date range centred on the second and third centuries (Figure 5.7). During construction of the same pipeline Rawlings dated the north south alignments in Ashington near Ilchester (figure 5.1b) to the 3rd-4th centuries (Rawlings, 1992, 53). Rawlings could do no more than assume he was dealing with separate sites from the small interventions made by the pipeline trench. However, when this information is added to the cartographic evidence outlined above it appears that an extensive N-S aligned field system (system A) can be dated to the 3rd century AD or earlier. Caution is necessary due to the fact that the pottery recovered from ditches actually dates to the time that these ditches were last cleaned and silted up for good, rather than constructed.

Cheese Hill, Holway (Figure 4.2) and Englands, Charlton Horethorne (Figure 4.5) Geophysical survey coupled with sample excavation was conducted at both of these sites in the summer of 2003. Evidence for late Romano-British settlement was recovered from both and evidence for a 3rd-4th century metalled road was also recovered from Cheese Hill, Holway. The excavation and fieldwork results are described in detail elsewhere. What is important to this chapter is the fact that both settlements are aligned on the ENE-WSW field system (system B) outlined above. At Englands 3 major phases were identified from the geophysical survey. The earliest phase dated by sample excavation related to field alignments similar to the main settlement probably of the 1st-2nd centuries. The earliest settlement phase on a clear ENE-WSW alignment was also dated to the 1st-2nd centuries. The 3rd phase was a

Recent excavations at RNAS Yeovilton have demonstrated that, as expected, the origin of this system dates to the late prehistoric period. The earliest (middle Iron Age) elements consisted of fewer field boundaries and ditched tracks or droves; the later (early Roman) system comprised many parallel ditches resembling typical Roman long fields (Lovell, forthcoming). The early Romano-British date does not mark the end of the field system, merely a number of subdivisions within it. Furthermore, because the 5th-10th centuries are largely aceramic in Somerset, what appears as a single event (the 73

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY modified settlement on the same alignment dated to the 3rd-4th centuries. At Cheese Hill, Holway it is not clear whether the settlement is within field system A or B. The field alignments follow the Jurassic scarp (as in system A) but a few hundred metres further south they are contiguous with alignments from system B in Sherborne. It seems that system B has been modified at this point either to conform to topography or to connect with system A. The RomanoBritish settlement at Holway was probably constructed in the 3rd century AD with stone buildings collapsing in the 4th or 5th centuries. However, fields dating from the 5th century or later continue on the same alignment here. The evidence from these two settlements Figure 5.8: System B and C alignments. Sigwells, Charlton suggests that system B was in existence by Horethorne (after Tabor, 2002, 62-7) the 1st or 2nd century AD and modified in the 3rd century when substantial planned settlements and metalled roads were constructed. This provisional date for system B can be refined by reference to observations that took place during the construction of another water pipeline from Bowden Reservoir to Penselwood (Newman et al, 2001). A number of Romano-British ditches were aligned perpendicular to the parish boundary between Horsington and Templecombe. They were distributed in two separate areas. To the east a group of ditches with ‘u’ shaped profiles contained 3rd-5th century pottery. It is possible that these ditches could have silted up any time prior to the 10th century. The second group was situated close to an Anglo-Saxon cemetery excavated in 1992 (Newman, 1992). The ditches had ‘v’ shaped profiles and contained pottery dating to the 1st to 2nd centuries AD. Both groups of ditches were on the same alignment as system B. However, a third site located between the two mentioned Further evidence to support the prehistoric origins of above revealed a ditch aligned at a slight angle to the system B comes from SCEP fieldwork directed by Tabor parish boundary and dating to the late Iron Age. This is at Sigwells, Charlton Horethorne (figure 5.2). Here tantalising evidence that system B may have originated in system B alignments originate in the late Iron Age. Even the late prehistoric period and was modified first in the earlier field boundaries have been excavated at Sigwells early Romano-British period and again in the 3rd century. dating from at least the late Bronze Age, and utilised The fact that the Iron Age ditch is aligned close to that of more intensively in the Middle to late Iron Age they tend a parish boundary also lends weight to the theory to be aligned NE-SW and may relate to system C (see propounded by Wykes that co-axial field systems figure 5.8)(Tabor (ed), 2002, 57-67; 2004, 27-55). developed first as a number of parallel ranch or estate divisions that were gradually infilled by parallel To summarise the combination of geophysical survey rectangular fields (Wykes, 2003, 47). coupled with excavation at a number of sites across the

74

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET The traditional view of the period (post-Roman collapse followed by an extended Dark Age involving pestilence, plague and pervading forests cleared by Saxons for open field and villages in the 7th century) is clearly simplistic. Evidence for the true economic situation in the region is forthcoming from a number of excavations:

region and cartographic evidence suggests the following points: 1. Three rectilinear field systems survive in varying degrees in the study area, systems A, B and C. System C probably dates from at least the late Bronze age and may have originally extended across the entire northern part of the study area although today it only survives in patches in the NE corner. 2. System B originates in the late Iron Age and overlies system C at Sigwells. It was modified in the 1st-2nd century and the 3rd century AD at Englands. It seems to have originated as a system of droves perpendicular to the western slopes of the upper Cale valley in the late Iron Age and was gradually filled in as a result of more intensive agrarian regimes during the RomanoBritish period. 3. System A also originates in the Iron Age and was subsequently subdivided and used more intensively in the Romano-British period. It covers a wide area from Pilton in the north to Yeovil in the south and is perpendicular to the major rivers Brue, Cary and Yeo. It certainly overlies system C but its relationship with system B is more complex. The two are broadly contemporary and have both been modified over the years. 4. Modern parish boundaries incorporate elements from all three systems. 5. In the post Roman period there is a limited retreat from marginal land. 6. By the late Saxon period some new dispersed farms are enclosed from waste whilst core areas have been continuously farmed utilising the pre-existing rectilinear field systems. 7. Some dispersed farms occupy 1-hide units aligned on 3rd century field systems and may represent continuity of land unit from the Roman to medieval period.

1. The Bowden Reservoir Link Pipeline (Newman et al, 2001) Dating evidence for field ditches associated with system B has already been outlined above. Land mollusca and charred plant macrofossils were also examined from Iron Age and Romano-British contexts. The site is situated near the bottom of the western slopes of the Blackmore vale on low lying gently sloping Oxford Clay, an area that is now almost exclusively pasture. Examination of the land mollusca suggested that the area was already open grassland prior to the construction of the late Iron Age ditch and down to mixed arable/pastoral during the silting up of the ditch (in the LIA). Charred plant macrofossils suggested that spelt and emmer wheat were grown and processed on a small scale in the area during the late Iron Age. Oats and barley were also found. This suggests a mixed agricultural economy based on smallscale dispersed farmsteads (ibid, 11-16). Mollusca from the early Romano-British ditches (1st-2nd century) implied a moderately grazed open grassland habitat. Spelt wheat was predominant in the plant macrofossil assemblage. There was a lack of chaff suggesting that the cereal grains had been processed and cleaned prior to becoming charred and then disposed of in the ditch. It is possible that this deposit represented a dump of imported and damaged grain (ibid, 20-24). The agricultural regime in the eastern parts of field system B bears a remarkable similarity to the present rural economy. Dispersed farms are still common in the region, sometimes grouped into hamlets of 2 farmsteads distributed along parallel lanes aligned on a field system dating back at least 2000 years. It may be significant that field system B is the best preserved in this region.

The Agrarian Economy The modern landscape in the environs of South Cadbury is complex. Gently undulating heavy lias clay in the NW of the region is dominated by pasture. Head deposits around Marston Magna and upper lias sands and clays of the rolling hills stretching from North Cadbury to Sandford Orcas support a more mixed economy. The steep slopes of the Jurassic ridge have generally been limited to forest or pasture in the past, apart from the medieval period when extensive arable strip lynchets were cultivated in Yarlington, Compton Pauncefoot, South Cadbury and Corton Denham. Pasture dominates the upland areas in the south and east of the region with limited arable. The topography and soils of the Cadbury region have changed little in the past 2 millennia. It is now clear that there is also a remarkable continuity in field patterns over the same period. Can the same be said for the rural economy?

2. Middle Field, New Close and Palmer’s Barn, Sandford Orcas This site is located at the western end of field system B in the south of the modern parish of Sandford Orcas close to the foot of the Jurassic scarp. Signs of early occupation over an extended period were recognised from surface finds collected by Cooper, a member of SCEP, in the corners of three fields called Palmer’s Barn, Middle Field and New Close. Geophysical Survey Cooper had recovered a couple of sherds of Iron Age pottery and extensive scatters of Romano-British ceramics dating from the 1st to 4th centuries AD. The 75

Figure 5.9: Middle Field, New Close and Palmers Barn, gradiometer survey and interpretation

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

76

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET rolling countryside of North Dorset, that the sheep were summered on the high ground and brought to more sheltered locations in the winter. Equally, they may have summered on wet areas around Rimpton 2 miles Northeast of Middle field. It is interesting to note that a possible drove road following an early Roman alignment from Stafford’s Green towards Sandford Orcas and Holway is called Winter Lane.

presence of late Romano-British sherds suggested the site might be significant in terms of elucidating the RomanoBritish transition and geophysical survey was carried out in May and June 2003. The results (figure 5.9) were unexpected in that instead of revealing a Romano-British settlement site evidence for a multi-period pastoral complex was uncovered. The enclosures present a complex picture of a land use on a similar alignment to a section of the modern Moorway Lane. The interpretation of this site as a multi-phase complex of droves, paddocks and fields is based to a large extent on a Bronze Age parallel at Fengate on the edge of Flag Fen. Here Francis Pryor suggests that small paddocks, with internal droves called drafting races, represent ‘community stockyards’ for the sorting, management and exchange of large flocks of sheep (Pryor, 1996, 314-7). The gradiometer plots have been interpreted as belonging to 7 distinct phases in Figure 5.9. It is likely that phases 1, 2 and 3 represent a development of the site as the needs of the community changed and large portions of all 3 phases may have been in use during phase 3. Phases 4 and 5 are morphologically slightly different, although a similar function is likely. Phases 6 and 7 represent an archaeological discontinuity between the end of phase 5 (or 3) and the beginning of the medieval period when the land had been taken up with arable.

However, excavation was deemed necessary to confirm or deny this interpretation. The presence of fine tableware in Middle Field still demanded a residential explanation. Excavation At this juncture it is only necessary to briefly discuss the excavation results and how they relate to the agrarian economy. Ideally excavation would have been undertaken in Middle Field and New Close, however both were under crop and the only field available for further work was Palmer’s Barn. Unfortunately, this meant that the most enigmatic phases identified through geophysics, 4 and 5, would not be sampled. This is because geophysical anomalies related to them are confined to Middle Field and New Close. Nevertheless, it was still felt that the sampling of features belonging to phases 1 and 2 would provide useful information pertaining to the function of the site.

The arrangement of paddocks and droves, outlined in phases 1 to 3, works on the principle that sheep become more docile and easy to manage when their space and movements are restricted. This means that an approximation of the size of flock can be arrived at from the dimensions of the enclosures. Using modern day comparisons, Pryor suggests that a drafting race of 35 metres be designed for over 2000 sheep (Pryor, 1996, 319). One phase 2 drafting race in New Close is 40m long suggesting that flocks of up to 2500 sheep were kept in the Sandford Orcas area during the Romano-British period. The investment of labour into the construction of the stockyards is certainly commensurate with an economic operation of this scale.

A small 4x2m trench was opened up at the junction of two linear features near to the centre of the phase 1 enclosure in Palmer’s Barn (figure 5.10). This area was important because, morphologically the site could be interpreted as either a settlement or shepherding complex. If the site proved to be a settlement, then one possible building location might be in this part of Palmer’s Barn. Under the shepherding model, the phase 1 double ditched anomaly would be interpreted as a drafting race (F001). The other linear feature sampled in this trench (F002) belongs to phase 2 and was interpreted as a double ditched drove or track. It was hoped that the excavation of the junction of two phases would reveal the stratigraphical relationship between them for the better interpretation of the site.

At Fengate the design of the stockyards was interpreted as fitting into a seasonal pattern of shepherding. The sheep would be grazed on Flag Fen in the summer months when it was free of water and provided rich pasture. In the winter when the Fen flooded they would be moved along droves to the stock enclosures. Temporary funnels made from wattles would guide the sheep into the drafting races from where they could be easily observed and divided into different groups in separate pens. From here they could be shown, exchanged (bought and sold in a Roman context) and allowed back on to droves taking them to their appropriate winter pasture (ibid. 316-7). At Sandford Orcas 2 droves clearly approach the complex during the refined phase 2. One approaches from the high ground on the limestone ridge to the south and east, the other from the Southwest and a ridge followed by the SherborneMarston Magna road. It is possible, in the context of the

Discussion Although their stratigraphical relationship was understood through the excavation, F001 was cut by F002; the finds were sparse and undiagnostic. Only 2 sherds could be dated with any more accuracy than the 1st to 4th centuries and these were both recovered from the topsoil. Nevertheless, the date for these sherds (1st2nd century) do broadly correspond with those for phases 1 and 2 as indicated by surface finds. It seems then that phases 1 and 2 are indeed early Roman in origin. The paucity of finds was also revealing. If the site was to be interpreted as a settlement, many more finds should 77

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 5.10: Palmer’s Barn trench location plan and bartering or exchange could take place (Pryor, 1996, 316). Only large-scale open area excavation in Middle Field could resolve this question.

have been forthcoming. The level of finds is entirely consistent with the site being a shepherding complex. However, other conclusions are possible, particularly in the light of 20 sherds of Samian ware from surface collection in Middle Field. It can be expected that this fine tableware would be found close to a settlement. Although sherds recovered here were much abraded, such a concentration should indicate settlement in the vicinity. One possible resolution of this apparent dichotomy is that the anomalies sampled through excavation at Palmer’s Barn represent a sheep enclosure system adjacent to settlement anomalies in Middle Field. However, given that the morphology of the enclosures is probably related to sheep farming in Palmer’s Barn, one would expect the similar enclosures in Middle field to have a similar function. The fact that these planned enclosures are on such a large scale (one alone could manage 2,500 sheep, and there are 3 in total), suggests that a large Roman estate might be involved here. In this scenario it is entirely plausible that an estate manager would have at least a temporary residence on site. Alternatively, if this site represents a market, a market manager would require buildings adjacent to the market. Pryor has recognised such a building in a Bronze Age context in Fengate. Here a roundhouse was interpreted as being a communal building from which the stockyards could be observed

Unfortunately it is still unclear as to whether, the morphologically different, phases 4 and 5 represent Iron Age or post-Roman activity on the site. The presence of two Iron Age sherds as surface finds might suggest the former. In this scenario a pre Roman Iron Age shepherding complex would have been modified and enlarged during the 1st-2nd centuries AD. This would be consistent with other areas within system B in which an Iron Age field system is modified in the 1st-2nd century. Either of phases 4 and 5 could very well be post-Roman however, the absence of datable surface finds for this period is reflected throughout the study area. The fact that surface finds continue into the 4th century, and given the compelling evidence for continuity of field systems elsewhere in the study area, the site could have remained in use as late as the middle Saxon Period. A cautionary note must be made; Sandford Orcas and Rimpton are areas noted above for the presence of rectilinear 1-hide units. If this interpretation is correct, then a large and complex stockyard might decline in favour of smaller individual stockyards associated with dispersed farmsteads.

78

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Higby examined the animal bones from the excavation. Unfortunately the small size of the excavation means that conclusions drawn about the economy from such a small bone assemblage are not statistically valid. Nevertheless, a few observations can be made; the 3rd-4th century layers, 1007 and 1008 contained a mixture of sheep, pig and predominately cattle bones. The broad mix here might be indicative of the proximity of the site to habitation. The 5th century ditch fills contained predominately sheep bones suggesting that a much less intensive use of the site prevailed by this time.

3. Excavation at Castle Farm, 2003 (figures 5.11, 5.12) In September 2003 a small 3m x 3m trench was opened at Castle Farm, South Cadbury in a paddock adjacent to Church Lane, south of the farmhouse and north of Cadbury Castle car park (figure 3.3). The intention was to uncover evidence for post-Roman activity in the area of South Cadbury village where a Romano-British settlement was already known. A full interim excavation report is included in appendix 2.5. Here it is only necessary to discuss the implications of the excavation in terms of the agrarian economy.

Excavation at the late Romano-British settlement at Holway also revealed a preponderance of cattle bones among the animal bone assemblage during the 3rd and 4th centuries. Both of these settlements are situated on Yeovil Sands close to the foot of the Jurassic scarp and the spring line. The implications are that a mixed dairy and arable economy was practiced close to the settlements in these well-drained and fertile areas in the Romano-British and late Romano-British periods. Pastoralism was more important in the upland areas further from the settlements. In many respects the landscape in the vicinity of the Jurassic scarp resembles that of the south facing Mendip scarp in which wood occupies the steepest slopes, pasture on the top of Mendip and arable and dairy on the lower slopes close to the settlements on the spring line (Neale, 1976, 79 & 88; Findlay, 1965, 63). The agricultural regime described above also resembles the infield-outfield system with the modification that a mixed dairy and arable regime

We now know that, during the 2nd century, iron working took place close to or within an enclosure (F010, F011) west of a N-S aligned road, almost opposite the position of the midden excavated in 1996. A substantial ditch (F009) ran alongside the road. This was still visible as a slight depression when the area reverted to pasture in the early part of the 3rd century. This pastoral phase was associated with cattle or dairy farming. Later in this century the field was converted to arable production and a plough soil developed. Evidence for post-Roman activity was recovered from a single re-cut ditch (F007) aligned E-W and perpendicular to an early line of Church Road, which runs N-S through the Romano-British settlement. This ditch cut through layers containing 3rd-4th century pottery and contained a single sherd of a fabric identified by Gerrard (2004b) as Q107, a 5th century black Burnished fabric type.

Figure 5.11: Castle Farm 2003: Trench 1 fully excavated

79

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 5.12: Post-holes F010 & F011 fully excavated (left) and bovine mandible at terminus of ditch F009 (right) alluviation stabilised in the immediate post-Roman period, suggesting that arable cultivation decreased at this time (Thew, 1994, 170). This is not necessarily a true reflection of the general picture in the region however and may indicate processes associated with the collapse of urban centres rather than the wider agrarian economy. Dark has noted a lack of suitable sites for studying ecological change in the potentially interesting areas of the SW peninsula. Her study of the period AD 400-800 included Baillie’s narrow tree ring event of 540 AD (Baillie 1999: 9), which was shown to be insignificant in terms of detrimentally affecting arable cultivation (Dark SP, 1996, 36). The data from three sites studied in Somerset and Dorset (Meare Heath, Aller Farm and Rimsmoor) suggested that there was continuity of landscape exploitation from the Roman to post-Roman period. Although that from two sites on Exmoor demonstrated reduced activity over the same period, implying a retreat from marginal land (ibid, 35 &46-50). By the middle of the 5th century, South Cadbury castle was refortified and the importation of amphorae and fine tableware from the northeast Mediterranean begins. It is evident that this trade took place at many sites along the north coast of Cornwall and Somerset, notably at Tintagel, Cadbury Congresbury and at recently discovered beach sites such as Bantham in Devon. It has been suggested that the traffic was directed by Byzantium in search of Cornish tin and Mendip lead/silver, although

operates in the areas of most intensive cultivation close to the settlement. Both of these sites (Holway and Castle Farm) have evidence for continuity of agriculture, if not settlement, into the 5th century but possibly of a less intensive nature. Unfortunately secure dating evidence is not available although an application for radiocarbon dating has been submitted. It is clear at Holway that the economy was booming in the 3rd century from the construction of a metalled road and stone buildings. This upturn in the economy is reflected in the more intensive use of system A and B field systems. This situation was seriously affected in the late 4th-early 5th century, clear from the disuse of stone buildings and the metalled road. However, medieval Holway was situated within a 1-hide unit, aligned on field system A (figure 5.6ii). So there is clearly evidence for continuity of field system, land tenure and the rural economy at Holway, tempered by the evidence for the collapse of the complex Roman economic system. A Regional Overview of Post-Roman and Saxon Rural Economies There is very little in the way of palaeo-environmental evidence from the South Cadbury region. Studies of the Ilchester Yeo flood plain deposits in the immediate vicinity of Ilchester have shown that the process of 80

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET and Holway). The larger settlements displayed some functions of central place such as metalworking but also comprised farms working to a variant of the infieldoutfield system that may have included dairy. Arable was also important, as the shape of the long-fields would suggest.

slaves may also have been traded. Furthermore, the presence of imported pottery at fortified sites such as South Cadbury, Tintagel, Dinas Powys and Cadbury Congresbury suggests an elite control of metals and, therefore, of exotic imported goods such as wine, oil and silk (Campbell, 1996, 83-9). South Cadbury itself is a long way from the mineral deposits on Mendip. This, coupled with the fact that comparatively few sherds of imported pottery have been found at Cadbury compared to sites such as Tintagel, suggests that the elites in control at South Cadbury may have needed to produce an agricultural surplus in order to gain exotic imports from those that controlled the mineral resources and therefore the trade in exotic goods. This, together with the availability of labour and skills required for the refortification of the hillfort, indicates that the agrarian economic base of the old Durotrigian Civitas was thriving in the 5th and 6th centuries.

There is some evidence that a large estate may have already existed in the area prior to the 3rd century. The existence of large stock enclosures for the control of flocks of up to 5000 sheep has been suggested in Sandford Orcas dating from the 1st-2nd centuries AD. If this were true, planned pastoralism on a massive scale may have replaced an earlier Iron Age practice based on small flocks associated with individual farms. The modification of system A and B fields in the 3rd century coupled with the construction of roads and stone buildings seems to reflect a widespread process of economic growth in Somerset. Leach notes that the 3rd and 4th centuries were the time of maximum prosperity in the Roman west (Leach, 2001, 95) coinciding with the drainage and reclamation of Severn Estuary levels in the upper Axe Valley (Grove, 2002, 83), North Somerset (Rippon, 2000, 80) and the Wentlooge level (Allen & Fulford, 1986, 113). However, the modern field pattern in the South Cadbury area is in great contrast to that in the north Somerset levels which is largely composed of irregular field systems resulting from piecemeal reclamation in the post-Roman period and regular postmedieval enclosures. This is because the North Somerset landscape was largely abandoned due to marine transgressions in the post-Roman period (Rippon, 1997b, 148-9). However, Rippon sees no reason why there should be any discontinuity in the landscape following the Romano-British period in areas not affected by the inundations “…we should see the centuries immediately after AD 400 as a period of general continuity, unless proven otherwise.” (ibid, 123). The morphology of modern fields in the Wentlooge level corresponds very well with those around South Cadbury. Allen and Fulford showed that imperial land measurements of 2,4,6 and 8 iugera had been used in the laying out of field systems on the Wentlooge Level (Allen & Fulford, 1986, 113). Although no cases of true centuriation have been demonstrated in Britain it seems that Roman surveyors (agrimensores) were employed by landowners, the army or local authorities to plan 3rd century field systems in the SW.

Conclusions It has been shown in this chapter that there are a large number of alignments surviving in the modern landscape that originated in the late prehistoric and developed in the Romano-British periods. Linear landscape divisions originating in the Bronze Age became gradually infilled by enclosures on the same alignment (system c). Some of these survive in modern field and parish boundaries in the north of the study area. In the south of the region linear landscape divisions on a different alignment obliterated the earlier pattern in the late Iron Age. These took the form of rectangular blocks or land units within a larger rectangular ‘estate’ or district approximately coterminous with the medieval hundred of Horethorne. A mixed agrarian economy based on small-scale production on dispersed farmsteads was practiced within the ‘estate’. The northern boundary of this estate passed close to Cadbury Castle and it may be that the hillfort served as a central place for a number of such districts in the region. The Horethorne system appears to have been planned and imposed on a pre-existing landscape in the late Iron Age, although recent excavations at Sigwells suggest that elements of this system might have already existed in the Bronze Age (Tabor, pers. Comm.). The rectangular Horethorne estate boundaries have been compromised to the west to form the 19th century Horethorne Hundred by the concession of an estate centred on Sherborne. In this case the rectilinear field system associated with it, modified at least twice during the Romano-British period, survived into the modern landscape (system B). However, also in the late Roman period, a third N-S aligned linear field system of Roman long fields (system A) developed from Iron Age droves. This system was aligned on the dominant landscape features of the Jurassic ridge and rivers Brue, Cary and Yeo. It covered at least an area from Ilchester in the west to South Cadbury in the east and possibly from Pilton in the north to Yeovil in the South. The settlement patterns within this area comprise a mixture of hamlets (e.g. South Cadbury and Sigwells) and dispersed farmsteads (e.g. Ashington

It is not suggested that the modern field boundaries following the system A, B and C alignments are situated in the exact position of Roman or late Prehistoric field boundaries, although in some cases they almost certainly are (parish boundaries for example). There is unlikely to be any dateable evidence to support such an assertion, modern ditches are cleaned regularly, as they would have been in the past, to maintain their effectiveness as field drains. It is only when field boundaries have gone out of use and silted up for the last time that artefacts within 81

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY Williamson has noted that nucleation and open field agriculture failed to take hold in parts of the Claylands of East Anglia. He suggested that a possible reason for this might be the survival of ancient land units such as ferdings associated with surviving late prehistoric field systems such as those at Burston-Gissing and ScoleDickleburgh (Williamson, 1988, 166-75). These field systems bear a remarkable similarity to the fields of system B, associated with the ancient land unit of Horethorne Hundred.

them can provide a terminus post quem for their abandonment. It is clear from this evidence that the field systems have undergone a continuous process of alteration, subdivision and expansion since their inception. The modern boundaries are merely the latest arrangements along old lines. Nevertheless, this still represents remarkable continuity of landscape use and landholding from the Romano-British period to the modern day. The Romano-British economy was booming in Somerset then, in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. The same was not necessarily true for the Roman Empire as a whole however. A series of economic and military crises in the 3rd centuries meant that the central imperial government in Rome was finding it increasingly difficult to preside over a large empire. A series of measures led to greater decentralisation and the transfer of power and wealth to new central places closer to the peripheries. Thus it was that the Durotrigian civitas found itself at the heart of a new northern region rather than on the edge of the Roman Empire. The same economic problems facing the imperial authority in the 3rd century may also have led to the rationalisation of land holdings, through the creation of new field systems, and by giving the army increasing powers of direct taxation. This may have led larger landowners to subdivide their estates by selling them to tenant farmers, or by tightening control over their estates through a process of ‘manorialisation’. In this scenario it is possible see the beginnings of the feudal system in the late Roman period rather than the Saxon period. The key features of proto-feudalism in this case are warring elites imposing taxes directly on to landholding farmers. This also describes the post-Roman petty kingdoms suggesting that the development of Saxon kingdoms and medieval society was a gradual process beginning in the decentralisation of the Roman Empire in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Taylor has also maintained for many years that RomanoBritish culture lasted in Dorset into the 6th and, in places, 7th centuries (Taylor, 1970). ‘The Saxons came so late into Dorset that it cannot have been they who created the complex arrangements of estates and land units which covered the County by the 9th century’ (Taylor, 1995, 12). He also maintains that the subject of continuity of population and land tenure ‘…remains one of the most controversial and unresolved questions of history’ (ibid). The evidence presented in this chapter demonstrates clearly and for the first time, through geophysical survey and excavation coupled with documentary and cartographic research, that there is widespread continuity in the rural landscape from the Romano-British period to the modern day in SE Somerset and parts of north Dorset. Given this remarkable degree of continuity of field system, land division, land tenure and agrarian economy, how can the apparent discontinuity in settlement patterns described in the previous chapter be explained? A traditional explanation for discontinuity in settlement patterns from the Roman to medieval period is the middle Saxon shift in which land units were reorganised wholesale in the 7th-8th century, connected with the rise of nucleated settlements and manors. This model was generated to explain the location of dispersed settlements and cemeteries at the edges of medieval parishes. Thus the reorganisation of a manorial boundary around the central settlement led to the isolation of earlier settlements and cemeteries (Arnold & Wardle, 1981, 148). The model has many flaws, not least of which being the fact that nucleated settlements are often near the edges of parishes and that early Saxon cemeteries are frequently not associated with any settlement at all (Davey, 2002a, 99, for example). Furthermore, the evidence from settlements in the South Cadbury region is not of a shift in settlement patterns at the end of the Romano-British period but rather an absence of all physical evidence for settlement until the late Saxon period. Poundbury in Dorset and South Cadbury Castle itself are rare exceptions, neither of which is typical of rural settlement. We know that there must have been a sizeable population across the transitional period from the continuation of the rural economy and we also know that land holding was similarly constant from the analysis of boundaries.

The evidence for continuity of the rural landscape in Somerset is overwhelming, although tempered by that for a retreat from marginal land. This evidence in the Cadbury region comes from morphologically distinct 1hide units with curved boundaries apparently newly enclosed from regenerated forest or waste prior to the 10th century. It is likely that this reclamation of farming land would have occurred after Baillie’s narrow tree ring event of 540 AD and possibly in the middle Saxon period. Nucleated settlement did not fully take hold in southeast Somerset. Furthermore, around those nucleated settlements that did develop it is clear that the earlier Romano-British pattern of fields has remained as the dominant influence on the modern pattern, modified in places by reverse ‘s’ curves along N-S alignments. Taylor and Fowler first suggested that medieval furlongs might have developed from Romano-British field systems in 1978 (ibid, 159-62). The South Cadbury region provides clear evidence to support their theory on a regional scale. 82

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET We return to the concept of ‘wandering settlements’ and the example of Mucking, Essex. Hamerow maintains that Mucking wandered within an otherwise stable landscape comprising a stable burial ground and land unit within a stable regional administration (Hamerow, 1991, 5-10). Thus what appears as a dramatic shift in settlement patterns at the end of the 4th century may actually represent no more than change in social and economic infrastructure. With stone buildings, drains and services no longer maintained the build up of nutrients on settlement sites might be more rapid, encouraging mobility.

83

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Chapter 6: Communications Patterns now only true of the period from the late 5th to early 10th centuries in Somerset and we know more about Saxon settlements and field systems. Nevertheless, it is merely possible to demonstrate that some Roman and prehistoric roads continued in use during this period. It is only in the 10th century, with the proliferation of Saxon charters, that the earliest medieval roads can be identified.

Introduction In previous chapters we have examined various aspects of the landscape in the South Cadbury region, notably settlement patterns and field systems. This chapter seeks to draw these two dominant landscape features together via the study of communications links. Through this process, it is hoped that light will be thrown on the development of the landscape during the Roman to medieval transition. Concepts of continuity and change, the economy, and socio-political organisation will be addressed through the study of developing communications patterns. Furthermore, aspects of sociopolitical change in the wider context of the late antique Durotrigian Civitas to the early medieval counties of Somerset and Dorset, may be revealed through changing regional communications patterns. This is not an easy task not least because there is little material evidence for many ancient roads. This is because, with the exception of some major Roman roads, they were not engineered. A medieval road, and in all likelihood a prehistoric road, was essentially not a physical entity but a right of way (Hindle, 1989, 6). In order to be able to positively identify the line of a road some form of physical evidence is required. For example: a metalled or compacted surface, a holloway, a double ditch, hedge line, or lynchet. Unfortunately an ancient right of way might resemble no more than a modern footpath, unmarked and not mapped. For this reason a distinction is drawn in this chapter between roads and tracks, and routes. A road or track will only be so called if there is physical or cartographic evidence for its course; a route is the approximate course of a hypothetical road surmised from secondary or circumstantial evidence.

If late antique and early medieval tracks are so difficult to identify, then it is the relationship between the Roman and medieval communications patterns that becomes important. Differences between the two must be attributable to changes that have occurred during the period in question. Two local studies have attempted to address the relationship between Roman and medieval roads. Roger Leech undertook the first as a small part of research into Romano-British rural settlement in South Somerset and North Dorset. He concluded that many of the medieval lanes in South Somerset were Roman or earlier in origin simply because many of the medieval settlements had Roman precursors (Leech, 1977, 184-7). However, settlement patterns are only one aspect of the landscape affecting communications patterns. Furthermore, the relationship between the two is reciprocal rather than causal. For example, there is evidence to suggest that some settlements were shifted away from well-used Roman roads at the end of the Roman period. Troubled times meant that a lower profile settlement was desirable for protection from marauders. Mick Aston undertook the second study into the complex communications pattern between Ilchester and South Cadbury. His approach was very much a geographical systems analysis corroborated by historical documentary evidence and field observation. This study highlighted the difference between the predicted communications pattern based on medieval settlement patterns and the actual medieval road network derived from historical and cartographic evidence. The predicted pattern was one of radial routes emanating from each settlement connecting them to their fields, nearest neighbours and markets. The actual pattern between Ilchester and South Cadbury consists of North-South and East-West alignments. Aston suggested that the difference is due to the presence of a pre-existing field system whose influence on the landscape remains up to the present day. He maintained that this system could be Roman or earlier in origin (Aston, 1985b, 146-8) (see figure 6.1). It has already been noted in chapter 5 above that the north-south field alignments in Limington, North Cadbury and Sigwells can be dated to the 3rd century AD or earlier. Aston noted two other routes or alignments of relevance to this study. Firstly that the line of the A303 prior to the Ilchester and Sparkford Bypasses, may follow the line of a prehistoric track linking the hill forts of South Cadbury and Ham Hill with the chalk downland of Wessex; and

The above problem is compounded by the fact that the study period in question is one of the most enigmatic in the human past. Christopher Taylor summed up the problem: “Whatever aspect of the past is being studied, whether it be villages, farms, fields, forests or, in our case, roads and trackways, the period from the end of Roman times in the early 5th century AD, until the Norman Conquest in the late 11th century, is the most difficult to understand…it is odd, though true, that we know much more about Bronze Age villages, fields and indeed trackways than we know of Saxon ones…in the Dark Ages or Early Saxon period, we are not even sure where the settlements were and we certainly have no known roads which we can date to this time.” (Taylor, 1979, 845). With the benefit of 25 years further study since the above passage was written, it is possible to argue with the detail contained within it. The above sentiments are probably 84

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 6.1: The communications pattern between Ilchester and South Cadbury. A: predicted prehistoric pattern, B: predicted medieval pattern, C: medieval pattern from cartographic and archaeological evidence (after Aston, 1985, 147, fig. 90) secondly that another, possibly earlier set of alignments cross the area running approximately NW-SE.

are no navigable rivers. The nearest port in both the Roman and medieval periods was Ilchester, on the fast flowing River Yeo. The case for an early medieval estate centred on South Cadbury has been made in chapter 3. At this time, the settlement of Sparkford adjacent to the River Cam would have been the nearest point in the Cadbury estate to Ilchester. Whether or not any bulk goods were rafted down the River Cam from Sparkford to the River Yeo, a few miles upstream from Ilchester is

In the Roman and medieval periods the only available modes of transportation were by land or by water. In fact, all the major medieval towns were on navigable rivers in Britain. Roads were simply used to redistribute goods that had been brought in bulk to the major towns (Hindle, 1989, 26). However, in the South Cadbury region there 85

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY debatable. The name Sparkford or ‘Spercheforde’ as it is recorded in 1086 (Thorn & Thorn, 1980, para. 24,18), probably meaning ‘brush-wood ford’ (Gelling, 1984, 313), surely refers to the crossing of a major road over the river Cam at this point. That road may be a much earlier track along the route of the old A303 (prior to the construction of the Sparkford by-pass) as suggested by Aston (Aston, 1985b, 146). The road crosses the River Cam at Sparkford Bridge today. However, evidence will be presented below to suggest that this road is no earlier than the late Saxon period, although a prehistoric ridge way may pass to the north of Sparkford along the approximate route of the A359. The eponymous ford at Sparkford may rather have crossed the Cam south of the village at Sparkford Mill. There is earthwork evidence in the field called ‘Lick Hills’ south of the church that a holloway headed to the river at this point. This ford may have been prehistoric in origin, following a route from the SW gate of Cadbury Castle towards the ridge way to Ilchester (see figure 6.15). The presence of a wellestablished route linking the Cadbury estate with Ilchester throws further doubt on the use of Sparkford for water borne transport.

patterns, towards a more holistic approach in which roads are considered as an integrated part of the landscape. In the 1960’s for example a group of researchers called the Viatores, under the guidance of Ivan Margary, sought to elaborate on the network of Roman roads in the SE Midlands. Their methodology entailed the study of AP’s, earthworks, limited place-names and excavation. The result was a rather attractive but contextually sterile graphic of proposed Roman routes linking known major Roman settlements (Viatores, 1964, 14-16 & 356-7).

This chapter then, will concentrate on the pattern of roads and tracks in the study area. They are an integral part of the landscape “…in that they have allowed virtually every other feature of the landscape to develop, and have themselves developed out of those features.” (Hindle, 2001, xi).

He warns “…virtually the only way to confirm field evidence of a medieval road is to demonstrate from the historical record that it was in use during that period.” (ibid. 7). Unfortunately, for the period in question, few historical records are available. Nevertheless Michael Costen has been able to locate a number of late Saxon roads in Rimpton through the comparison of a surviving charter with evidence on the ground (Costen, 1985). It is noteworthy that all three of the Saxon roads identified in the Rimpton charters follow the exact courses of modern roads and lanes. Furthermore, these are only roads that follow the bounds of the Rimpton estate suggesting that a very high proportion of Saxon roads are contiguous with medieval and modern lanes.

Brian Hindle outlined his methodology for securely identifying medieval roads in Cheshire (Hindle, 1989, 11 & 24-5): a) Plot all known Roman roads and some inferred ones. b) Use place-names, itineraries, old maps, village alignments and archaeological evidence (including holloways, double lynchets where roads have been cut into hillsides, earthworks and crop marks) to help plot medieval roads. c) Use post-medieval county maps to confirm the existence of some roads.

The ancient long distance route mentioned above is almost certainly not the only one in the study area. Long distance prehistoric routes must have existed linking South Cadbury to neighbouring hillforts. The possibility of identifying such routes with any certainty will be discussed in this chapter along with later long distance routes.

Hindle’s approach is rigorous and yet conceptually little different from the approach of the Viatores. It still seeks to identify roads through their study in isolation from the rest of the landscape. Peter Fowler has more recently stated that in order to date roads we must examine them “…not as single strands in isolation, but in their landscape context. The crucial perceptual development is for that context to become stratified, through detailed fieldwork, detailed documentary work, and through the melding of the two in interpretation minimally at two scales, local and sub-regional.” (Fowler, 1998, 32).

Long distance routes however are only one facet of the communications system; other parts of this chapter will focus on tracks linking nucleated and dispersed settlements with each other and their fields. Some geographical models will be considered and compared with the evidence on the ground. Firstly however, a brief outline of the methodology employed in identifying and dating the Roman and medieval roads and tracks of the South Cadbury area will be provided followed by a description of fieldwork results. Once the evidence has been put forward a discussion of the various patterns of communication will follow.

Thus it is that many roads and tracks have been identified and dated during the course of this integrated landscape study. This chapter follows naturally the one on field systems in which tentative dates for field alignments have been proposed. The analysis of the association of roads and paths with these field systems has enabled their stratigraphic relationship to be revealed. Where field system and track are completely integrated it can be concluded that, if not the actual position of the track, its

Methodology A very brief synopsis of the methodologies followed by previous researchers into the communications pattern of South Somerset has already been provided in the introduction above. In general the trend has been away from considering roads in isolation as a single facet of the landscape or in conjunction solely with settlement 86

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Jurassic scarp to Sigwells where geophysical survey and excavation have revealed occupation from the Neolithic to the Late Romano-British period (Tabor & Johnson, 2000; Figures 6.3 & 6.4).

alignment can be considered to be contemporary with the field system. Similarly if the field system butts the track or the track cuts the field system a relative chronological sequence can be inferred. This analysis has to be combined with a host of other techniques and landscape features in order to refine, confirm and tie down the chronologies. It is perhaps the use of geophysical survey coupled with small-scale excavation that has produced the most reliable results. These have then been inserted into larger scale maps and combined with all the techniques outlined above such as field observation, cartographic and documentary analysis, the study of field and place names, village morphology and geographical systems analysis. The results have been incorporated into maps showing the Roman, medieval and modern communications pattern (figures 6.14, 6.15 and 6.16). It is the comparison of these maps that has formed the basis for much of the discussion later in this chapter. In addition to this exercise a number of case studies on a smaller scale have been incorporated, including North and South Cadbury, Corton Denham and Queen Camel. Fieldwork Results a) Geophysical Survey A significant number of roads and tracks have been identified through fieldwork carried out by volunteers under the direction of Dr. Richard Tabor for the South Cadbury Environs Project. It has been possible to attempt to assign a date to many of them through the programme of shovel and test pitting and excavation carried out in conjunction with the gradiometer surveys. Probably the most significant of these discoveries is the fact that Church Road, South Cadbury has been in continual use since at least the middle Iron Age. It has already been noted that successive MIA, LIA, RB, PostRoman, Saxon, medieval and modern settlements have been aligned upon it. The medieval, Saxon and PostRoman settlements are centred on the Church and Manor. The Roman and Late Iron Age settlements were situated further south around ‘Blacklands’. Further south still was the Middle and Late Iron Age settlement at the Moor, Crissell’s Green and East Field (figure 4.11). It seems that in the Middle Iron Age Church Road originally ran further east at its southern end, through the southern corner of The Moor into the western end of Crissell’s Green and then south into East field. Although the geophysical survey ends at this point, the Middle Iron Age track may have continued towards Whitcombe. Although there is only scant evidence for Iron Age settlement at Whitcombe, the fact that a settlement exists here by at least the Late Saxon period might suggest that this track continued in use until the medieval period. Today, however, the most direct route from South Cadbury to Whitcombe is along a footpath, which may represent the alternative Late Saxon and Medieval route. This footpath continues east past Whitcombe and up the

Figure 6.2: Magnetometer survey, Henehill & Stone hill, Sutton Montis Further west another gradiometer survey (figure 6.2), in fields called Henehill and Stonehill, in Sutton Montis, has revealed the route of two earlier tracks connecting South Cadbury and Parrock Hill. It is thought that these tracks relate to a possible settlement consisting of a rectangular structure near to their junction. It is suggested that this settlement is Post-Roman or Early medieval in origin because it is approximately coincident with the few sherds of Saxon pottery found outside of the manorial centres during the course of SCEP fieldwork. The two tracks head towards either side of Parrock hill, where a modern footpath follows the western route as it crosses Parrock hill. The course of it is still marked by a double lynchet. These tracks probably represent part of an early medieval route from South Cadbury to Sherborne. This 87

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 6.3: Gradiometer survey Crissell’s Green, South Cadbury & East Field, Sutton Montis

Romano-British routes or earlier Post-Roman or early medieaval routes Figure 6.4: Late and post-Roman routes south of South Cadbury 88

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 6.5: Cheese Hill, Holway, Tr1 W facing section

Figure 6.6: Cheese Hill, Holway, Tr1 plan of upper road surface F001 These have all been dated to the Romano-British period through excavation.

theory is supported by the fact that the eastern route heads towards the ‘girt’, a narrow pass through which the modern lane from South Cadbury to Corton Denham and Sherborne now traverses (see figures 6.3 & 6.4). Furthermore, it is this pass which gives rise to the name Corton, the earliest recorded form being Corfetone (Thorn & Thorn, 1980,87b), corfe meaning pass.

The Romano-British settlement at Englands, Charlton Horethorne has already been described in chapter 4. The excavated evidence suggests that occupation continued in to the 5th century. Place-name evidence suggests occupation into the 8th century at least. Throughout this time the settlement appeared to be aligned on a single road. There are a number of interesting points about the road. Firstly it followed the same alignment (ENE-WSW) eastwards into the Blackmore vale towards North Cheriton. We have already seen in chapter 5 above that

Other significant lengths of road or track have been revealed through gradiometer survey at Englands, Charlton Horethorne (Davey, 2004b), Palmer’s Barn, Middle Field and New Close, Sandford Orcas (Cooper & Davey, forthcoming), and Cheese Hill, Holway (ibid.). 89

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY survey, anticipated the intersection of three ditches rather than a metalled road, the trench was not located across the full width of the road. It is presumed that on the downslope side of the road a positive lynchet will have been constructed, in the field immediately north of Cheese Hill earthwork evidence of just such a double lynchet survives (figure 6.7).

the western slopes of the Blackmore vale are home to a vast field system composed of parallel ENE-WSW alignments. These alignments originated in the Iron Age. A number of Romano-British sites are listed in the Somerset HER, although there is only meagre evidence to support them, two lie on the same alignment as Englands if it were continued west at Silver Knap (PRN 53670, 53672). Another lies on a parallel alignment south of Englands at Windmill Hill (PRN 53667) (see figure 6.15). The shepherding complex at Palmer’s Barn, Middle Field and New Close has been described fully in chapter 5. It seems clear that the multiphase double ditched track associated with it was primarily a seasonal drove leading from the high pasture on Patson Hill, Castleton, to the sheep management centre and possible market below. This drove may have been in use since the late prehistoric period, although the excavated evidence suggests a 2nd century AD date for its heyday. It is worth noting that this drove was parallel to the proposed Sherborne-Marston Magna Roman road, which was itself thought by Aston to be on an earlier system of alignments (Aston, 1985b, 146-8).

A) Double lynchet marking the line of a Roman road north of Cheese Hill, Holway.

b) Excavation at Cheese Hill, Holway The Romano-British settlement at Cheese Hill has already been described in chapter 4 and the excavation is to be published elsewhere (Cooper & Davey, forthcoming). However, excavation at this site produced evidence for a well-constructed Roman road, which will be discussed briefly here. Trench 1 was located at the junction of three linear magnetic anomalies: a possible BA ring ditch; one side of the supposed double ditched track; and a later linear (see figure 4.2). However, the strong magnetic anomalies associated with the double ditched track were revealed to be dark soil layers (1005 & 1007) containing frequent flecks of charcoal (figure 6.5). These overlay a layer of densely packed rubble (1004) interpreted as deriving from either a domestic building or barn. Finds within it suggested that the building collapsed in the 4th or 5th centuries.

B) Holloway at Charter Lane, Galhampton, North Cadbury

The Road: (figures 6.6 & 6.7) The demolition layer 1004 lay directly on top of the upper surface of a well-constructed metalled Roman road. This mound of rubble would certainly have ended the effective life of the road, providing us with a TPQ of the late 4th/early 5th century for its use. However, this does not mark the end of the settlement site because later ditches clearly cut the road on the gradiometer plot (figure 4.2). C) Double lynchet skirting the west side of Parrock Hill, Corton Denham (looking SE from Cadbury Castle)

The road had a number of different elements to its design and construction. The first event in the chronological sequence was the cutting of a terrace into the slope in order to create a level surface on which to lay the road. Because the project design, following geophysical

Figure 6.7: Roman and medieval road earthworks

90

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET roads generally had 2 layers: a foundation layer or ‘bottoming’, and a surface layer (ibid. 58). The resulting surface in this case, although disturbed in places by the later road surface, was almost perfectly level. Variations across the surface were restricted to a few centimetres. One exception was the development of a 5cm deep ‘u’ profiled rut within the cobbled surface. Discrepancies such as this probably led to the resurfacing of the road.

A number of deep ruts were cut into the levelled terrace (1017 & 1019 figure 6.5). It was thought that 5cm deep ruts below the Otterbourne-New Forest Roman road in Hampshire (Margary 422) had been made by Roman construction traffic (McAvoy, 1986). Davies notes that deep ruts can build up quickly if construction takes place in wet weather (Davies, 2002, 64-5). Nevertheless, the ruts at Holway are up to 35cm deep, many, and interlocking. Although they might have been made by construction traffic, the sandy soils are prone to erosion as witnessed by the many holloways in the area (note the name Holway); it is equally possible that the first phase of this road was not metalled. Furthermore, it is also possible that the double lynchet road terrace was formed progressively through the passage of traffic rather than planned construction. Either way, ruts of this size would certainly have rendered the metalled road surface essential.

It is possible, though not entirely clear, that the earliest road surface (1013) was associated with a kerb (1014). Only 7% of excavated Roman roads had kerbs. They were more common where such stones were easily available and were particularly useful for keeping surfacing in place on steep terracing. Kerbstones were often robbed out for later surfaces or buildings (ibid. 63). Thus although kerbs are rare, this site meets the criteria for their more common usage. At the edge of 1013 larger, flattened and sub-rounded oolite flags were set amongst the cobbles (figure 6.8).

The earliest road surface (1013, figure 6.8) was composed of well laid cubed oolite cobbles (up to 10cm) with rounded edges, laid on top of a mixed layer of similar but more angular cobbles, some of which were pitched into the clay subsoil. This was all set into a greenish brown sandy silt matrix containing frequent flecks of charcoal. The latest pottery recovered from this layer dated from the second half of the third century AD. Davies notes that sandy soils are relatively good for building roads on (ibid. 54). Thus it seems that the jumbled foundation layer functioned merely to create a level surface on which to lay the regular cobbles. Roman

The upper road surface (1009; figure 6.6) seems to have been constructed by laying large oolite blocks directly on top of the previous road surface. The resulting uneven surface was smoothed over by filling in the gaps with small oolite cobbles. Unfortunately, no diagnostic sherds of pottery were recovered from 1009. Numerous Iron nails were found within the layer, more frequently towards the base. It is presumed that these were waste and functioned as filler

Figure 6.8: Cheese Hill, Holway. Tr1 plan of earliest surface

91

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY majority of animal bones recovered from the road surfaces were bovine. It is possible that the settlement had an involvement in cattle farming. The upper road surface was actually wider than the lower one. A similar situation occurs at Corfe Mullen in Dorset. Here the Roman road from Hamworthy to Badbury Rings Margary 4d) got progressively wider with two successive re-surfacing (see Britannia 9, 1978, 462). As has already been mentioned, the full width of surfacing was not exposed at Holway; however, the suggested width from the geophysical survey is about 20 Roman feet (pedes). This is a common width for Roman roads and would have been ample for the passage of 2 carts side by side. According to Roman law a road must be at least 8 pedes to be called a Via (Davies, 2002, 67-74). It is interesting to note that the average width of the Fosse Way is only 18 pedes (ibid.). The implication is that the road at Holway is well constructed and comparable with many major Roman roads. Caution must be taken however; the Holway road has been sectioned as it passes through a settlement. It is possible that the metalled surface only extends as far as the settlement itself where increased traffic, cattle etc may have rendered such an arrangement necessary. Further excavation would be necessary to explore this point. One last structural feature needs to be described, the side ditch (F001, figures 6.5 6.8). Not all Roman roads had side ditches and they seem to have acted as soak aways rather than drains because they were not generally waterproofed (ibid. 72). This is certainly the case at Holway. The ditch is ‘v’ shaped in profile, up to 15cm deep and 35cm across. It seems to have been dug in association with the later or upper road surface (1009). The only artefacts recovered from the ditch were small fragments of Black burnished and grey ware, none of which were dateable with any accuracy.

Figure 6.9: Cheese Hill, Holway. Finds from upper road surface (1009), fragment of shale spindle whorl in bottom left corner. along with the cobbles. A few of the nails were hobnails and might have originated from the surface of the earlier road. One amorphous lump of lead was also recovered from this layer. This last artefact might suggest domestic waste as does a fragment of shale spindle whorl (figure 6.9) recovered from the kerb associated with the upper road surface (1012). A number of RB shale spindle whorls have been recovered in the region, probably originating at Kimmeridge in Dorset (Leach, 1982, 217). Examples similar to the one from Holway have been recovered from late 3rd and 4th century contexts at Ilchester (ibid.), Catsgore (Ellis, 1984, 28-9) and Sigwells (Tabor, pers. comm.).

Discussion At Holway then we have a Roman road constructed in the mid-late 3rd century AD, resurfaced probably around the turn of the 4th century, and closed in the late 4th/early 5th century. At this time at least one well-constructed stone building collapsed into the road, possibly at the same time or shortly after its course was diverted through 90o to the west (figure 4.2, phase 3). Later, ditches containing only badly worn residual Roman pottery cut the line of the road. The dimensions and method of construction of the phase 2 road, as it passed through the settlement at least, are comparable to many major Roman roads. Indeed it compares favourably with the main arterial route through Somerset, the Fosse Way. Nevertheless, the road at Holway was not a major arterial route and differed from the Fosse in a number of important points. Firstly, the route of the Fosse was meticulously surveyed so that the direction of Lincoln from Exeter was known within a fraction of a degree (Davies, 2002, 40). The Fosse was probably a military route constructed in the 1st

The upper kerb (1012, figure 6.6) was more perceptible than 1014 below it. It consisted of a double line of faced oolite blocks up to 20cm in length. It seems to have been constructed after the road surface, which appears to underlie it in places. 1012 yielded pottery sherds with date ranges from the late 3rd to the late 4th century AD. Considering that the earlier road surface can be dated to the late 3rd century, it seems likely that the upper surface would not have been constructed until the early 4th century. This date is consistent with the finds. The 92

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET century AD. It seems unlikely that the planners of the Holway road had similar resources at their disposal. Instead, it seems that the route of the Holway road was integrated within either a pre-existing or contemporary field system. Elements of this field system have been described in chapter 5 and the late 3rd century date for the construction of the road does not contradict conclusions from that chapter.

c) Earthwork evidence i) Holloways: The Yeovil and Pennard sands are well known for being soft and for quickly forming holloways where cut by a road (Hardy, 1999, 140-5). These upper and middle Lias beds outcrop in a band that is intermediate between the Jurassic scarp to the east and low lying lower Lias clays to the west. It is this gently undulating ground stretching from Holway and Sandford Orcas in the south to Galhampton in the north, in which all of the holloways in the study area are found. Depth of holloway does not necessarily mean great antiquity, volume of traffic is also important. However, deep holloways in this study area are taken as evidence of at least medieval origin for the road. The holloways listed above (Holway and Dark Lane, Sandford Orcas) are at least medieval and possibly Roman in origin. Other deep holloways occur at:

It seems that in the 3rd century AD field systems were rationalised resulting in an upturn in the economy of Roman Somerset. Buildings throughout the region were constructed in stone and a wealthy agricultural settlement at Holway built itself a road of similar dimensions to the Fosse Way. The route of this road can be traced into the field north of Cheese Hill where it is aligned with a modern footpath. This route can be traced thence to Corton Denham and the Girt where it almost certainly connected with the Roman or earlier routes depicted in figure 6.4. Figure 6.10 shows a number of likely Roman routes passing through Corton Denham. As mentioned earlier, the earliest form of this place name is ‘Corfetone’; Corfe means a pass. Thus it was the enclosure on the route from Cadbury to Sherborne. The name, recorded in 1086 suggests that the route predate the place. Even today the route from South Cadbury village to Sherborne passes through Corton Denham. In the 18th century no less than three such routes crossed the parish from north to south (Dunning, 1999, 101). The evidence implies that a number of routes have passed through this area since at least the 3rd century and they have tended to multiply over time. This bundle of tracks formed part of one of the main routes through the study area and will be discussed in more depth below.

Blackford Hollow, Blackford (ST657264) thought by some to be on the route of the prehistoric Harrow Way. The name ‘Blacaford’ mentioned in a lost 10th century charter (Finberg, 1964, 139), suggests a pre-existing route here. The route south of Blackford village is not clear but may head towards the Roman settlement at Silver Knap, Charlton Horethorne. It is certainly a medieval lane connecting Blackford village to Lower Woolston. Hick’s Lane, Galhampton, North Cadbury (ST647294) lies on the major N-S route which actually forms the eastern boundary of North Cadbury parish and a putative early medieval multiple estate centred on South Cadbury. Similar alignments at Gilton have been dated to at least the 3rd century. Charter Lane, Galhampton, North Cadbury (ST642290) see figure 6.7. The fields around this lane are known as Hulbridge and hulmead, suggesting hill for the first element (Gelling, 1984, 170). But the earliest recorded forms (1610) include Hollwell, Holbridge and Holemeade suggesting a hollow (Bates Harbin, 1936, 184). Whether this refers to the lane itself or the stream valley is not clear. The road is clearly old; the name suggests it had been used as a boundary on some lost charter possibly delineating the manor of Galhampton or the deserted Stoke Galhampton. This lane is integrated with field system alignments originating in the Iron Age.

Of course, the place-name Holway, first recorded in 1327 (ibid.), has special significance for this discussion. The holloway to which it refers is the lane that runs up the Jurassic scarp east of the hamlet. Again the name suggests that this lane was already a holloway by 1327. The geophysics plot (figure 4.2) provides us with the faintest of hints that the Holway Roman road turned east and headed for this holloway at the southern end of the survey, suggesting that this too may be of Roman origin. In the medieval period, as today, this lane linked the villages of Poyntington (further east) and Sandford Orcas via Holway. If the alignment is continued past Sandford Orcas another holloway is encountered at Dark Lane, Sandford Orcas (figure 6.10). The sides of this holloway are so deep and steep that it resembles a disused quarry. However, no such quarries are recorded here and it is almost certainly a holloway. This lane then continues west towards the Marston Magna-Sherborne road which was itself probably Roman or earlier in origin.

Lower Woolston Lane, North Cadbury (ST653275) This deep holloway is on a lane that follows the boundary of an early land unit centred on Woolston Manor. The boundary is probably middle Saxon in origin. ii) Double lynchets: Apart from those at Holway and Parrock hill (figure 6.7) an import double lynchet can be seen at Beacon lane where earlier courses of the road have left their mark on the side of Beacon Hill. This is part of a medieval or early medieval route from South Cadbury to Milborne Port.

93

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 6.10: Romano-British and medieval routes through Corton Denham and Sandford Orcas.

94

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 6.11: Stratigraphic relationship between field systems, parish boundaries and roads in NE Blackford the Gregorian reforms of the 12th century (Addleshaw, 1954, 3) and some field systems can be dated through archaeological evidence. In this way it is possible to date certain roads. This can be illustrated with some case studies.

Cartographic and Documentary Evidence Cartographic evidence is of great significance to this study. The import lies in the horizontal stratigraphy that can be revealed between roads and fields through the study of maps. In general there are three layers to the horizontal stratigraphy as revealed in maps: field boundaries, parish boundaries and roads. If dates can be attached to one or more of these landscape features then the others can be tied in to the chronological sequence. Generally, parish boundaries can be dated to at least to

a) The A303 in Blackford (figure 6.11) cuts through a field system, whose alignments may be Middle Iron Age in origin. However, part of the Blackford parish boundary utilises the road. It would appear then that this stretch of road is later than the Middle Iron Age but earlier than the 95

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 6.12: Stratigraphic relationship between fields, boundaries and roads in Sherborne (after Keen, 1984, 217, figure 73) South Cadbury and Sparkford. This road respects even the prehistoric field system.

13th. The fact that the road is there by the 13th century is supported by the presence of a 13th century wayside chapel at Chapel cross, South Cadbury located at the junction of the A303 and the lane from North to South Cadbury. This stretch of road must have been deliberately planned and constructed because it cuts across enclosed fields and is likely to be either Roman in origin, or a Saxon herepath. The fact that it is a direct route, avoiding settlements but linking the SW with Wessex, suggests that the latter be more likely. Furthermore, the relationship of other roads to it is revealing. The road linking Blackford to Lower Woolston cuts through a field system NE of Blackford village that is morphologically prehistoric. However, the regular N-S aligned, rectilinear field system around Lower Woolston respects the same road, This latter system is likely to be 3rd century or earlier. Lower Woolston Lane is also on this alignment and is respected by the boundary of a 1-hide unit at Woolston added to North Cadbury c.1086. They seem to ignore the A303 and might predate it. It would appear, however, that other roads are added later to link the new putative herepath with nearby settlements including Lower Clapton, Woolston Manor and Sigwells. The earliest route in this area may well be the lane linking the villages of Maperton, Blackford, Compton Pauncefoot,

b) The B3145 north of Sherborne clearly cuts through an earlier NW-SE aligned field system. This field system is respected by the 1086 county boundary and certainly predates it. Keen (figure 6.12) has studied this system and concluded that it was middle Saxon in date because it is aligned on a herepath mentioned in the 10th century Rimpton charter. “With no dating evidence to the contrary it may be proposed that [the system] around Sherborne is of middle Saxon date, here laid out under episcopal authority” (Keen, 1984, 238). We now, however have dating evidence to the contrary. Keen, working in Dorset, did not realise that the field system continues over the county boundary into Holway where we can now date its origins to between the late Iron Age and the 3rd century AD. This field system was in existence during the life of the Pinford Lane RB settlement that, later, can be linked with the site of Llanprobus. In 705 the settlement was moved to the centre of the new see at Sherborne. The road is then 96

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 6.13: Possible early routes for a ridge way in North Cadbury and Sparkford road cuts through field systems dating to the 3rd century or earlier. Alternative routes have been suggested based on field names and alignments. The routes through the Ridgeway and Wilford group of names are certainly medieval or earlier in origin, linking Sparkford, North Cadbury and Galhampton. The N-S route in figure 6.13, known locally as King Arthur’s Hunting Causeway, also respects 3rd century field alignments and might link South Cadbury’s SW gate with the putative prehistoric Ridgeway.

realigned to cut through the Roman field system. This road was called the Bristol road in the 18th century, a route past Sigwells and the eastern boundary of North Cadbury to Shepton Mallet and Bristol. Today the main route is the B3145 to Wincanton, which cuts across RB systems in Charlton Horethorne. c) The A359 from Sparkford towards Frome, depicted in figure 6.13, might be a prehistoric Ridgeway linking the Harrow way with South Cadbury and Ham Hill. However, on its present course the A359 turnpike 97

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 6.14: Modern A and B class roads (prior to improvements to A303) modern lanes and paths may well be of Romano-British derivation, they have been deliberately left off the map.

Discussion Figures 6.15 and 6.16 pool together all the information summarised above into two maps outlining the communications system either side of the post-Roman period. It must be stressed that figure 6.15 does not profess to depict every Roman road in the study area and has concentrated on roads that can be shown, with good evidence to be Roman or earlier in origin. These will tend to be the major routes and even though many of our

“…we must not ignore the possibility that many of our roads and lanes originated from these Roman tracks. There is no way of proving this, however, and the undoubted attraction of linking known Roman roads to existing roads and so building up a completely specious system of routeways needs to be avoided at all costs.” (Taylor, 1979, 83). 98

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 6.15: Roman or earlier communications pattern

99

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 6.16: Early medieval communications pattern

100

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET 1998, 38-40). There is certainly a duality to the landscape traversed by the South Cadbury bundle of tracks, and there is evidence of seasonal shepherding droves at Sandford Orcas. However, the fact that these routes join two important settlement sites suggests that transhumance may be only one facet of their function. A tangle of tracks is common on unenclosed land where routes are free to wander. This may have been the case along parts of the scarp slope and top. It has been suggested that the road along the top of the scarp from Blackford to Sherborne was part of a prehistoric Ridgeway called the Harrow Way (Timperley & Brill, 1965, 67). Part of the putative Harrow Way in Blackford has been shown to be medieval in origin (figure 6.11) and an alternative route might be from Shepton Montague to Galhampton along the approximate line of the A359 and thence south along our ridge top road to Sherborne.

It has already been argued in chapter 5 that much of the landscape in the South Cadbury region has been enclosed into an organised field system continuously used since at least the 3rd century. In such circumstances many of the tracks between these fields must also have been continuously used. Nevertheless they are not possible to isolate from the palimpsest that is the modern landscape and no useful information will be gained by attempting to represent them. It must also be noted that, in figure 6.16, many more lanes have been depicted simply because much more is known about settlement in the early medieval period. This does not mean that the area was less densely populated in the RB period, or that there were fewer interconnecting lanes. It is merely a reflection of the comparative paucity of data available for the RB period.

Other significant Romano-British routes depicted in figure 6.15 include one from South Cadbury towards Ilchester. There is good evidence for a prehistoric route from the SW gate of the hillfort heading west. Geophysical evidence from a field called nine acres in Weston Bampfylde suggests that a road along this alignment passed a settlement/industrial complex here during the RB period. This road probably crossed the Cam near Sparkford and traversed Camel hill to Ilchester. It is not clear as to whether a prehistoric Ridgeway existed along the approximate route of the A359 from Sparkford towards Frome. The Sherborne-Marston Magna road is probably part of a Romano-British route linking the Pinford Lane settlement to Ilchester. A lane called Steart Lane on the western boundary of Queen Camel parish follows part of the proposed Ilchester territorium boundary. Such names frequently represent the Saxon designation of a pre-existing Roman road. Finally, a probable Iron Age route from South Cadbury to Sigwells may continue eastwards towards the RomanoBritish settlement at Englands, Charlton Horethorne. Evidence for part of this route has been revealed through geophysical survey at Englands. The remainder follows field alignments, which are fossilised in modern field boundaries and lanes leading to Sigwells.

Of course, it is the transition between the two periods that concerns this volume. The purpose of this discussion then is to identify differences and similarities between the two maps and propose a mechanism through which differences can be explained. The late Romano-British pattern is depicted in figure 6.15. The most striking feature is the bundle of N-S routes passing through the centre of the study area. It is important to note that this line approximately follows that of the Jurassic scarp, with the western most tracks lying at the foot of the scarp or halfway up, and the eastern most running along the top (at least from Compton Pauncefoot to Holway). The latter route is followed by the turnpike road from Bristol to Sherborne but clearly predates it, being respected by parish boundaries almost along its entire length. The western routes passed through the Romano-British settlement at South Cadbury, Corton Denham and Holway (including the metalled road there) on to the settlement at Pinford Lane. This collection of routes was approximately on a line between the large Romano-British settlement at Fosse Lane, Shepton Mallet and the Durotrigian Civitas capital at Dorchester. Thus it may have represented an alternative and geographically more direct route from the Fosse way at Shepton Mallet to Dorchester, avoiding Ilchester. It also provided access to these large settlements for the many rural settlements along the route. South of Sherborne there was a well-attested Roman road leading to Dorchester. The route north of the study area is not clear and detailed work would need to be undertaken to uncover it. However, it almost certainly passed through the gap between Pennard Hill and Lamyatt Beacon. It is also possible that the earliest part of Castle Cary, including the church, was aligned on this route (Aston & Leech, 1977, 27-30).

It seems that the Romano-British communications pattern in the South Cadbury region is dominated by the location of the larger settlements, Ilchester, Dorchester and Fosse Lane, Shepton Mallet. In fact, there are a disproportionate number of settlements along the major N-S route. Improved communications links affect the economic potential of those living and working on or close to it. Geographer Michael Chisolm, in analysing Von Thunen’s 19th century spatial model of agricultural land use, noted that the introduction of a line of communication superior to the means of transport prevailing generally greatly affects the land use patterns. The more intensive and economically profitable zones of production, normally located closest to the market, elongate along the improved transport line (Chisolm, 1968, 34). The modern equivalent of this effect is

Peter Fowler, at Fyfield and Overton, in Wiltshire has identified a similar bundle of tracks. Here they form part of the Ridgeway prehistoric route. He interprets them as old transhumance routes across the Marlborough Downs from lowland pastures to high summer pastures (Fowler, 101

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY very rare in the region until the 10th century or later. The archaeological evidence suggests that, in Charlton Horethorne parish, during the RB period dispersed settlement was indeed the norm and that this probably continued into the early Saxon period. In the remainder of the region, although nucleated settlements did develop, dispersed settlement also remained. Here the rectilinear network of lanes, integrated within the RB or earlier enclosed field system, was retained. It must be concluded therefore that prior to nucleation in Milborne Port and Charlton Horethorne, a rectilinear road pattern prevailed. Evidence for this can be seen in the way the modern radial lanes cut across the earlier field system in Charlton Horethorne (figure 6.18). Originally the radial routes would merely have been paths winding their way with right angle bends around the rectilinear fields. The temptation to take short cuts across fields would be considerable. After a while the short cut becomes the norm and would be more passable than the neglected and overgrown former route. As traffic increases, the route might be maintained and evolve into a road.

industrial estates multiplying close to motorways and railways. In the Romano-British period major roads served this function. The relationship between roads, settlement and land use is truly reciprocal and, although many Romano-British settlements remain to be discovered in the study area, 3 out of 5 confirmed settlements lie on the N-S bundle of tracks. b) The early medieval pattern or more precisely the late Saxon pattern, depicted in figure 6.16, is derived largely from documentary evidence. The manors listed in Domesday, along with known early medieval dispersed settlement sites, and their interconnecting lanes have been plotted. We can be confident that the lanes connecting late Saxon settlements are themselves largely late Saxon or earlier in origin. Michael Costen’s study of the 10th century Rimpton charter demonstrates that 100% of modern roads located on the parish boundary of Rimpton were already in existence by the 10th century (Costen, 1985). These documented 10th century herepaths and others that can be implied through horizontal stratigraphy have been added to figure 6.16. Romano-British roads that can be shown to have continued into the medieval period have been included in red. There are a number of interesting points arising from the analysis of figure 6.16. Firstly, although it appears that there was a great proliferation of settlement sites between the RB and late Saxon periods this is based on the increase in documentary evidence for settlements and does not reflect the archaeological record. The archaeological evidence from Holway suggests that many Saxon dispersed settlement sites may have had RB predecessors. With this in mind it is worth comparing figure 6.16 with figure 6.17. The latter is a hybrid hypothetical communications pattern based on theoretical links between neighbouring settlements. Each settlement would require a link with its nearest neighbour. The pattern is a hybrid because it has been modified to more closely resemble the actual pattern on the ground. Where hypothetical links between small, dispersed settlements do not exist in reality they have been excluded from the pattern. This aids clarity. However, links between dispersed settlements and their nearest nucleated neighbour and between nucleated settlements have been included regardless of the modern pattern. Aston attempted a similar exercise in the region between Ilchester and South Cadbury and demonstrated that the actual communications pattern differed significantly from the hypothetical one (figure 6.1). The predicted pattern consisted of a network of radial roads emanating from each settlement towards their nearest neighbours. The real situation resembles a rectilinear grid of roads (Aston, 1985b, 148). The same pattern can be seen in the South Cadbury region most obviously in figure 6.16 but also to a limited extent in the predictive model. The area where the radial pattern is dominant is in the SE of the study area at Milborne Port and Charlton Horethorne. It seems that where nucleation became most dominant and dispersed settlement almost eradicated, then the radial patterns are most complete. Nucleated settlements were

It is interesting to note that modern developers in newly enclosed land, such as in the Dutch Polders, have learnt that agricultural land and farm holdings are most economically laid out in squares or rectangles. This arrangement is a compromise allowing relative ease of planning, economical use of land, communications and the aggregation of dwellings into hamlets. The radial communication pattern associated with central places is modified, in the Polders, to meet the needs of the outlying farms (Chisolm, 1968, 123). The compromise lies in the fact that, for ease of farmimg alone, the farm should be located at the centre of a roughly circular plot of land. However, dispersed smallholdings are more difficult to run in isolation, and the rectilinear arrangement allows for neighbouring farmers to aggregate alongside a road. The fact that land has been divided by a linear system of droves since at least the late Iron Age in SE somerset and North Dorset, suggests that these rectilinear patterns of land holding may have originated here over 2000 years ago. In parts of the region then, a shift in settlement pattern from dispersed to exclusively nucleated, in the late Saxon period, resulted in a change to the communication pattern. Another late Saxon modification involved the establishment of herepaths, probably in response to Viking invasions from the 9th –11th centuries AD. Three are named in the 10th century Rimpton charter. Two of them probably connected the royal mints of Milborne Port and Ilchester, and the other Ilchester with Sherborne. In this respect Marston Magna became a site of strategic importance, at a junction of herepaths, and may explain the location of a moated manor and embanked village there. Other strategically important late Saxon routes would have linked Bruton, another royal estate centre and mint, with Ilchester, Milborne Port and Sherborne (figure 6.16). Some of these appear to have utilised pre-existing Romano-British routes. However, some were new roads, 102

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 6.17: Hypothetical medieval communications pattern

103

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 6.18: Rectilinear and radial patterns, Charlton Horethorne planned and cut through earlier field systems, deliberately avoiding settlements for fast, unobstructed, long distance travel. The A303 before the construction of the Sparkford and Ilchester bypasses is a good example (figures 6.14 & 6.11). There are documents to support the theory that roads were constructed and maintained as part of military service. The Trimoda Necessitas for example, links the maintenance of bridges with other military duties such as

maintenance of fortifications and military service. These common burdens were first mentioned in charters in the 8th century (John, 1960, 62). Furthermore, the laws of Cnut (1020-23 AD) dictate that “If anyone neglects the repair of fortresses or bridges, or military service, he is to pay 120 shillings compensation to the King in the area under English law, and in the 104

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Danelaw as it stood before” (Whitelock D (ed), 1979, 464).

Conclusions In the preceding chapters a picture has been built up of an integrated landscape system established in the South Cadbury and Ilchester region between the late prehistoric and late Romano-British periods. This involved a dispersed settlement pattern slotted into an extremely efficient rectilinear field system and communications network. Archaeological evidence in support of this interpretation is continually accumulating from a variety of sources (Lovell, forthcoming, for example) backed up by the fact that much of the system is still discernable in the modern landscape. The extraordinary level of continuity is particularly evident in field alignments although a similar level of continuity should be expected for settlement and communications patterns. That the evidence for this is not as clear may merely reflect the difficulty in obtaining a comprehensive data coverage for these other landscape phenomena. Where data is available a high level of continuity for both settlement and communications patterns can be demonstrated.

This also implies that the repair of bridges, and presumably the maintenance of herepaths, was a task connected with military service. Thus the word herepath may actually mean a road maintained by the army. This situation is reminiscent of the military use and maintenance of major roads in the Romano-British period, a concept that seems to have continued into early English law. This could be taken to imply a degree of consensus in post-Roman politics, whereby petty kings are best able to enforce laws that are perceived to be just and ‘traditional’ by the populace. These new roads were partly necessary as a result of a shift in the settlement hierarchy. In the Romano-British period the major routes served Ilchester, Dorchester and Fosse Lane, Shepton Mallet. Large rural settlements or villages existed at South Cadbury, Pinford Lane and Englands, Charlton Horethorne. By the late Saxon period the important settlements were Ilchester, Sherborne, Milborne Port, Bruton and, to a lesser extent, South Cadbury. Sherborne is set apart from the others, having documentary evidence for a settlement shift in the middle Saxon period. A 14th century cartulary mentions a gift of 100 hides at Llanprobi to the new Minster church at Sherborne in AD 671which itself becomes the new episcopal seat for Wessex west of Selwood in AD 705 (Hall, 2000, 11). It seems likely then that a new road serving Sherborne originated in the 8th century. This road supplanted one to the old Romano-British and PostRoman settlement at Pinford Lane and the associated chapel of St.Probus, The new road clearly cuts 3rd century or earlier alignments (figure 6.12). A final point of note is the rise of the major E-W route in the south of the region along the line of the modern A30. This route is well attested from the 14th century when it is depicted on the Gough map (c.1360) from Shaftesbury, through Sherborne and on to Crewkerne (Hindle, 1989,17). As it passed through Sherborne it cut the early field system and so must post date the 3rd century. It is likely to be later than the establishment of the episcopal seat in the 8th century and may itself have been a late Saxon herepath linking Salisbury with Exeter via Wilton, Shaftesbury, Milborne Port, Sherborne and Crewkerne. The major EW road in the Romano-British period would have linked Silchester with Dorchester via Old Sarum. This route was deliberately blocked on the Hampshire/ Wiltshire border by the construction of the Bokerley Dyke in the late 4th century possibly as a temporary measure against the Barbarian conspiracy of 367 AD. Later however the dyke was reconstructed and the road permanently and deliberately closed (Taylor, 1979, 86). It seems that the amount of traffic between Wessex and the sub-Roman SW did not warrant a major route until the late Saxon period and the establishment of the A30 route.

However, the evidence is also witness to significant episodes of change, notably in the early 5th century, the middle Saxon period, and the late Saxon period. How do these changes in communications inform us about socioeconomic and political change during the Roman to Medieval transition? Hard and fast archaeological evidence has been presented both for routes linking major late Romano-British economic and political centres as well as local networks. On a sub-regional scale roads link the civitas capitals of Ilchester and Dorchester as well as the economic centre at Fosse Lane, Shepton Mallet. Here, recent excavations directed by Leach and Hollinrake suggest that the site remained an important lead recycling centre into the 6th and possibly 7th centuries. Furthermore, the location of two substantial Romano-British settlements on the Fosse Way, either side of the Mendip ridge at Camerton and Shepton Mallet, suggests that they represent centres of redistribution that developed to service the lead mining industry at Charterhouse on Mendip. Camerton would have been well placed to serve markets in the north, and Shepton Mallet, markets to the south and west. Thus major routes in the region emanate from Fosse Lane, Shepton Mallet to Exeter, Ilchester and Dorchester, as well as a possible route along the Polden ridge to the Combwich passage on the mouth of the River Parret. The N-S aligned bundle of routes that pass through the study area link Shepton Mallet and Dorchester. Furthermore, the establishment of an efficient agrarian system by the 3rd century AD was linked to economic growth in Somerset and the rest of the province. Villas were constructed in stone and substantial roads were constructed connecting rural settlements such as Holway, South Cadbury and Pinford Lane to important market centres at Ilchester, Dorchester and Fosse Lane, Shepton Mallet.

105

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY distance communications networks were re-established partly on new alignments. Where old Roman centres were still important as at Ilchester and South Cadbury, Roman roads were still used. However, where royal estate centres had grown into urban centres with mints and Minsters, such as at Milborne Port and Bruton, new roads were cut through the pre-existing landscape. Many of these new centres had become economically significant in the region for the first time in the early medieval period. Developments in the late Saxon period, then, reflect sweeping socio-economic changes; a rise in urbanism; improved long distance routes maintained by a better organised military system, itself supported through a reorganisation of land holding into manors; nucleated settlements; and communal farming, must be linked to a rise in complexity of state structure and organisation.

Long Distance trade such as this could not be maintained in the post-Roman period however. In the late 4th and early 5th centuries the political climate changed and became unstable. Travel became dangerous, markets were localised and through routes at Holway and Bokerley dyke were deliberately closed. However, rural society and economic conditions were much more stable. The region had been experiencing an economic boom and the populace may have been relatively content with the status quo. There were no major social upheavals in the South Cadbury region then, on the contrary agrarian systems, land holding and settlement patterns remained in tact. Major communications routes were disrupted and markets became more localised. During the sub-Roman period a pattern emerged comprising core areas of intensive economic production centred on a redistribution centre (such as South Cadbury, Ilchester and Lanprobi) with peripheral areas in between composed of unenclosed downland, wood and marsh. During the middle Saxon period, possibly associated with the accession of the region into the kingdom of Wessex, the areas of waste began to be taken in to arable cultivation and enclosed within a dispersed settlement pattern. Some new lanes were established to connect these settlements to the pre-existing system. On a local and sub-regional level it was perhaps Sherborne that made the most dramatic rise in status during this period. A local estate centre on the site of a Romano-British rural settlement at Pinford Lane had established itself as a post-Roman religious centre dedicated to St. Probus. In the 8th century, however, it became the episcopal seat for a new diocese of Wessex (west of Penselwood). As such it represented a centre of pilgrimage on both a local and regional scale. The more significant of the new routes in the region reflect this change; the maintenance of an old drove, possibly late Iron Age in origin, as a herepath linking Sherborne and the royal mint and estate centre at Ilchester; The alteration of the major N-S route through the region to link directly with the new Minster at Sherborne, cutting across established local routes and field boundaries; and the establishment of the first major E-W route linking the region to the South East since the closure of the Bokerly Dyke. The rise of this latter route, the modern A30 could be taken as corroborative evidence for the authenticity of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which mentions the military conquest of Somerset in the latter half of the 7th century. It is perhaps less controversial however, to consider the socio-economic changes reflected in the development of E-W communications. The Southwestern economy looked more to the east and the burgeoning trade with the continent via the thriving entrepots at Hamwic and Wareham. In the late Saxon period there were some widespread changes that may all be connected to the Viking invasions and the rapid rise of the house of Wessex to political supremacy over the whole of England. Major long 106

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Chapter 7: Burial Practices Following a brief discussion on each of these issues the excavation evidence from the seventh century cemetery at Hicknoll Slait, 1km east of South Cadbury Castle, and its position within them will be discussed.

Introduction The study of burial practices and cemeteries is of great importance for elucidating the Roman to Medieval transition. This is certainly the case in the South Cadbury Environs in which the 7th century cemetery at Hicknoll Slait provides the only archaeological evidence that can be securely dated to the transitional period. EsmondeCleary has noted that burials provide the only archaeological evidence that spans not only the period but also the different regional archaeologies in the 4th to 7th centuries. The burial record, in which there is a premium on artefact studies, traditionally dominates Anglo-Saxon archaeology. Landscape archaeology in the Anglo-Saxon regions is an “…archaeology in timber” (EsmondeCleary, 2001, 91). Conversely, the settlement record dominates Romano-British archaeology although information derived from burials is also plentiful. Britonic or post-Roman archaeology in non-Anglo-Saxon areas is artefact poor and also an archaeology in timber, however it also has a few burials. In the past, a culturehistorical approach to, in particular the Anglo-Saxon migration period, meant that cemeteries were used as second-class evidence for locating settlements in the context of Germanic immigration rather than as first class evidence for locating the dead. The intention of this chapter is to treat funerary evidence on its own merits.

Late and Post-Romano-British Cemeteries in the south west There is a particular class of cemetery, initially defined by Phillips on the 1966 OS map of Britain in the Dark Ages, and refined by Rahtz (1977). They are described as either late or sub-Roman, with W-E aligned burials in rows, a lack of grave goods, not clearly Christian or Pagan although generally thought to be more akin to the former but not associated with churches or monasteries (Watts & Leach, 1996, 11). The type-site for this class of cemetery is considered to be Cannington (Rahtz et al, 2000), a cemetery of 542 excavated burials possibly spanning the 4th to 8th centuries. Other cemeteries falling into this category include Henley Wood (Watts & Leach, 1996), Brean Down (Bell, 1990), and Lamyatt Beacon (Leech, 1986). These cemeteries are all adjacent to late Romano-British temple sites and will be discussed further below. Others, closer to the South Cadbury area, include the cemetery associated with the late Romano-British farmstead at Bradley Hill near Somerton. Here 49 excavated burials were aligned W-E (Leech, 1981, 201). At Northover near Ilchester a cemetery of up to 1500 WE aligned burials was dated to the late Roman and earlypost Roman periods. Grave goods were rare but this was not due to poverty or lack of status as revealed through the presence of lead lined coffins (Leach, 1994, 91-100). Late Roman burial at Poundbury near Dorchester in Dorset was also coffined and involved mausolea similar to a building excavated at Lamyatt Beacon. Burial continued at Poundbury into the early post-Roman period when it was typified by unadorned and occasional cistlined graves (Green, 1996, 129-33). That this type of cemetery continued in use into the seventh century in the southwest is clear from sites such as Shepherds Farm, Ulwell near Swanage in Dorset. Here 57 graves were excavated, oriented W-E and dated by C14 to the 7th century. There was a remarkable paucity of grave goods although a single sided Iron knife was found on the pelvis of burial 50 (Cox, 1988, 45). In contrast, by the 7th and 8th centuries in Dorset a number of more typical Germanic graves can be identified associated with a higher occurrence of grave goods. These include Bradford Peverell and Mt.Pleasant near Dorchester. Cox suggests that the Isle of Purbeck, where Ulwell is situated, was more heavily Romanised and retained its Romano-British culture until later (ibid, 46). It is also possible that Dorchester, where the concentration of 7th century Germanic burials are to be found, being the capital of the Durotrigian Civitas, was the first place to be occupied by the invading Saxon elites. It is also in the 7th

Issues pertaining to the burial record from each of the different periods and groups outlined above will be examined. The evidence from the environs of South Cadbury will then be fitted into this broader scheme. These issues include the continuity of burial practice from the late Romano-British period to the Post-Roman period in the South west; the debate surrounding socalled final phase Anglo-Saxon cemeteries which model a transition from early pagan Saxon cemeteries to Christian burial in churchyards; the re-use of ancient monuments for burial grounds and the occurrence of Saxon burials with boundaries. This last point raises the issue of the interaction of the dead with the world of the living in the late antique and early medieval psyche. A number of late and post-Romano-British cemeteries coincide with late Roman temples in Somerset and Dorset. The localities in which this occurs tend to be on hilltops directly associated with or in close proximity to Iron Age hillforts. Furthermore the flourishing of late RomanoBritish pagan temples in the region has led to a debate on the state of Christianity in the late and post-Roman periods. The final point for discussion will be the nature of the transition from the indigenous late antique style of W-E aligned, unadorned burial in the south west, separate from settlement; to burial in churchyards, a transition that may only have been completed by the 12th century Gregorian reforms.

107

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY been suggested that the 7th century cemetery at Hicknoll Slait represents the westernmost extent of the Saxon advance by the 7th century. In fact, stable isotope analysis on two of the skeletons recovered from this cemetery suggests that the individuals buried there were raised locally (see below). A further cemetery consisting of at least 11 burials, one reputedly with a Saxon style sword, was discovered during quarrying on Camel Hill, Queen Camel (PSANHS 1941 vol. 92, 47-8). Unfortunately, the location of the sword, the date of the cemetery and the alignment of the burials are all unknown. However, the percentage of graves with grave goods is less than 10% and might indicate that this is either not a pagan Saxon cemetery or it is a late one. It could be argued from the meagre evidence available that it displays a mixture of indigenous and Germanic cultural traits. The position of the cemetery on the highest point on Camel Hill is consistent with other Somerset cemeteries on high points at Hicknoll Slait, Lamyatt Beacon and Brean Down.

century that the cemetery at Hicknoll Slait, 1km east of South Cadbury Castle, was in use (see below). This cemetery displays a curious mixture of Saxon and Romano-British cultural traits, which will be discussed below. Another 7th century cemetery in Somerset, described as Saxon and containing some grave goods is at Camerton. Here a total of 115 burials were excavated, 28 contained Iron knives and a few others contained domestic and dress items. They were all aligned W-E in rows. Some of the graves had a sprinkling of charcoal over the bodies (Horne, 1929; 1934), possibly part of a rite, which may also be echoed at Hicknoll Slait. W-E burials in rows with few grave goods have been classified in Anglo-Saxon contexts as ‘final phase’, a concept that will be discussed below but generally meaning a transition between pagan furnished cemeteries and Christian cemeteries in churchyards. Apart from Camerton, it has been suggested that a late Saxon cemetery at Templecombe, Somerset be classified as final phase (Newman, 1992, 70-71). Here a total of 11 skeletons, aligned W-E, were excavated with no grave goods in association with earthworks of a possible deserted Saxon dispersed settlement (ibid, 64-7). However, it is possible in Somerset that these late cemeteries actually represent a continuation of the late Romano-British burial tradition, but with the addition of some Saxon traits from the 7th century. The majority of the W-E aligned cemeteries described above have been relatively large in extent. However, King Alfred’s College, Winchester, has made a recent discovery at Stoneage Barton Farm, Cothlestone near Bishops Lydeard. Here Somerset County Council excavated a small cemetery containing at least 5 graves, one of which was Carbon dated to the mid 7th century (Webster, 2000a). It seems that some smaller cemeteries associated with dispersed settlement complement the larger ones such as Cannington, which would have served a wider community. If the number of cemeteries known for the period 400-700AD is counted, there is a huge shortfall of burials considering the population at the end of the Romano-British period and the environmental evidence, which suggests continuing landscape exploitation in the post-Roman southwest. A possible explanation is that many more small cemeteries, unadorned and associated with dispersed settlement await discovery by chance. Furthermore, considering the evidence for wandering settlement in this period, these cemeteries could lie almost anywhere.

There is a dramatic difference between the pagan weapons burials and the unadorned burials in churchyards 2 centuries later. This change is coincident with equally dramatic changes in the rural landscape. Pagan burial grounds tend to be associated with a landscape of dispersed settlements, churchyards with one of nucleated villages. The phrase ‘final phase’ was first coined by TC Lethbridge in the 1930’s concerning putative Christian burials with grave goods in East Anglia. Over the years it has been refined in an attempt to explain the transition from pagan burial grounds to Christian churchyard cemeteries. The main elements comprising a final phase cemetery are: absence of cremations; W-E aligned burials arranged in rows; absence of artefacts in graves except for a knife or utilitarian clothing objects; weapons burials are rare but where present the shield boss takes the tall sugar loaf form; there are no burials prior to the 7th century but the final phase cemetery is sometimes adjacent to an earlier pagan cemetery disused by the 7th century; there is a Christian influence and the cemetery is closer to settlement than the preceding pagan cemetery. Boddington has shown that this model is too dependent on the conversion to Christianity as the explanatory factor for changes in the burial record. The shifting of burial to churchyards for example is coincident with the rise of the manorial system and associated nucleation of settlement in the later Saxon period (Boddington, 1990, 177-197).

Pagan Saxon and ‘Final Phase’ Cemeteries An important point arising from the earlier acceptance of the final phase model is that it may have influenced Horne to suggest that a cremation burial at Camerton, Somerset was earlier than the W-E aligned burials in rows there (Horne, 1934, 62). However, in the SW of England it is equally possible that this supposed Saxon cemetery is actually of the late/post-Roman type with a later Saxon cremation added in the 7th century. The similarity of ‘final phase’ W-E aligned cemeteries with the indigenous W-E aligned cemeteries of the SW adds

Pagan Saxon burial grounds are easily identifiable by the presence of Germanic style weapons or dress ornaments in a high percentage of the graves. Activity in the pagan burial grounds is minimal by the 8th century, which means that their distribution can be used to indicate the extent of Anglo-Saxon territorial control during the 7th century. Bruce Eagles has argued for a piecemeal Saxon, advance into Dorset from the evidence of 7th century Germanic style burials (Eagles, Pers. Comm.). It has also 108

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET weight to the argument that by the 7th century a mixture of Romano-British and Saxon traits were being adopted by neighbouring and competing kingdoms. It will be seen below that the cemetery at Hicknoll Slait with its sugar loaf shield boss can be interpreted in this way.

Boddington has also argued that Goodier’s statistical analysis does not resolve whether or not there is a formal association between burials and boundaries. It merely shows that there is a minority of Anglo-Saxon cemetery sites on boundaries (Boddington, 1990, 195).

Boundaries and the re-use of ancient monuments

The parish boundary between South Cadbury and Compton Pauncefoot does run within 50m of the 7th century cemetery at Hicknoll Slait. This does not necessarily imply a formal association between the two however. The parish boundary follows the Jurassic scarp, the major topographical feature in the South Cadbury region. Parish boundaries follow this feature along its entire length. The cemetery at Hicknoll Slait is positioned on a prominent hill with good intervisibility within other cemeteries at Lamyatt Beacon, Brean Down and Camel Hill.

The relationship of Saxon burials with parish boundaries has been discussed at least since the 1960’s. Meaney suggested that the Saxons deliberately chose boundaries for their burials (Meaney, 1964, 20) and Bonney went further by suggesting that the presence of Saxon burials on Boundaries was an indication that the said boundary was of greater antiquity than the Saxon burial. In fact the number of Saxon burials on boundaries implied ‘…the existence of a settled landscape clearly divided among the settlements at a time prior to any documentary evidence for such’ (Bonney, 1966, 28).

In fact “…the landscape context of early Anglo-Saxon burial sites provides considerable evidence for the social and ideological significance of the dead in early AngloSaxon society.” (Williams, 1997, 1-2). Anglo-Saxon genealogies suggest that ancestry and ancestors were important in their society. Ancient burial places or monuments were often given Woden’s name, a deity frequently at the head of Anglo-Saxon genealogies. It may be that ancestors were believed to dwell in such places long after funerary rituals were completed (ibid, 3). Williams has noted that 20-25% of all known AngloSaxon burial sites re-use ancient monuments as a focus and 54% of cemeteries of 10 burials or more, excavated using modern techniques, re-used an ancient monument as a focus. This practice of monument re-use became more frequent in the 7th century (ibid, 22), precisely the time at which burial on boundaries becomes more frequent. The relationship of the ancient monument to the settlements of the living may have been important in its choice as a burial site (ibid, 14). The cemetery at Hicknoll Slait might be a good example of this; it is one of the few vantage points from which it is possible to see the interior of South Cadbury Castle. The knowledge that ancestors were occupying that place may have offered some protection or consolation in the minds of the residents of South Cadbury. Thus it may be that not only in the Anglo-Saxon psyche does the world of the dead can sometimes meet with that of the living. The re-use of late Romano-British temples as burial grounds may bear testament to that. Williams makes the cautionary note that the use of Roman monuments may actually represent continuity of burial site rather than re-use after abandonment (ibid. 13). However, the style of cemetery at Lamyatt Beacon, Brean Down and Henley Wood suggest possible Christian reuse of a pagan temple site. At Lamyatt Beacon a Romano-British temple, possibly dedicated to Mars was built in the late 3rd century on a hilltop readily identifiable from much of Somerset and West Wiltshire. A cemetery of at least 16 W-E aligned burials was excavated in 1973 and dated by C14 to the 6th-8th centuries (Leech, 1986, 259). Of the 13 burials excavated 11 were female and only 1 certainly male. This

Goodier attempted to show, through statistical analysis, that boundaries were changing continuously until the middle Saxon period and only then became stable. Her reasoning for this was that there were more 8th century burials on boundaries (33%) than 4th (0%), 5th, 6th or 7th century burials. “Unless a factor is found to influence the siting or survival of burials which itself changes through time, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the present relationship between civil parish boundaries and early Anglo-Saxon burials was produced by the Anglo-Saxons burying their dead on their own boundaries and that there was very little continuity in the recognition of earlier boundaries” (Goodier, 1984, 9,14). Goodier failed to realise that the factor, which changes through time influencing the siting of burials, was human choice. In the 4th century no Saxon burials are found on boundaries because cemeteries at that time were located outside the walls of urban settlements and close to but outside rural settlements. Roman law dictated this and the burial custom changed only slowly until, by the 7th and 8th centuries, the existence of competing petty kingdoms demanded that territorial boundaries were reinforced through the invocation of ancestral rights. This was achieved by the siting of burials within earlier monuments on ancient boundaries. Goodier’s assumption that the placement of burials on boundaries occurred at a stable rate from the 5th to the 8th centuries was flawed (ibid. 15). It may have been inspired by the discredited ‘middle Saxon shift’ model in which the changing relationship between settlement, burial and boundary from the early to late Saxon periods is explained by burial site remaining stable while settlement and boundaries shift. This volume has clearly shown that boundaries are remarkably constant from the late prehistoric period and that some settlements and burials shift in the middle Saxon period.

109

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 7.1: Select post-Roman religious foci around the Somerset levels (sites in black inter-visible with South Cadbury) (after Leech, 1986, 260) suggests that gender may be as significant as status, religion or ethnic affiliation in the understanding of variations in burial style. Possibly associated with the cemetery was an E-W aligned rectangular building, which has been interpreted as early Christian by comparison with oratories on Church Island. The temple itself is of similar plan to one on Brean Down, 40 years later in construction but also associated with later W-E aligned burials (ibid, 270-1). Other late Roman temples with post-Roman W-E aligned cemeteries include

Nettleton, Henley Wood and Maiden Castle. The distribution of ritually significant sites in central Somerset tends to be arranged on the higher ground surrounding the Somerset Levels. These include Iron Age hillforts with later evidence for Romano-British temples, other temple sites, post-Roman cemeteries and putative early Christian eremitic sites (such as Glastonbury Tor). The levels themselves, on the basis of place name evidence may have provided a unifying landscape feature for the Northern Durotrigian civitas and the people of 110

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Queen Camel may have served the Cadbury estate (Gittos & Gittos, 1989) but this ignores the evidence from the Cadbury estate itself. The late Saxon administrative system was based on hundreds in which vills were grouped together for the purpose of taxation and judicial matters. These hundreds were normally centred on a royal vill. These central places were also normally chosen for the site of a Minster church, although their parochial boundaries may differ from those of the hundreds. Thus Milborne Port, a large royal vill at the time of Domesday, is the central place for Horethorne hundred and the location of a Minster church. The pattern of property boundaries adjacent to the present churchyard at Milborne Port suggests that it may once have been larger (Aston & Leech, 1977, 92) and the likelihood is that from the 8th century inhabitants of those parishes later in Horethorne hundred would have been buried at Milborne Port. There is also evidence that the church of St. John the Evangelist at Milborne Port may have been constructed as a large cruciform church as early as the 10th century (Allen, 1935). Parishes within the study area that fall within Horethorne Hundred and whose inhabitants were likely to be buried at Milborne Port occupy the southern part of the study area and include Charlton Horethorne, Poyntington, Corton Denham, Sandford Orcas, Rimpton and Marston Magna (Figure 2.4).

early Medieval Somerset. The probable name for the Civitas Capital in the Roman period was Lindinis (lake) and the name Somerset, possibly meaning people of the summer lands (Dunning, 1987, 1&5) may pertain to a folk who pastured their stock on the levels in the summer months. Hicknoll Slait and South Cadbury Castle were both sited on the higher ground surrounding the levels and are intervisible with many of the sites mentioned above (Figure 7.1). Furthermore, there is some evidence to suggest that the cemetery at Hicknoll Slait reused the site of a Bronze Age ring ditch. The transition to burial in Churchyards It is clear that there is a distinct burial tradition in the late antique south west of Britain consisting of unadorned WE aligned burials in rows. This is distinct from the obviously pagan Saxon burials with grave goods of eastern England from the 5th to the 7th centuries. However, this distinction becomes blurred in the 8th century with the adoption of unadorned W-E aligned burial in rows in the east (sometimes called the final phase). Far from the accepted view of Saxon influence spreading west in the 7th century, it appears that Romano-British burial practices spread to the east. However, after the 7th century, direct burial evidence dries up in the South Cadbury Environs and throughout the southwest as a whole. It is only in the 12th century, with the Gregorian reforms, that we can place burials with confidence in parish churchyards. Although there is meagre evidence for the intervening period in the South Cadbury Environs, enough research has been carried out in neighbouring regions for a model to be constructed into which the limited evidence from South Cadbury can be fitted.

Interestingly, Marston Magna church also has structural evidence for Saxon origins and it is in the late Saxon period that the focus of rural administration and judiciary begin to shift away from the hundreds towards manorial courts. It is clear from the 10th century Rimpton charters that manors were forming by this time and many of the new manorial lords built themselves proprietary churches adjacent to their manors. Numerous dispersed manors may have once contained churches that have since disappeared for it is only in the 12th century that parishes with a single parish church are established. Thus the 13th century chapel at Chapel Cross, South Cadbury may occupy the site of an earlier manorial church, pictures held at North Cadbury Court clearly depict at postmedieval settlement at Chapel Cross. Similarly, the late Saxon burials excavated at Templecombe adjacent to deserted settlement earthworks (Newman, 1992) may represent the remains of a deserted manorial church and churchyard. Templecombe is itself in Horethorne Hundred and inhabitants of the above mentioned deserted manor might have been buried at Milborne Port from the 8th century, prior to the establishment of the small late Saxon cemetery there.

Blair in Oxfordshire and others in Somerset and Dorset have conducted this research. In Somerset Cannington cemetery, the type-site for post-Roman burial closes at about 700AD. This is precisely the time at which Minster churches are being established. The evidence from proposed Minsters at Shipton under Wychwood in Oxfordshire, Middlezoy in Somerset (Aston, Pers. Comm.), and Wareham, Wimborne and Iwerne minsters in Dorset (Hall, Pers. Comm.), is for shrinking churchyards. At each of these places burials have been recorded outside the present parish churchyard. The implication is that these Minster churches once served a wider populace than the present parish. In order to find 8th century burials in the Cadbury region it would be best to look in the nearest Minster Churchyard. However, no Minster has been located for the Cadbury region. This is despite the fact that Minsters were normally established at Royal estate centres of which South Cadbury was certainly one until the early 11th century. The other local Royal estate centres at Ilchester, Milborne Port, Bruton and Sherborne each had a Minster church. It has been suggested that a Minster at

The model developed above can be summarised as follows: a) 300-700AD – The southwest late antique tradition of unadorned W-E aligned burial in rows becomes dominant. Some burial grounds are large and are the precursors to Minster churchyards (Cannington for example). Others are small, such as Stoneage Barton 111

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY South Cadbury than the present dedication of St. Thomas a Beckett. Furthermore, the churchyard at South Cadbury appears shrunken. The present churchyard and the neighbouring field to the north (Court Close) are both raised above the road to the same level subdivided by an apparently later ditch. Caution is necessary however, many villages in Somerset suffered from demographic decline in the 13th and 14th centuries as witnessed by the number of deserted and shrunken village earthworks in the region. It is possible that graveyard shrinkage in South Cadbury is connected to this phenomenon rather than the presence of an earlier Minster.

Farm, Cothlestone, and associated with dispersed settlement. b) 700-900AD – The lack of funerary evidence suggests that the majority of burials are taking place within Minster churchyards, many of which are shrunken indicating that they once served a wider area (Milborne Port for example). c) 900-1100AD – With the rise of the manorial system burials increasingly shift towards proprietary churches. It is possible that unofficial burial in small plots continues throughout the period from 700 AD. Crucially, for the South Cadbury estate, the evidence is not so clear-cut. The late Medieval hundred of Catsash encompasses the Cadbury area but it is unclear whether this is a later division of Bruton Hundred or the continuation of the Domesday Blachethorna Hundred, which is itself associated with Bruton (Thorn, 1989, 345). It seems that Bruton, along with Frome and Yeovil, was a particularly large or ‘treble’ hundred incorporating the later hundreds of Bruton, Norton Ferris and Catsash (ibid. 36). However, it is clear that Cadbury was a very important royal estate in the 5th to 7th centuries. Even in the early 11th century royal mints are moved there from Ilchester, Milborne Port and Bruton in a time of trouble. By Domesday the royal estate had subdivided into privately held manors of which North Cadbury remains a large and wealthy one. The hundredal name Catsash must surely pertain to Cadbury and possibly to a hundredal moot at Three Ashes in North Cadbury parish. Furthermore, in the late medieval period, permission to found a college of priests at North Cadbury may imply a continuation of an earlier tradition for a Minster at North Cadbury. It is possible then that an early proto-hundred existed at Cadbury, which by the time it is first recorded in Domesday, no longer had an important Royal vill at its centre and so became subordinate to Bruton.

Despite the remaining speculation it is clear that a royal estate and proto-hundred were centred on Cadbury and burial at North or South Cadbury from 700AD is to be expected. These were preceded by apparently small burial grounds associated with dispersed settlement as evidenced by the cemeteries at Camel Hill and Hicknoll Slait. This tradition of localised burial could be expected to continue across the hundred of Catsash from 3001100AD. It is unlikely that a small and under resourced Minster, as was likely to have existed at Cadbury, would have been able to enforce burial at its own grounds from settlements up to 8 miles distant. However, the possibility that burial at Hicknoll Slait ceases in the 7th century might support the theory of a move to burial in churchyards at this time. The Seventh Century Cemetery at Hicknoll Slait, Compton Pauncefoot Introduction There was already known to be a seventh century cemetery on this site from observations made during the construction of a reservoir in 1966. The date rested on a shield boss fragment recovered from the spoil heap. Four burials were noted but only one was excavated in situ (Taylor, 1967, 67-9). It has not yet been possible to track down any notes and drawings that may have been made at the time. With this in mind and considering the proximity of the cemetery to South Cadbury castle, it was felt that geophysical survey in advance of a properly controlled and recorded archaeological excavation would yield important information, not only for this study, but also for Somerset in general. The site is particularly relevant to Saxon migration issues given its supposed date and proximity to the post-Romano-British centre of South Cadbury. It is recorded in the Somerset Historic Environment Record under PRN 53778.

Two other pieces of evidence suggest that North Cadbury church had previously been important in the region. In the 13th century North Cadbury is mentioned as holding a chapel in South Cadbury. Secondly a detached portion of North Cadbury in Blackford Parish contained Glebe belonging to the Parson at North Cadbury (Davey, 2004d, appendix 3). This suggests that the church of North Cadbury held rights in Blackford prior to the 10th century when the detached portion is first alluded to in a lost Charter (Abrams, 1996, 59-62) North Cadbury Church also held Glebe in the east Mendip parishes of Kilmersdon and Holcombe, which may be associated with the post-medieval Botreaux Estate rather than early medieval parochial arrangements.

Location At Domesday however North and South Cadbury are only distinguishable by size and not name, both being called Cadbury. It is equally possible that the aforementioned rights belonged to an early Minster established in South Cadbury, later transferred to North Cadbury. The dedication to St. Michael presently at North Cadbury would certainly be more appropriate at

The name Hicknoll means ‘high hill’. The cemetery is located at the crest of an Inferior Oolite ridge 1km east of South Cadbury (NGR ST63972503) near the western boundary of Compton Pauncefoot parish (Figure 7.2). The ridge runs southwards from Compton Pauncefoot towards Sherborne and rises to about 180m at this point. 112

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 7.2: Location of Hicknoll Slait and Camel Hill Cemeteries It is one of the few positions from where it is possible to see into the interior of South Cadbury Hillfort. On a clear day it is also possible to see Brean Down, Brent Knoll, Glastonbury Tor and Lamyatt Beacon (figure 7.1). The site provides a superb vista and burial here could be interpreted as an act of connection between the distinctive Central Somerset landscape and the ancestors.

The water reservoir constructed in 1966 is located at the western tip of the field known as Hicknoll Slait. The entire west end of this field has been left as ’set-aside’, although it has been regularly ploughed in recent years and it is not known how long it will be left uncultivated.

113

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY Fieldwork

Only 6 sherds of pottery were recovered from the entire field. This was probably due to the very stony nature of the plough soil causing rapid disintegration of ceramics when churned by the plough. 2 of these sherds were modern and found close to the 1966 water reservoir, the remainder being Roman or Iron Age. Distribution plots of such a small assemblage provide little useful information. However, plots of slag, and flint recovered from shovel pitting may be associated with enigmatic clusters of strong magnetic anomalies revealed through geophysical survey. It is possible that some form of industrial activity took place there. The recovery of refractive ceramic metalworking moulds from trench 2 supports this theory. Perhaps of more interest was the distribution of burnt stone, concentrated in the east of the field. Initial thoughts were that this delineated the cemetery. Subsequent excavation however, suggested that the cemetery was quite restricted in extent. If once it had covered a greater area much was probably damaged by the action of the plough (Figure 7.4). The volume of burnt stone is large and the distribution near the cemetery implies numerous fires associated with religious, funerary or signalling activity on this site. The Jurassic ridge has a number of cemeteries, temples and beacons along its length. Furthermore, curved anomalies revealed through geophysics and sampled in trenches 3 and 4 may indicate the fragmentary remains of a Bronze Age ring ditch.

Prior to excavation the whole area of set aside was surveyed with a gradiometer. The results are displayed in Figure 7.3. In association with this SCEP volunteers in accordance with SCEP methodology undertook a programme of Shovel and test pitting.

The Excavation The excavation took place over 2 weeks in September 2001and a full interim report has been published (Davey, 2002a). Only those aspects of the excavation relevant to this chapter will be discussed here. Figure 7.3: Hicknoll Slait, magnetometer survey

Figure 7.4: Hicknoll Slait, distribution of finds from shovel pitting

114

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 7.5: Hicknoll Slait, trench location plan particular. Apart from this preservation was excellent, the patellae were present, and the skull was entirely intact. The mandible was closed.

Trench 1a was located adjacent to and immediately north of the water reservoir with the specific purpose of finding further burials. Trenches 3 and 4 were located to examine a curved linear anomaly and its putative terminus (Figure 7.5).

The burial was remarkable for a number of reasons. The first of these was related to the complete skull and closed mandible. A large waste chunk of flint was recovered from inside the skull. It was a wedge shaped piece, measuring 3.5cm x 3cm and 1.5-2cm thick at the fat end of the wedge (Figure 7.7). It had become heat affected after it had been flaked. It is possible that it was already ancient when included in the burial, suggesting that it may have been some kind of charm or talisman. The facts that the skull was in tact, jaw closed and grave undisturbed, implies that this object could only have been deliberately placed inside the mouth as part of the burial ritual. Comparable rites have been observed in Late Saxon and Medieval contexts. At Raunds, a mid 10th century cemetery, one adult male who had suffered from poliomyelitis in his youth and had developed tuberculosis was buried with a stone in his mouth (Boddington, 1996, 41-2). At St. Nicholas Shambles, an 11th-12th century

Trench 1a This trench contained the two graves (F001 & F005), which were cut into the bedrock. Grave 1 (F001) Figure 7.6 Grave 1 was aligned approximately N-S and an irregular oblong in plan varying in width from 0.6m at the north end to 1.2m at the south end. The maximum depth of the grave cut was only 0.3m below the level of the bedrock and 0.66m below the present ground surface. The grave was undisturbed but the weight of large stones within the fill had crushed some of the bones causing limited deterioration to the rib and pelvic bones in 115

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 7.6: Hicknoll Slait, human burial 1 from the east

Figure 7.7: a) Flint in situ, b) scale drawing of flint

cemetery, 4 skeletons were buried with pebbles placed in their mouths (Schofield, 1988, 25). There was nothing remarkable about the pathology of these burials.

With all things considered, together with an impromptu reconstruction, it seems that the body had initially been laid on its side facing east. The hands may have been placed together with the left arm under the body. The feet were also crossed, perhaps in an effort to stabilise the body in this unnatural position. The fact that the jaw remained closed might indicate that it had been tied after the insertion of the flint wedge.

The Hicknoll Slait burial may provide an early example of a rite already noted for the Late Saxon period. It is not yet known if there is any evidence of a particular disease associated with this individual. However, a better parallel may be provided by a 3rd century burial at Crowmarsh in Oxfordshire. Here a worked flint was placed between the teeth of an individual and interpreted as a variation of Charon’s fee (Henig & Booth, 2000, 133). It has been suggested that the fact that the flint is hidden during the burial rite at Hicknoll Slait implies that this pagan practice was frowned upon in the 7th century, whereas at the 3rd century pagan Crowmarsh cemetery the payment was clearly displayed between the teeth (Davey, 2004).

This rendered the skull intrinsically stronger, possibly explaining the fact that it was still in one piece. As the grave was back filled, initially with rubble, the right shoulder slumped back onto the floor of the grave giving the superficial appearance of a supine burial. The third point of note was the inclusion of an iron knife with the burial. The knife was located on the right hip with the point upwards and fragments of a wooden handle preserved on the tang. The tip of the blade was detached and has been re-attached by the Wiltshire Conservation Centre. It is 120mm long with a straight back and curved cutting edge (Figure 7.8). It also has a thin flat tang common in Anglo-Saxon knives, distinguishing it from the Roman tangs which may be circular, square or rectangular in section (Rahtz et al, 2000, 326). This type has been classified by Evison at Dover as type 2 dating from 475-700 AD (Evison, 1987, 115). At Cannington 4

A second point of note was the position of the skeleton. Superficially it appeared to have been buried in the supine position with the skull facing to the east. However, when fully exposed it was clear that the upper left arm was under the thorax and bent at the elbow, reemerging in the lower pelvic area. The right arm was also bent at the elbow with the hand resting over the upper part of the left hip. The lower left leg was crossed over the right leg and the left foot lay on top of the right.

116

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET

Figure 7.8: Iron knife (below in situ) knives of this type were found in graves. One of these graves was dated by radiocarbon at the 1 sigma confidence level to 535-660 AD (Rahtz et al, 2000, 326 & 454).

Figure 7.9: Hicknoll Slait, human burial 2

When excavated the skeleton was provisionally assessed as an adolescent male from the teeth and pelvic angle. Specialist reports on the skeletons, and knife, are still pending, as is a funding application for radiocarbon dating. A tooth from each skeleton has been sent to Dr. Paul Budd of Durham University for Oxygen and Strontium stable isotope analysis, funded by the Maltwood fund. Provisional results from the Strontium ratios (F001 87Sr/86Sr = 0.70997 F005 87Sr/86Sr = 0.70979) are consistent with the individuals being raised on the Mesozoic geology of the South West and are a bit more radiogenic than would be expected from the Chalk of Wessex (Dr. Paul Budd, Pers. Comm.). It seems then, that the individuals buried here, in a pagan style, were raised locally.

The skeleton was extended in the supine position with the head to the NW. This skeleton was also well preserved but not quite as well as skeleton 1. The skull was fractured with the mandible separated from the cranium and lying at an angle to it. Cervical vertebrae had also become displaced. In this region flecks of copper and a fragment of a glass bead were recovered suggesting that a necklace possibly consisting of copper alloy links and glass beads had accompanied the burial. The vertebrae and jaw may have become displaced when the grave was robbed for this necklace. The fact that there is no sign of a robber pit suggests that this may have occurred shortly after the initial burial, although long enough for the body to decompose and disarticulate on disturbance. The right hand was also disarticulated from the right arm suggesting that a bracelet or ring may also have originally accompanied the burial.

Grave 2 (F005) figure 7.9. This grave was also in the form of an irregular rock cut oblong, varying in width from 1.25m near the head to 0.8m at the feet. The grave was aligned NW-SE and located 0.7m north of Grave 1. The cut had a maximum depth of 0.6m below the top of the bedrock and 0.84m below present ground level.

Trench 3 Trench 3 measured 2m x 4m and was located in order to section a curved linear geophysical anomaly. Unfortunately no finds were recovered from the fill although it is thought to predate the buried soils in trench

117

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Figure 7.10: Hicknoll Slait, trenches 2 & 4; plan sections and drawings 118

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Phase 1: Middle to Late Bronze Age

2 (2002 & 2003), otherwise residual pottery from EarlyMiddle Iron Age layers recorded in trench 2 would almost certainly have found their way into the ditch fill.

The multiphase ditch (F006, F008 & F009) and post-hole (F007) located in trenches 3 and 4 represent this phase. It is not possible to be certain about the nature of this fragmentary feature. It must suffice to say that it forms the remains of a Bronze Age ring ditch. This is significant given the prominent location and proximity of a 7th century cemetery.

Trench 4 Following the failure to recover secure dating evidence from the ditch in trench 3 (F006), it was decided to open another 2m x 4m trench at the supposed terminus of the ditch where a strong magnetic response had been recorded by the gradiometer.

Phase 2: Middle Iron Age

Evidence for a large post-hole (F007), inserted into the top fill of a multiphase ditch was recovered. The posthole was large and of elaborate construction (Figure 7.10). The fill (4002) consisted of tightly packed, vertically pitched, flat angular limestones, producing a visual impact that may have been significant.

Only represented by numerous sherds of pottery from buried soils preserved below later colluvial deposits in trench 2. Other remains of what must have been considerable industry have been ploughed away.

It also seems that the post pipe was discovered deliberately capped by a single large angular limestone block. The primary fill of the second phase ditch, (F008), which contained large stones pitched into the ditch may have formed rather more rapidly than the secondary silt. This implies that for much of the life of the ditch it comprised only a small open channel in the centre of sticky rubble fill. Before F008 another ditch (F009) had existed on a similar alignment. This had become almost completely silted up before F008 was re-cut. Although on similar alignments the two ditches do diverge slightly towards the north.

The cemetery itself represents this phase. 6 graves have been discovered since 1966, 2 of which were excavated in 2001. A seventh century date was proposed on the evidence of a fragment of shield boss recovered from the spoil heap in 1966. The evidence from this excavation does not refute that date, although it does open the possibility that the cemetery may have been founded in the 6th century. All 6 burials were rock cut inhumations. Grave goods accompanied at least 3; one with weapons; another with domestic knife and flint in the mouth; and the third with jewellery subsequently robbed. Four of them, relatively close together, were aligned West-East, one was aligned North-South and the last NW-SE.

Phase 3: Post-Roman/Anglo-Saxon

The fills of F009 displayed a similar dichotomy in their depositional regimes. The large angular stones in the primary fill suggest a rapid deposition compared to the secondary fill.

Ostensibly this is an Anglo-Saxon style cemetery with grave goods commensurate with that. However, similar objects have been found at Cannington where they are interpreted as Post-Roman. It is possible that this represents a native British cemetery at a location so close to the borders of Wessex that a large portion of Saxon material culture had been assimilated. Oxygen and Strontium analysis has demonstrated that the two individuals excavated in 2001 were of local origin and not Saxon conquerors of Cadbury.

The only artefact to be recovered from these multiphase ditches was a single, small, flint flake with a snapped tip from the primary fill of ditch F009 (4008). It is possible that this is residual. Again, the lack of finds suggests that all phases in trench 4, including the posthole, predate the buried soils found in trench 2. Both ditches are truncated ‘V’ shapes in section suggesting that they were probably dug no earlier than the Middle Bronze Age (Dr. Richard Tabor, Pers comm.).

Phase 4: Modern Pit (F004) cut into the top fill of grave 2, represents this phase. This may be a modern posthole for a boundary fence or beacon. The environment was open country as today when this pit was filled.

Summary There was very little in the way of stratigraphy surviving on the site. Ploughing in recent times, as deep as the bedrock in places, has truncated and probably destroyed many features. Where there is surviving stratigraphy it occurs in discreet negative rock cut features that cannot be related to one another. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish four broad phases of human activity on the site.

Discussion For a discussion on the significance of the prehistoric activity on the site see Tabor, 2002b. The cemetery on Hicknoll Slait is of particular importance for two reasons. Firstly, it is located 1km east of South Cadbury hillfort, itself occupied into the early 7th century (Alcock, 1995, 30). It has been noted that the 119

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY approximately N-S and containing artefacts reminiscent of Romano-British pagan burials (blue glass beads, a knife and Charon’s fee). It must be noted that the two groups of burials were only 1-2m apart and the N-S alignment of the northern group may have no more significance than conforming to the line of the adjacent Jurassic scarp. Only C14 dating will illuminate this matter and funding has been applied for.

cemetery maintains a dominant position over the hillfort and the entire interior is visible from it. This observation has led to suggestions that the cemetery may mark the burial place of victorious Saxon nobles, or even of warriors slain during the conquest of the British fortress. The stable isotope analysis results from two of the graves go some way to refute this assertion. The inhabitants of South Cadbury probably used the cemetery. A direct path from the east or northeast entrance of the hillfort to the top of Hicknoll Slait would make a fine processionary route. The burial of the dead in this dominant position might serve to reinforce ancestral claims on the Somerset Landscape, even in a Christian context.

Although many of the artefacts appear to be representative of pagan burial, the early Christian church was quite indifferent as to how its followers were laid to rest (Boddington, 1990, 188). The possible concealment of Charon’s fee, W-E alignment, paucity of grave goods and probable 7th century date suggest that there may have been a mixture of pagan and Christian traditions represented here.

The fact that the assemblage of grave goods recovered from the cemetery in 2001 and 1966 is broadly Saxon in style does not preclude the possibility that this was a British cemetery. Recent work by Helen Geake suggests that, certainly by the 7th century, neighbouring and competing kingdoms were adopting similar material culture (Geake, 1999, 203). Furthermore Rahtz et al insist that grave goods cannot assign ethnic affiliations; they could be acquired through trade, force, theft or gift (Rahtz et al, 2000, 416). This observation was made in connection with Cannington cemetery where the range of grave goods suggested contact with a variety of groups. At South Cadbury, even though the grave goods are predominantly Saxon, the sample size is too small to make judgements on ethnicity.

No further discussion on grave orientation or demography is warranted here because of the small sample size. No formal grave structures were recognised. All the graves seem to be cut in to the natural rock as the bedding allowed resulting in irregular grave outlines. The cemetery appears to be small in extent, possibly a function of the elite status of those buried there. Such an important and significant location may have been reserved for local leaders and their ancestors. However, Trench 1b demonstrated that the bedrock has been ploughed into leaving only a thin strip of undisturbed ground along the edge of the scarp. Evidence for further graves may have been lost. Equally further burials may have evaded detection by geophysical survey and sample trenching.

The second point that makes the cemetery at Hicknoll Slait of particular interest is that it seems to represent the westernmost extension of a tradition of Pagan burial in this period. By the beginning of the 8th century activity on pagan burial grounds is minimal and by the 10th century the transition to Christian burial grounds centred on church and manor is complete (Boddington, 1990, 177-8). Taylor, reporting on the discovery of the cemetery in 1966, suggested that it was Christian because the graves were aligned W-E (Taylor, 1967, 68). However, the presence of weapons in the spoil heap demonstrates that a mixture of customs is represented here. Furthermore, the suggestion that this cemetery marks the western expansive limit of pagan Saxon burial tradition is not supported by the preliminary stable isotope results. The implication is that the mixture of cultural traits exhibited at Hicknoll Slait is the result of a process of acculturation rather than migration. The idea that this cemetery should mark the western expansion of Wessex by the end of the 7th century is thus undermined. There may be a diachronous element to the Hicknoll Slait cemetery. The group of 4 burials observed during construction of the water reservoir in 1966 were all aligned W-E and at least one of them was accompanied by a 7th century sugar loaf shield boss recovered from the spoil heap along with a spear head and punched decorated metalwork (Taylor, 1967). This part of the cemetery has many features of a typical ‘final phase’ Saxon cemetery causing Taylor to suggest it was Christian in character. However, the two burials excavated in 2001 were aligned

Conclusions Up to this point the burial evidence has been considered purely in a funerary and ritual context. It is only in this conclusory section that an attempt will be made to move the interpretation up a theoretical level. Of the three supposed Saxon cemeteries in the South Cadbury region (Camel Hill, Hicknoll Slait and Templecombe) only the latest one at Templecombe could safely be called Saxon. Although there is little available information pertaining to the cemetery on Camel Hill it, along with Hicknoll Slait, does not fit neatly into either Rahtz’s south west late and post-Roman group of cemeteries or the typical ‘final phase’ type of Saxon cemetery. Instead these two, along with Camerton to the north seem to represent a mixture of the two classes along the interface between their respective distributions. Moreover, the development of so-called ‘final phase’ cemeteries already represents a step towards conformity with the southwestern burial tradition. It is generally considered that the SW burial tradition is characteristic of Christian ritual and in the past it has been tempting to see the merging of the two as a response to the development of Christianity in Anglo-Saxon areas. This has now been discredited for ‘final phase’ burials and the state of 120

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET 8th centuries neighbouring and competing kingdoms were adopting similar material culture of Romano-British or Byzantine influence in order to appeal to the heritage of Rome, still visible in the early Medieval landscape of Britain. The rise of the Roman church in Britain would have supported this process as is evident from the writings of Bede (Geake, 1999, 203-212). At Hicknoll Slait and Camerton then, the evidence for acculturation, or the mixing of cultural traits, may be a reflection of this process whereby neighbouring elites of previously distinct cultural heritage both profess to be the true heirs of Rome. Geake goes further by suggesting that the end of furnished burial in the early 8th century means that the populace had been convinced of their leaders’ Roman heritage and the institution of Kingship was secure (ibid. 214).

Christianity in the SW in the late and post-Roman periods is also still under debate. To explain the uniformity of the W-E burial tradition in the SW by the development of Christianity is far too simplistic. The re-use of pagan temple sites by W-E aligned burials and the presence of weapons and Charon’s fee in graves at Hicknoll Slait demonstrate that paganism was alive in Somerset throughout the post-Roman period. W-E aligned burial must have been common to both communities who lived and worked side by side in Somerset. If the growth of Christianity cannot explain the merging of traditions evident at Hicknoll Slait and other places, then what can? A number of recent studies have scrutinized the problem. Stoodley examined 7th century burials in Wessex from the perspective of gender. Early Saxon cemeteries were frequently marked out by gender: male graves contained weapons and female burials contained dress ornaments. However, by the 7th century the number of gendered burials had dropped to 24%. Stoodley argued that this was connected with wider changes in society associated with the rise of AngloSaxon kingdoms. A small number of male burials retained symbols of masculinity in the 7th century. These were set apart, tending to be located at re-used ancient monuments. Female burials were inclined to be restricted to artefact poor W-E aligned row-graves. This was explained by increasing stratification in Anglo-Saxon society. Earlier social systems were dismantled and the lines of descent may no longer have been traced through females. There was “…no longer a role for the symbolic expression of femininity in death” (Stoodley, 1999, 105). They re-use of ancient monuments might demonstrate that that the new male elites wanted to emulate the rich barrow burials of the new Saxon regional leaders. The stratification visible in the 7th century burial record in Wessex reflected a move away from a relatively flat ranked social structure to a more hierarchical state structure from the 5th to 7th centuries (ibid, 99-106).

This date coincides with Gelling’s for the adoption of the Old English language by indigenous British speakers. Analysis of place-names and the date by which the formation of place-names in welsh had ceased suggests that Old English had become a unified language for the whole of Anglo-Saxon England by the mid 8th century (Gelling, 1993, 54). Thus Gelling’s rhetorical question ‘Why aren’t we speaking Welsh’, as opposed to Old English or even French, may actually have an answer. It seems that the Anglo-Saxon elites generated a huge propaganda success with the aid of the Roman church in former British areas by appealing to a common ancestry and heritage. This is where the Normans failed only 2-3 centuries later. It seems then that the Anglo-Saxon conquest of the southwest in the 7th and 8th centuries as depicted in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle may only be a partial truth; the conquest may rather have been a merging of cultural heritage.

Williams also reflected on the more frequent re-use of ancient monuments in the 7th century “Ancient monuments could have served in political strategies to impose a common identity and sense of the past upon culturally and socially complex and heterogeneous peoples in lowland post-Roman Britain”. The Anglo-Saxon elites ay have used “…an ideology of common mythical origins and divine descent” to achieve this.” (Williams, 1997, 26). Geake also maintained that the rise of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is visible in the burial record. Her statistical study was based on 7th-9th century grave goods from areas of known Anglo-Saxon influence. The development of a new system of dynastic kingship required a mechanism by which this new power could be legitimised. This may have been achieved by looking back to the last time there was a supreme leader in Britain, the Romano-British period. Thus by the 7th and 121

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Chapter 8: Conclusions South Cadbury Castle is recognised as the most important site of the post-Roman period in Somerset (Webster, 2000b, 81), and as such is one of the few crucial sites in the country where detailed research can lead to a better understanding of this fascinating period. James has noted “Archaeology presents few issues more important to explore greater than the reasons this vast [Roman] empire…eventually transformed into the medieval world…” (James, 2003, 179). It is Unsurprising then that so many scholars, historians and archaeologists, have attempted to illuminate the ‘Dark Ages’. The level of interest in the period is reflected in the fact that four new books have appeared on the subject in as many years reflecting various and polarised views (Faulkner, 2002, 66). The polarisation of the debate concerning the end of Roman Britain has led to some vehement arguments and retrenchment of opposing views. Dark, for example, clearly has a personal agenda to interpret all evidence as representing political continuity in Britain from the 4th to 7th centuries (Dark, 1994; 2002). Faulkner on the other hand has an overtly political agenda. This, coupled with his grounding in the archaeology of Romano-British Urban sites, demands that he ignore the evidence for continuity of rural economy revealed through field systems and timber structures. Esmonde-Cleary (1989), is more even handed with the evidence and seeks to explain change through socio-economic process. And yet, like all students of post-Roman Britain, Esmonde Cleary still sets his explanations within a framework rooted in the culture-historical approach. As discussed in page 5, it is classical, Dark Age and Anglo-Saxon archaeology that has taken the longest to shake off culture historical baggage. This is particularly true of issues concerning the end of Romanitas and Anglo-Saxon migrations. This volume has shown that the Roman to medieval transition was more a socio-political and economic process originating in the economic and political crises of the 3rd century and culminating with the rise of the house of Wessex at the end of the 9th. To focus on individual events such as the point at which Roman culture could be said to end, or Saxon culture begins is to abuse the archaeological evidence and give too much credence to dubious historical sources. It is also common to confuse material culture with ethnic affiliation. Faulkner is very keen to highlight the cessation of the Roman suite of material culture as evidence for culture change but almost ignores the probability that in many areas the same peoples own or farm the same land from the late Iron Age to the early medieval period. This volume has sought to describe, explain and model the transition from classical to medieval in a small but significant part of southwest Britain. The purpose of this conclusory chapter is to firstly review the methodology, summarise the results and finally draw some wider conclusions implicit in the results with reference to key points flagged up in the introductory chapter.

Methodological Review As mentioned above, the core period of interest for this study has been approximately 250-900AD. Unfortunately the bulk of the archaeological evidence dates from the first century and a half of the period, the latter part not only having ephemeral and largely organic remains but also being aceramic in the south west of Britain and generally artefact poor. These simple facts make methodological considerations of paramount importance for any study of the period. Esmonde Cleary, in trying to set out a methodological agenda for the Roman to medieval transition, has noted that there is an imbalance in various aspects of the archaeological record covering the period (Esmonde Cleary, 2001, 90-91). Perhaps the most obvious to be highlighted in this volume is the difference between the settlement archaeology of the late Roman and that of the post-Roman period. This difference is a reflection of archaeological visibility rather than demographic decline. There is no evidence to suggest a mass epidemic, slaughter or starvation that would cause a sudden abandonment of stone buildings in the late 4th century. Indeed the environmental evidence firmly demonstrates rural stability at this time. It is clear that variation in archaeological visibility has a profound effect on our perceptions of the past (ibid. 91). There are perhaps two ways of overcoming such an imbalance. One would be to find modes of redress through the introduction of new techniques that render the invisible visible. The second would be to focus research onto evidence types that are equally visible across the period in question. The first option, i.e. finding a new technique capable of identifying post-Roman settlement may already be a reality. The work of Jackson et al. at Shapwick, Somerset demonstrated that heavy metal analysis is capable of identifying “…early settlement sites where there is little or no conventional archaeological evidence” (Aston, Martin & Jackson, 1998, 64). The mechanism behind the technique is reliant upon the assertion that certain plants retain higher concentrations of heavy metals derived from background levels in the soil. In this way heavy metals enter the food chain. Thus human and animal excreta and wood ash will enhance the heavy metal content of the soil at settlement sites. The methodology employed at Shapwick for the identification of aceramic low status agricultural settlements occupied between 400 and 900 AD involved the collection of habitative field names from documents and early maps. From this initial work certain fields were identified for field walking, geophysical survey and soil analysis. Soil samples were collected at regular intervals from recorded positions and then analysed in a laboratory. The results demonstrated that an increased 122

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Another methodological consideration arising from this study is that the rigid SCEP methodology, in isolation, has not proved the most effective way of understanding the Roman to medieval transition. In chapter 2 a preoccupation with prehistory was identified as the root cause, leading to a failure to incorporate heavy metal analysis and map regression into the project design. A multidisciplinary approach must form the basis of all landscape archaeological research for all periods. This volume has shown that when SCEP fieldwork results have been combined with cartographic and documentary research the results have been illuminating, not only for the late antique and early medieval periods but also for the late prehistoric period. Prehistoric field alignments identified and dated through a combination of geophysical survey, shovel pitting and open area excavation can only be fully understood when related to the wider historic landscape revealed through cartographic analysis.

level of certain heavy metals in the soil such as lead was a useful indicator of past settlement, even when no artefactual or physical evidence remained (ibid. 53-9). This technique and methodology would sit very well with those employed by the South Cadbury Environs Project. Soil sampling could be carried out as a matter of course every 20m during shovel pitting. The results could then be plotted on to a ready-made grid. Unfortunately the research methodology has been constrained by that of SCEP in this respect. The prehistory centred research design adopted by SCEP did not place a high value on revealing past settlement sites with no artefactual remains. Furthermore, the laboratory space and necessary equipment for this work to have been incorporated into the methodological design of this study alone, was no longer available at the University of Bristol. Moreover, the costs of contracting out the analysis of such a large number of samples to another institution were prohibitive. In addition, a very large budget would be required for Carbon 14 dating of key samples given the lack of artefactual dating evidence for the period. Nevertheless, the potential of the technique has been demonstrated and it may be possible to seek extra funding for this work in the future.

Furthermore, the lack of artefactual material relating to the study period means that post-Roman features or alignments identified through geophysical survey are indistinguishable from late Roman features if sampled through shovel and test pitting alone. This problem is not easily resolved. Possible post-Roman settlements have been identified at Milsom’s Corner and Henehill through SCEP methodology, although large open area excavations would be necessary to provide any chance of dating these sites. The use of field names to identify likely settlement sites was only a qualified success. Late Roman sites contained features that were stratigraphically post-Roman although only dateable to the 4th/5th centuries or later. Middle Saxon settlement sites remained invisible even when fields containing habitative name elements were sampled. The same problems occurred at Shapwick (Aston, Pers. Comm.). Nevertheless, this negative evidence was itself suggestive of ephemeral and wandering settlement, the evidence for which is easily ploughed away. Only in exceptional circumstances have settlement remains from this period been excavated in this country. It is the sheer scale of survey that enables conclusions to be drawn from the negative evidence. To date 180 hectares, equal to 20 percent of the sampling blocks within the core study area, have been covered by SCEP methodology. The sample strategy included a representative sample of soil types and topographic regions that, in a predominately dispersed settlement pattern, should have contained post-Roman and middle Saxon settlements.

It has been necessary then, to a certain extent, to work around the apparent imbalance in the settlement archaeologies of the late Roman compared to the postRoman period. This has been possible because a holistic approach to landscape archaeology has been adopted in which settlement patterns are just one facet of social and economic systems. Webster maintains that landscape studies will continue to prove fruitful in the study of ‘Dark Age’ Somerset (Webster, 2000, 83). This is precisely because of the imbalance in settlement archaeology across the period highlighted above and in chapter 4. The balance is redressed through the study of political and tenurial boundaries, evidence for which is certainly skewed towards the late Saxon and medieval periods, but which can on occasion, with great caution, be projected back towards the post-Roman period. This is particularly true where estate boundaries, centred on Roman settlements, can be shown to predate the earliest documented manorial boundaries. Furthermore, in the south of the study area, it has been shown that the hundred of Horethorne is based on a late prehistoric system of land use. In addition the evidence for continuity of field alignment and communications patterns across the study period demonstrates an archaeological balance for these categories of landscape features from the Roman to postRoman periods. This is despite the lack of artefactual evidence pertaining directly to the post-Roman period.

Settlement apart, the project methodology, modified to include documentary and cartographic evidence, complemented by targeted survey on sites considered to be of particular import for the study, has produced remarkable results. This is particularly true in relation to the agrarian landscape and tenurial organisation. It is in these aspects of land division that wide scale geophysical survey, coupled with documentary research, has proved most effective. This is of particular importance for this

It is clear then that the full range of landscape features need to be studied in order to fully understand the Roman to Medieval transition.

123

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY many wood and marsh place names at Domesday. Although the core area of the Cadbury estate was relatively small (41 Domesday hides) the medieval hundred of Catsash covers an area similar to that predicted by Burrow using Thiessen polygons for an Iron Age estate centred on the hillfort of South Cadbury. Similarly, in chapter 5, the Hundred of Horethorne could be shown to be contiguous with an Iron Age field system. It seems then that the medieval hundredal arrangements are based, in some parts of the country, upon Iron Age political or tenurial units. These hundredal units may have survived through the Romano-British period as subdivisions of civitates (which themselves form the basis for counties in some areas).

volume because it provides a balanced view of the transitional period that cannot be achieved through the study of settlements alone. Moreover, evidence of this type of landscape division is of especial significance in the study of the hinterlands of South Cadbury Castle. The hill fort represents a known and securely dated high status settlement and estate centre of fluctuating importance from the late prehistoric to the early medieval period. Throughout this period the normal settlement pattern over the entire country is assumed to be a predominately dispersed one, although there is evidence for limited nucleation in the late prehistoric and Romano-British periods. Less well known is the pattern of tenurial organisation for the period. This is equally true for the Romano-British period, in which civitas boundaries can be approximated but estate boundaries are far more speculative. The methodology of large scale geophysical survey coupled with test pitting, sample excavation and documentary and cartographic research has proved to be a sound one for the elucidation of the environs of an important and known central place. It is a methodology that could be usefully employed in the environs of other known post-Roman estate centres.

These large units are equivalent to Faith’s early scirs and consisted of inland at their cores, which was probably managed as a multiple estate around a central caput, serving as a centre for redistribution, with dependant farms exhibiting a degree of specialisation arranged around it within the core areas. Peripheral areas around the core estates were called warland. Inland, exempt from geld and often royally owned, was organised to pay the kings feorm. The warland had looser ties to the central estate and was gelded in the medieval period (Faith, 1997, 15-91). Although it is unlikely that the exact rent or service arrangements between tenant and landlord will ever be known for the late and post-Roman periods the present consensus is that the manorial and feudal arrangements of the early medieval period ultimately have their origins rooted in the late Roman period (Esmonde Cleary, 1989, 114-5; Faulkner, 2000, 139). Tenurially the warland may have been subdivided into hides, which are first mentioned in the study area in 10th century charters. Some hide units such as Holway appear to originate in the late prehistoric or Roman periods whereas others with curved boundaries in marginal areas are enclosed during the middle Saxon period. The evidence presented in chapter 6 suggests that small rectilinear units may have developed at an early date in the area occupied by Horethorne hundred.

Summary of Results The volume has been arranged in order to provide a basis for the study of a post-Roman/early medieval estate at South Cadbury by firstly examining the evidence for tenurial units and boundaries. Once the evidence for estate boundaries had been established the socioeconomic systems within them such as settlements, fields and communications were studied. Finally religious and cognitive aspects of society were examined through the analysis of burial practices. It was also expedient to discuss estates and boundaries early in the volume. Much of the evidence derived from documentary and cartographic research was conducted in 2001 during the national outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Initial work (chapter 3) demonstrated that North or South Cadbury had clearly been an estate centre in the late Saxon period when dependant settlements such as Weston, Sutton, Compton, and Littleton etc were named. The area occupied by these dependant settlements was delimited by an early boundary, which could be dated to earlier than the 10th century by the comparison of an early charter, now lost, for Blackford with the tithe map. This provided a boundary for the core area of the Cadbury estate prior to the 10th century. Similar core areas could be identified for Ilchester and Sherborne in the study region. The Sherborne estate has documented evidence for its existence prior to the 7th century. It is likely then that these represent late antique estates formed either in the late Roman or post-Roman period, although it has been noted that there is no known late Roman unit of administration to which these estates could correspond (Esmonde Cleary, 1989, 198). The area between the core states appears to have been marginal land, including

Manors formed by two different mechanisms in the South Cadbury environs during the 10th century. Rimpton, for example, located in the marginal zone between core estates is clearly formed by the amalgamation of smaller 1-hide units (Costen, 1985). Those manors within the core estate areas were formed by the piecemeal fragmentation of the earlier large estates, firstly by the donation of lands to the church by the king and later to secular landlords. The settlement evidence (chapter 4), notably from Holway, South Cadbury, and Englands, Charlton Horethorne, suggests that the normal pattern for timber built structures from the prehistoric to medieval period is for shifting or wandering settlements. It is easier, once a timber building has exceeded its useful life, to construct a new one on a new plot rather than try and repair the old one. The site of the old structure, enriched in nutrients 124

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Jackson, 1998, 55). This is clearly the case for the settlements mentioned above whose lanes follow the alignment of a field system established in the 3rd century AD. Other villages such as Queen Camel, Sutton Montis, Sandford Orcas, South Cadbury and North Cadbury have formed through the amalgamation of dispersed settlement foci equivalent to Taylor’s (1983, 31-3) ‘polyfocal’ and Roberts’ (1977, 124-6) ‘composite’ villages. Some of these dispersed settlement foci originated with 1-hide units enclosed from waste in the middle Saxon period. Charlton Horethorne, Poyntington and Yarlington typify a further group of village forms; the classic nucleated village with radial communications pattern and abandoned dispersed settlements surrounding. This latter group represents a small percentage of the total settlement in the study area with most parishes retaining some dispersed settlements.

from human and animal excreta and fires, is put down to arable cultivation, which destroys the ephemeral structural remains. The result is the apparent imbalance in the visible archaeological record outlined above. It is often assumed that the apparent break in the settlement pattern is the result of demographic or economic collapse. The truth is that there are a number of different possible explanations for the change. It may represent a rejection of Roman material culture following the collapse of the state structure, or a shift to more localised production (so called subsistence farming) rather than a vast economic network capable of supporting specialised stonemasons. A limited demographic decline is possible but is certainly not the explanation for the widespread abandonment of construction in stone. The evidence from Holway in particular, in accordance with the evidence from Mucking (Hamerow, 1991), suggests that wandering settlements occupy stable tenurial land units.

Arguably the best results from the combination of largescale geophysical survey with sample excavation and cartographic and documentary research has been in the delineation of large systems of well-dated field systems (chapter 5). The earliest surviving evidence for land division dates from the Bronze Age, which survives in patches near the lost hamlet of Stoke Galhampton and Yarlington. Small sections of modern parish boundaries still follow these alignments. A second system, established in the late Iron Age and substantially modified during the Romano-British period, survives extensively in the modern landscape and is largely coterminous with the medieval hundred of Horethorne. This system bears a close resemblance to late prehistoric systems identified by Williamson in East Anglia. He suggested that they formed initially as a series of linear droves perpendicular to major river valleys in order to allow access to, and the subdivision of, upland grazing and wood pastures (Williamson, 2003, 40). In Horethorne hundred the long axes of the field system are aligned perpendicular to the western slopes of the upper Cale valley. Excavation has shown that the land between was progressively subdivided into small fields during the Romano-British period, but that the original Iron Age long axes are still utilised by modern parish boundaries. This is remarkable evidence for continuity of tenurial units and indeed the larger estate, which was the basis for Horethorne hundred.

The settlement pattern remained consistently dispersed throughout the period. In the Romano-British period settlements consisted of single farmsteads interspersed with occasional larger nucleated settlements such as South Cadbury, and hamlets at Sigwells and Englands. The role of the larger settlements may have varied. South Cadbury seems to have been an estate centre with services such as metalworking and redistribution of goods. It is also possible that geophysical survey in Blacklands has discovered the site of a high status villa for the estate owner. In this way the settlement may have been similar to Catsgore where a villa was located 800m from the main village. The other hamlets at Sigwells and Englands may have been nothing more than an amalgamation of farmsteads enabling co-operation between farms and more efficient distribution of produce. In the middle of the 5th century the central place for the Cadbury estate shifted to the hillfort with farmsteads continuing at its foot and at Holway and probably at Englands. By the late 6th century society had stabilised enough so that a settlement occupying the site of South Cadbury village may have been re-established, although the evidence for this is merely the cessation of activity on the hillfort and the finding of an 8th century coin at Castle Farm. Unfortunately the study has not been able to establish when the role of estate centre passed from South to North Cadbury. A case could be made for any date between the 8th and 11th centuries, when the Cadbury estate partially fragmented and passed out of royal ownership. In the middle Saxon period new farms were enclosed in peripheral areas but it is only between the 9th and 12th centuries, with the rise of the manorial system, that a few settlements become nucleated.

A third field system originated in the late prehistoric period and developed into typical Roman long fields by the 3rd century. The system’s long axes comprise N-S alignments, which are common throughout the region dominated by the westward flowing rivers Brue, Cary and Yeo. Again there is remarkable evidence for continuity of field alignment with modern fields following the same alignment as their Roman predecessors. Furthermore, such massive reorganisation or rationalisation of the landscape in the 3rd century implies that the late Roman economy was thriving in South East Somerset; a contention further supported by the evidence from rich 4th century villas. Excavation has also demonstrated that

The form of a number of settlements, notably North Cadbury, Galhampton, Marston Magna and Weston Bampfylde, is that of a rectilinear grid. Similar settlement forms have been noted at Cheddar (Blair, 1996, 110-112) and Shapwick where it is thought that village lanes and plots were fitted into a pre-existing landscape of prehistoric or Roman lanes and fields (Aston, Martin & 125

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY Saxon migrations and the end of Romanitas. Such ideas have formed the framework upon which post-Roman research has been hung for so long that it is difficult, even in this volume, to avoid reference to them. Equally it is important not to throw the culture-historical baby out with the bathwater. It must be emphasised that documentary evidence is essential to multidisciplinary research. However, archaeological evidence is not suited to answering these essentially historical questions. As archaeologists we can identify and interpret the socioeconomic systems that underpin historical events but not the events themselves. We can suggest that the superstructure of the Roman Empire fragmented at the beginning of the 5th century into petty kingdoms. We can even suggest that some of these kingdoms displayed a more Germanic material culture than others but it is not possible to interpret the extent of Saxon migrations at a given time through the archaeological record. The evidence from burials (chapter 7) suggests that by the 7th century a process of acculturation had rendered the material culture of neighbouring kingdoms essentially indistinguishable and that this is a result of a propaganda struggle to claim the inherited authority of Rome. Prior to this there had been a distinctive burial rite in the South West that represented continuity of the late RomanoBritish custom.

the 3rd century marked an increase in the incidence of rural buildings constructed in stone and metalled roads in the study area. It is also argued that the evidence of agrarian innovations from Poundbury in Dorset in the 5th century supports the theory that the rural economy thrived into the immediate post-Roman period (Green, 1996). However, in places there are lacunae in the surviving field systems, largely confined to areas peripheral to the post-Roman Cadbury estate. Middle Saxon 1-hide units with curved boundaries (suggestive of enclosure from waste) sometimes plug these gaps. A picture emerges then of an intensively exploited landscape in the late Romano-British period which experiences a limited retreat from marginal land in the later post-Roman period. It may be that Baillie’s narrow tree ring event of the 540’s AD (Baillie, 1999) is responsible for this reversal, rather than post-Roman collapse. This marginal land is then progressively enclosed again from the middle Saxon period. In the core estate areas around Ilchester, Sherborne, Milborne Port and Cadbury there is remarkable continuity of land use. The project methodology has also recovered evidence for a network of lanes between these rectilinear fields (chapter 6). These are only disrupted in areas where nucleation of settlement, or the establishment of new settlements has resulted in a radial pattern of lanes developing. In areas in which dispersed settlement remained so has the rectilinear network of lanes. Aston modelled settlement and communication patterns between Cadbury and Ilchester and noted that the communications network did not follow the expected radial pattern but rather consisted of a grid of N-S and E-W routes. This seems to be because the ancient systems of droves and land division in this area have been, for the most part, more stable than that of the prevailing ephemeral and ‘wandering’ dispersed settlement. There is also evidence for a major N-S bundle of tracks following the Jurassic scarp and serving the hillfort of South Cadbury. This may connect with the prehistoric ‘Harrow Way’ that runs from south of Bruton to White Sheet Hill and beyond. One branch may have led to Ilchester and another south to South Cadbury. In the Romano-British period the N-S bundle of tracks probably connected Cadbury to Fosse Lane, Shepton Mallet and Dorchester. A new phase of road maintenance, documented in the Trimoda Necessitas or common burdens, is instigated with the designation of herepaths in the late Saxon period. These roads connected the major Royal estate centres. The 11th century laws of Cnut also imply that their upkeep was connected with military services owed by landowners to the king (Whitelock, 1979, 464). The cartographic evidence coupled with that from field systems suggests that some herepaths were created anew in the late Saxon period whereas others were Roman roads that had been maintained.

In summary, the landscape evidence for the Roman to Medieval transition in the environs of South Cadbury suggests remarkable continuity of land tenure, rural economy and burial practice. However, the evidence for the collapse of the complex social and economic structures of the Roman Empire to a fragmented and locally based economy and political organisation must temper this. A retreat from marginal land can be detected from the environmental and landscape evidence. The timing of this remains unclear however, and may be associated with a downturn in climate in the 6th century rather than political upheaval at the beginning of the 5th. It is not until the 9th-10th centuries that complex societal structures return; including urbanism, the rise of the manorial system, central authority, coinage and specialised trades. Discussion Having summarised fieldwork results, it is now possible to discuss the key issues concerning the Roman to Medieval transition highlighted in the introductory chapter. The data recovered during fieldwork have already been interpreted within the context of the transition between late antique and early medieval South East Somerset and North Dorset. It is now important to consider how the South Cadbury evidence reflects on national and European perspectives of the transitional period. These perspectives were assembled into four main groupings in chapter 1: Continuity and Collapse; late antiquity or ‘Dark Age’; Systems of trade and exchange; and the rise and fall of socio-political systems.

It has been mentioned above that too much focus has been placed on culture historical issues pertaining to

126

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET The rural economy of the South Cadbury region was certainly thriving in the 3rd, 4th and probably 5th centuries. The pressures of taxation may not have been unbearable in this region. Indeed, the evidence for continuity of land tenure, and for post-Roman estates centred on late Roman settlements would suggest that if there was a revolution at the end of the 4th century it might have been led by the curial class. Moreover, the historical record implies that Roman authority rather departed of its own accord leaving local magistrates and curiales in a position to control their own estates much as before but without the burdens or benefits of a central authority. The cessation of Roman material culture may then be a reflection of the collapse of an imperially driven economy and a reversion to local politics and economies. Whether the local leaders considered themselves Roman in the 5th century is even harder to answer. It has been suggested that there was increasing disaffection between the Romano-British elites and imperial authority in the late empire, partly as a result of reprisals meted out in the wake of failed military coups led by British usurpers (Esmonde Cleary, 1989, 44). Furthermore the continuity of political regions based on civitates cannot necessarily be considered as evidence for continuity of Romanitas because these regions were themselves based on Iron Age precursors. A best guess is that the society that emerged in the 5th century was based partly on a reinvention of Iron Age tribal organisation and an impoverished sense of what it meant to be Romano-British. Certainly part of the appeal of Romanitas to the native British must have been the high levels of material wealth and technological advancement, which permeated even the rural populace of Somerset by the 3rd century. In the late Roman period the rural British were able to participate in a self-styled highly civilised society. The collapse of complex social structures and economies may have led to an identity crisis among the rural populace which was resolved in one of three ways; in the east Germanic culture was quickly adopted; in the west a combination of reinvented Iron Age and impoverished Roman identities developed; and in the extreme north and west a predominately Iron Age culture prevailed in regions relatively untouched by Roman influence. It is the intermediate zone, which primarily concerns this volume; an area which is typified by the development of large estates centred on defendable Roman central places; limited continuity of Roman ceramic traditions into the 5th century; continuity of late Roman burial traditions; stability of rural economies and land division. Furthermore, when this region re-emerges into documented history the tribal hideage lists peoples whose names are markedly different from those in the east; the Wrocensaetan and the Magonsaetan, for example, but remarkably similar to Somerset and Dorset. It must be restated that archaeological evidence is not best suited to answering questions of allegiance and identity or continuity and collapse. Although there is a clear collapse of Roman material culture, its timing is still uncertain. Recent work suggests that late Romano-British pottery forms, on which the chronology of many late Roman sequences are based, may have continued into the

i) Continuity and collapse A number of questions were raised within this theme. Firstly what do we mean by continuity. Faulkner has attempted to restrict the question to a definition of what is Roman; if we can define what is Roman then we can determine when Romanitas collapsed in Britain. For Faulkener the making and using of a typically Roman assemblage of material culture defines the RomanoBritish period. Under this definition there is quite clearly a collapse spanning the late 4th and early 5th centuries (Faulkner & Reece, 2002). Politically there is also an obvious collapse in Britain in the early 5th century from a centralised authority to fragmented petty kingdoms. This is largely attested through historical, although supported by archaeological, evidence. In the South Cadbury region there is a shift of central place to defendable hilltop sites around the middle of the 5th century probably associated with the collapse of central authority and a destabilised countryside. However, Faulkner’s view of the period does not allow for the fact that there is remarkable continuity in the landscape from the late prehistoric period, throughout the Roman interlude and into the 5th and 6th centuries. This represents continuity of rural population, tribal or regional identity, land tenure, field systems and the rural economy. Underlying the rise and fall of Roman civilisation in Britain is remarkable constancy in the landscape. This dichotomy between continuity and collapse has been expressed in cultural terms as the difference between Romanness and Britishness. The former is expressed in durable material culture (settlements, buildings, roads, etc) and the latter in terms of continuity of religion, and social and cultural patterns from the Iron Age. Put another way; the former made Roman Britain Roman and the latter made Roman Britain British (Esmonde Cleary, 1989, 42). Therefore the late 4th-early 5th centuries marked by a collapse of RomanoBritish material culture could be said to represent the end of Roman Britain but also a continuity of British culture. A valid alternative question could then be posed as a means to approaching the problem of continuity or collapse; did the post Roman inhabitants of South Cadbury consider themselves Roman or British? This is a very difficult question to answer archaeologically; however there are some clues to be read. Faulkner is keen to find evidence to support a peasant’s revolt and overthrow of the Roman establishment in the late 4th or early 5th century. He views the 4th century Roman state as totalitarian and increasing tax burdens imposed on the rural populace as the stimulus to revolution (Faulkner, 2000, 176). He cites the inscriptions found on Hadrian’s Wall ‘Civitas Durotrigum Lendiniensis’ amongst others, as evidence of forced labour in which press gangs from each civitas had to perform labour for the imperial authority (ibid. 114-5). However, another possible interpretation is that these inscriptions actually record expressions of regional pride. It is notable that three of the five inscriptions from Hadrian’s Wall pertaining to a work party from a named civitas are from the south west (one by the Dumnonii and two from the Lendinienses). 127

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY respect the terms ‘Roman’ and ‘Late Antique’ are equally useful, but for different purposes. In terms of describing the processes of landscape change the period of late antiquity is as useful, and perhaps a little less misleading than many others that are bandied around.

middle of the 5th century (Going, 1992, 111; Gerrard, 2004). Thus the length of time between the start of the decline of urbanism in the 4th century and the establishment of post-Roman estates centred on hillforts or walled towns stretches over one hundred years. Furthermore, there is no evidence for chaotic disruption to the rural economy, land tenure or a demographic disaster. The Cadbury evidence again suggests that there was a process of transition beginning with the economic crises facing the empire in the 3rd century. The imperial authority regrouped and reorganised itself in to what has been called a totalitarian state in the 4th century (Faulkner, 2000, 116) but which may also have encouraged a rationalisation of the Cadbury field systems with lasting benefit to the rural economy. Thus, as the empire finally disintegrated in the early 5th century, southwest Britain found itself in a position to carry on regardless. We need to formulate new questions. Instead of ‘when did Romanitas end in Britain?’ we need to ask; what were the processes that led to the formation of the archaeological record as it is recovered? What is the timing of changes visible in the landscape? Is the major landscape discontinuity in the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th or 7th century? Does the timing and extent of landscape change vary in different regions? What techniques and methods can be employed to answer these and other questions?

The case for adopting a new paradigm of late antiquity to describe the period from about 250 to 650 AD has been put succinctly by Esmonde Cleary (2001). It is an attempt to introduce a coherent research framework to a period dogged by misleading terminology such as ‘the Dark Ages’ or ‘sub-Roman’, and by outdated culture historical perspectives dominated by themes such as Saxon migrations and Barbarian invasions. The late Antiquity model also has the advantage of bringing British archaeological and historical research back in line with the rest of Europe rather than being tied up in squabbles concerning the extent of Germanic influence in Britain or indeed the extent of continuity or collapse of RomanoBritish culture. The late antique model has a superficial concord with the Pirenne thesis in which the late antique world is viewed as remaining Mediterranean-centric until Northern Europe is sundered from Byzantine exchange through the rise of Islam around 700AD. This in turn stimulated the rise of Northern European states. The Pirenne Thesis was constructed at a time when culturehistorical models provided the dominant explanations for socio-economic change. Hodges and Whitehouse have shown however that the rise of Northern European states reflected a gradual process of reconstruction independent of Islam (Hodges & Whitehouse, 1983). Nevertheless Hodges failed to recognise the significance of Mediterranean trade with SW Britain and Ireland, in his Dark Age Economics the economy of SW Britain barely gets a mention (Hodges, 1982). In this respect, landscape developments in the South Cadbury Environs can be correlated with economic fluctuations in Southern England discernable through the distribution of imported goods and a shift in regional ascendancy. The cessation of Mediterranean trade (whether the result of the advance of Islam or not) and the rise of urban trading centres in the SE such as Ipswich and Hamwic represent a shift of economic power in Britain. This change occurs in the later 6th century with an increase in Frankish and a corresponding decline in Byzantine trade. It is at this point that the ‘Saxon’ Kingdoms of SE England economically outstrip the ‘British’ Kingdoms of the west. However for the late antique paradigm to gain currency it must be tested against more regional data. It was suggested in chapter 1 that there might be two ways of achieving this. Firstly, by investigating the role of Barbarian invasions in Britain and secondly by analysing what is meant by the term ‘early medieval’ in order to define the point at which the antique world transformed in to the medieval.

Some of these questions can now be answered for the Cadbury region. Taphonomic processes that lead to the apparent imbalance in the settlement archaeology between the 4th and 5th centuries are better understood. Major landscape discontinuities have been identified in the 3rd and 7th centuries, with a retreat from marginal land in the 5th and 6th centuries. Geophysical survey, excavation, map regression, heavy metal analysis and carbon dating will be essential tools in future landscape surveys targeting the Roman to medieval transition. ii) Late Antiquity or ‘Dark Age’ The debate concerning the validity or otherwise of a period spanning the transition between the late Roman and early medieval periods has been fuelled recently by the adversarial rhetoric of Faulkner (Faulkner & Reece, 2002; Faulkner, 2004). In part this is a reaction to scholars who deny the very real end of the centralised Roman economic system, civilisation, and material culture during the course of the 5th century (Dark, 1994; Henig, 2004, for example). But it also represents Faulkner’s personal Marxist agenda. This volume has sought to avoid such confrontational and theoretically driven views of the past in favour of a middle ground. There is clearly a cessation, at the end of the 4th century, of much that makes Romano-British culture Roman, but this does not have to represent revolution and turmoil. Changes in suites of material culture can arise as a result of many causes, spanning insignificant social trends to complete systems collapse. This study suggests that Romano-British material culture ended at the same time as the rural economy and landscape continued. In this

The first method is barely relevant to the South Cadbury region not only because the traditional historical view is that the Saxons did not enter Somerset until the battle of Pen in 656 AD but also because this volume has 128

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET demonstrated that by the 7th century a process of reciprocal acculturation had taken place, Britons and Saxons had become indistinguishable in the archaeological record as a result of a propaganda struggle for the inherited authority of Rome. The backing of the Roman church for the Saxon kings over the British church in the west may have played a role in this propaganda victory, which culminated in the rise of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ kingdoms, one of which was Wessex. The traditional history of the house of Wessex given in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle suggests that the kingdom expanded westwards into Wiltshire and Somerset from an initial core in the Upper Thames Valley. However recently attention has been drawn to the facts that the kings of Wessex have British style names and the heraldic beast of Somerset and Wessex is the Red Dragon, which traditionally represents the British (Webster, 2000, 83). This, despite the evidence from place names, which imply that English was the dominant language by the 8th century (Gelling, 1993), suggests that a process of acculturation ran alongside political submission to the Anglo-Saxon domain. The archaeological evidence supports the acculturation model in Somerset with indigenous burial traditions being adopted by the newcomers.

system and the medieval feudal system was the fact that medieval landlords combined military and economic power whereas in the late Roman period military power was held centrally (ibid. 149). Faulkner would therefore place the beginning of the medieval world at the point where central Roman authority collapses. However, the feudal system is actually about land tenure mediated through social hierarchies. It is the system by which land is held in perpetuity from the king or a lord in lieu of military or other service. Bloch describes two ‘feudal ages’ based on socio-economic developments, the crucial period of change being the 11th century (Bloch, 1961, 5971). Originally men sought to voluntarily tie themselves to a lord for protection (commendation) but increasingly this homage was enshrined in law. A snapshot of this process is captured in Somerset Domesday in which men free to go to whichever lord they would in 1066 are subsequently tied to a Norman lord (Aston, 1985a, 83-4). Such a system of legal ties developed only gradually in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries along with ‘manorialisation’ and nucleation (Costen, 1992a, 111133). However, the earlier system of homage described by Bloch he envisaged as stemming from unrest during the Merovingian period (Bloch, 1961, 148). Thus the views of Bloch and Faulkner are remarkably similar.

As has been outlined in chapter 1 it is difficult to pinpoint archaeologically or historically, the exact point at which medieval society could be said to begin. For this reason changes in the landscape, such as the division of estates into manors and associated nucleation are taken to be indicators of increased stratification in society, which in turn are taken to be indicative of the onset of medieval society. Many scholars have noted signs of embryonic feudalism in late Roman society (Esmonde-Cleary, 1989, 6, 114-5; Faulkner, 2000, 144). Faulkner, for example, noted features of a ‘proto-medieval’ world in the late empire such as a mobile imperial court; the collection of taxes in kind; late Roman coloni being tied to an estate for ease of tax collection (similar to medieval serfs); increasing stratification in society; increasing evidence for ‘manorialisation’ (the presence of villas at the edge of rural settlements coupled with an rise in nucleation of rural settlements from the 2nd-4th centuries). In fact:

However, the landscape evidence from South Cadbury is for remarkable continuity of land units from the late prehistoric period. Furthermore, the evidence of placenames such as Dorset and Dorchester, suggests that the Durotrigian tribal identity remained strong throughout the Romano-British and in to the post-Roman period. It is possible then that Durotrigian society may have reverted to or reinvented a form of tribal organisation in the postRoman period. The medieval hundreds of Catsash and Horethorne may be based on Iron Age territories centred on Cadbury castle and Milborne Wick; The county of Dorset may be based on the southern Durotrigian civitas and Somerset on the northern part. Whether the tribal leaders eventually became the owners of the villas scattered around Ilchester and Dorchester is not clear. However, the evidence from Bignor in Sussex certainly suggests that some villas occupied high status Iron Age sites (ibid. 132-4). If this were the case then the late Roman curiales can be identified as the descendants of tribal leaders. Furthermore, the owners of the post-Roman estates centred on South Cadbury, Ilchester, Sherborne, Silchester, and Wroxeter etc. may have been tribal leaders. Williamson suggests that changes in settlement, fields and land tenure in the middle Saxon period are the result of a shift from tribal organisation to individual land holding. Thus settlements such as Mucking, which consist of a loose agglomeration of dwellings drifting about the landscape, became less common and planned settlements with boundaries became the norm (Williamson, 2003, 118-9).

“Fourth century Britain may have looked much as eleventh century England one day would. Out of the crisis of the late antique state and the decay of classical civilisation, a new medieval order seemed to be emerging” (Faulkner, 2000, 144). Evidence for ‘manorialisation’ is present in the South Cadbury region in the late Roman period notably at Catsgore and South Cadbury. This ‘manorialisation’ seems to have been for purposes of economic expediency encouraged by increased taxes in the late Roman period. Medieval ‘manorialisation’ was also economically expedient but for the purpose of supporting armed knights (Aston, 1985a, 84; Costen, 1992a, 111-133). For Faulkner the difference between the late Roman manorial

At South Cadbury the post-Roman estate centre reoccupied the Iron Age tribal estate centre and surrounding dispersed settlement certainly seemed to drift 129

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY period is from the 8th to the 10th century for the feudal system. This is the point at which, firstly a unified English kingdom is being created, and secondly the king has to reorganise his estates for the better management of resources and military services within the new, larger and more complex socio-political system otherwise known as England.

within the old tribal territory. However, The tenurial organisation of these post-Roman estates must remain speculative. Perhaps the best evidence comes from documents such as the Llandaff Charters. This collection includes some apparently early charters (6th century) that relate to large estates sometimes of thousands of acres. The early charters are written in Latin in a presumably late Roman tradition of property transfer. The language is similar to imperial documents relating to property and early medieval charters of Roman influence from the continent. Descriptive terms for land in the charters are Roman terms such as ager and uncia. The implication is that the tenurial structure within the estates is also of late Roman origin with confusion between dominium and possessio so that ownership is less than total and there are limitations on alienation of lands. Davies suggests that the royal monopoly on donation in the 6th and 7th centuries reflects the late Roman imperial powers over property (Davies, 1979, 156-8). John accepts that early English charters from the 7th century reflect the use of late Roman vulgar law. His explanation of the nature of bookland, or of rights granted in a charter, is that they proffer rights of alienation upon the landowner rather than a grant of land itself. In other words it consolidated the rights of landowners for land they sometimes held already, initially only for land held by the church (John, 1960, 1-63). Ultimately however, it is necessary to keep an open mind on the extent of rights of alienation of land in the 5th century. This is largely due to the fact that the late Roman laws are unclear, although it does seem that it was possible to convey land upon an individual whilst retaining lordship over them in late Roman vulgar law. Regardless of the finer points of late Roman land tenure elements of it seem to have continued into the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries (ibid. 3).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the evidence from the environs of South Cadbury emphatically supports the paradigm of late antiquity in that there is an extended post-Roman period in the region prior to the arrival of Germanic influence. The tenurial and social structure of the region is similar in the late Romano-British and post-Roman periods. This is not to deny the coherence of the RomanoBritish period as a whole, indeed in many ways the postRoman period has as much in common with the preRoman Iron Age as with the Late Romano-British period. What this volume has attempted to redress the archaeological imbalance caused by the sudden cessation of Roman material culture in the late 4th century, by highlighting the continuity in the less visible aspects of the archaeological record such as land division. CE Stevens once said “You can dig up a villa but you cannot dig up its land tenure’ (quoted in Miles, 1989, 121). This volume has attempted to demonstrate that with extensive geophysical survey and cartographic research, it is sometimes possible to understand some aspects of Iron Age, Romano-British and late antique land tenure. iii) Systems of Trade and Exchange In the past it was considered that South Cadbury had been a regional centre, perhaps the 5th century successor to Ilchester (Leach, 1994, 11). This idea was supported by Alcock’s excavated evidence for extensive renovation of Cadbury Castle’s post-Roman defences and the presence of a high status building containing imported Mediterranean pottery. However, this volume has shown that the 5th and 6th century structures upon South Cadbury castle were at the centre of just one of a number of post-Roman estates in the region of which Ilchester may have been a particularly large example. Furthermore other similar estates centred on old Roman walled towns or other late Roman settlements exist in SE Wales as well as Silchester and Wroxeter. In the case of Ilchester, the presence of imported pottery from the 5th and 6th centuries has been reported but not confirmed (ibid.). Nevertheless the existence of an early estate boundary (Aston’s ‘territorium’ boundary; 1985b, 146-8) enclosing an area much larger than the Cadbury estate suggests that Ilchester retained some central place functions in the late Antique period.

It seems plausible that similar arrangements may have existed in the South Cadbury region in the estates identified at Cadbury, Ilchester, Horethorne (Milborne Port) and Sherborne. In fact a large number of the early estates identifiable from Saxon charters in Somerset were royally owned in the 7th century and many were still royally owned at Domesday (including Ilchester and Milborne Port). Later charters at Llandaff and in Somerset reveal a pattern of subdivision of larger estates into manors from the 8th century, centred not on old Romano-British settlements but on the medieval manorial centres. The early estates resemble those described as multiple estates by Glanville Jones. These are large estates with a central vill or caput, often royally owned, which serves as a redistribution centre for goods and services supplied by surrounding specialised settlements. Such a situation can be envisaged for the Cadbury estate in the middle Saxon period by which time the estate centre is surrounded by dependant tuns or enclosures, some with directional names. The charters demonstrate a process of gradual change in tenurial and estate organisation from the late Roman to the medieval period. However, the critical

If South Cadbury was merely a local rather than a regional centre this throws up issues such as: the extensive re-fortification works must have been carried out with the manpower and resources of a single large estate rather than an entire region. This implies that both the estate and region were thriving demographically and 130

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET The evidence that can provide a clue to this important question is the distribution of imported pottery and the network of post-Roman estates identified through this study. The South Cadbury and Ilchester estates both have evidence for the use of Byzantine pottery at their centres and yet did not have control over any mineral resources that would have been desirable to Byzantine traders. Exotic goods such as imported wines and oils would have to be obtained through trading or the exchange of gifts with those people who did control resources of silver, lead and tin. The only resources available to the leaders of the Cadbury estate were agricultural, a surplus of which needed to be produced in order to obtain exotic goods. The distribution pattern of imported wares suggests that the trade was controlled by proto-states in Devon and Cornwall. Tintagel in particular and beach trading sites seem to have been the main points of contact for external trade. No obvious entrepots have been identified in Somerset and Dorset although the Wareham area has the only debatably early inscribed stones in the County and the possibility of continuing production of Black Burnished ware into the 5th century has already been mentioned. In Somerset waterborne transport was possible up to the foot of Cadbury Congresbury hillfort, itself re-occupied in the late antique period (Rahtz et al. 1992). Although the incidence of imported pottery is far less here than in Cornwall, it is nevertheless far greater than that at South Cadbury. Combwich at the mouth of the River Parrett and close to Cannington, a known subRoman settlement and later hundredal centre, is another possibility. There are many other possible sites in Somerset including Uphill (close to the royal palace at Cheddar) and Ilchester itself. Whilst it seems likely that Byzantium sought Mendip lead and silver, the implication from imported pottery distribution patterns is that these resources were traded or exchanged via Dumnonia and Cornwall rather than directly with Byzantine traders.

economically in the 5th and 6th centuries. These conclusions are contrary to the current paradigm for the period, which implies a demographic, climatic and economic downturn in the 5th century. Furthermore, the extent of Mediterranean trade in the 5th and 6th centuries needs to be re-evaluated in the light of the postulation that the heads of single large estates were consuming these imported goods. The second issue concerns the mechanisms by which imported pottery containing exotic goods arrived in South Cadbury? A possible gift exchange system by which a group can gain political and economic supremacy over neighbours through the control of exotic goods has been outlined in chapter 1. However, this represents just one level of exchange. At a local level the evidence suggests that processes of redistribution were important. This involves the rural producers of goods taking their products to a central place where they are stored and then redistributed to the producers. The fact that post-Roman estate centres tend to be in fortified sites such as walled towns or hillforts would facilitate the safe storage of bulk goods. The alternatives of reciprocity or market exchange do not fit the Cadbury evidence; reciprocity involves no central place and markets require a central authority for their regulation as well as a sophisticated device such as coinage to enable the exchange to take place (Renfrew, 1984, 91-3). At the highest level of exchange, by which Byzantine traders brought exotic wines and oils in exchange for minerals, slaves or leather (Campbell, 1996, 94; Hodges, 1982, 33), ports of trade such as Tintagel and beach sites such as Bantham in Devon, seem to have been important. This type of exchange, driven by a wealthy and consuming power has similarities to colonial trade in the 18th and 19th centuries whereby exotic items are traded for bulk or raw commodities. This system can also be described as dendritic (Hodges, 1982, 16-17). It is the intermediate exchange system, by which the post-Roman estate centres interacted which is crucial to understanding the socio-political system that emerged following the collapse of the Roman empire in 5th century Britain. It is this intermediate level of exchange that regulates the uniformity of culture of a region as a whole and which has been least studied (Renfrew, 1984, 100). Renfrew utilised his concept of early state modules (ESMs) to model interaction between polities at this level. He used Iron Age tribal territories as an example of ESMs with their centres of redistribution at hillforts and oppida. His focus was on the development of complex societies through the interaction and development of these stationary centres (ibid. 94-101). However, the evidence of early Saxon charters informs us that the royal elites of the 7th century were mobile and extracted the payment of Feorm from landholders. This entailed the duty for an estate owner to provide sustenance for the royal retinue for one night and to bear arms if required. The crucial question, which can now be addressed by the South Cadbury evidence, is how did this 7th century system of itinerant kings develop from the late Roman imperial system?

Does the above speculation inform us in any way about the state structure under which such trade or exchange mechanisms proceeded? The Durotrigian sub-kingdom was probably subordinate to Dumnonia either through the mechanism of gift-exchange or in simple economic terms. Furthermore, A later royal palace is known at Cheddar close to the site of a Minster church and Roman villa. This is thought to be where the king stayed when visiting the ecclesiastical community there in the 9th and 10th centuries (Blair, 1996, 110-12). It is possible that the aisled hall at Cadbury was one of many in the region serving a similar function as a temporary residence for a petty ‘king’ or ‘Tyrant’ in the 5th and 6th centuries. It may have been at the time of such visits that imported wine was consumed with the head of the estate bathing in the reflected glory of a ruler who retained some of the trappings of the ancient civilisation of Rome. However, there is no evidence that this system of itinerant kingship existed prior to the 7th century. By what mechanism then 131

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY significance so that the greater the frequency of interaction among group members, the greater the cohesiveness of the social unit (Renfrew, 1984, 87-8). The durable evidence for this interaction, as witnessed by imported pottery sherds, is minimal in Somerset and may reflect a lack of cohesion in the early centuries of postRoman Somerset. However, this durable material must represent only the tiniest fraction of goods consumed at these sites. Furthermore, the presence of Germanic style dress ornaments at South Cadbury is suggestive of interaction with the ‘Saxon’ East of England and a degree of social cohesion across southern Britain, mediated through exchange, in the 5th and 6th centuries.

could such a system have developed from the ashes of Roman imperial authority? Firstly it is known that the late Roman emperors were itinerant (Faulkner, 2000, 100). The countryside was already arranged into large estates controlled by the Curiales or an equivalent such as a Reeve, Bailiff or Steward in the 4th century, although probably with different boundaries to the post-Roman estates. The Curiales or estate officials were responsible for the collection of taxes from tenants or coloni within these estates, a process that could involve enforcement by bands of armed retainers (ibid. 10). It has been suggested above that the evidence for continuity of land holding and rural economy implies that the heirs of these 4th century estate owners, possibly with the help of armed retainers, kept control of their lands in the 5th century. Each of the sub-Roman estates had acquired central places in highly defendable locations such as hillforts or old walled towns by the middle of the 5th century. However, this implies the existence of a large number of local leaders of equal status in the 5th century, a hypothesis for which there is archaeological evidence in the environs of South Cadbury. We have seen in chapter 3 that early medieval estate centres seem to correlate with hundredal units which themselves are broadly coterminous with Iron Age tribal territories. This division of the entire island into units of approximately equal economic significance may stem from a tribal system that continued through the Romano-British period as subdivisions of the tribal civitas.

In the model outlined above the emphasis is placed on a gradual transition or evolution from Roman to Medieval social systems. The collapse of Romano-British material culture at the end of the 4th century is indicative of the collapse of a hyper coherent imperially driven economy and not of social upheaval or demographic disaster. Trade with the Mediterranean ceased in Somerset by the 6th century and by the 7th in other parts of the southwest peninsula. By this time the Gaulish connection had become more important and the fledgling Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the southeast were better situated to exploit this trade perhaps contributing to their ascendancy (Campbell, 1996, 94-6). It is at this time that southeastern entrepots such as Hamwic and Ipswich arose, and southwestern sub-kingdoms became subordinate to the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. iv) The Rise and Fall of Socio-Political Systems

The traditional historically derived model for the rise of petty kings is that internal conflict resulted in the eventual supremacy of one individual as king. However, considering the continuity of and pride in Durotrigian identity retained throughout the Romano-British interlude, a more consensual mechanism may have prevailed. It may have been the control of exotic goods and their dissemination through processes of gift exchange that enabled one particular member of the subRoman elite to attain or maintain a position of supremacy. Whether this hypothetical proto-king initially gained position through inherited tribal status or economic advantage, the ability to disseminate elite trappings of Rome would have maintained and enhanced his stature. Mobility would have been necessary for such a system and possibly reflective of late Roman imperial authority. This person would command respect and be looked to for the dissemination of justice. This could be achieved through his mobile court, which would require suitable lodgings for a person of status. In return the estate owner has his position re-enforced through association. In any stable social system a degree of reciprocation and consensus is required at some level. The sub-Roman states of southwest Britain were stable for at least 250 years. The stability of a region is dependant upon internal social exchange. The exchange of goods within a social matrix of tribal organisation, for example, is an act of social and not purely economic

It has already been mentioned above that too much emphasis is placed on culture-historical questions concerning the Roman to Medieval transition. This final section will rather examine the socio-economic processes behind the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of medieval England with reference to the archaeological evidence from the environs of South Cadbury. Renfrew’s cusp catastrophe theory (Renfrew, 1984, 366389) has been outlined in chapter 1, along with his concept of anastrophe by which complex socio-economic systems can rapidly arise under two conditions: the rural economy must be in a position to support it and the perceived charismatic authority carried by the state must be sufficient in order to sustain it. The law of diminishing returns was also considered as relevant to the rise and fall of the Roman Empire and Kristiansen’s evolutionary theory of state formation (Kristiansen, 1998) in which improvements to the rural economy may have been established centuries before state formation occurs, was also outlined. This final section of the volume will consider how these models concord with the evidence from the environs of South Cadbury. While the law of diminishing returns comfortably explains the rise and subsequent fall of the Roman 132

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET the idea of anastrophe. In this scenario sudden increase in investment in charismatic authority, when net rural marginality is already high, can lead to a sudden increase in degree of centrality. In this way complex societies can emerge rapidly. Thus in 8th and 9th century Wessex the economic base was already in place to enable state structures to rapidly emerge. The rise in investment in charismatic authority, or the value an individual places on adherence to a particular state, may have begun in the 7th century. The evidence from Hicknoll Slait demonstrates that Germanic and British cultures were merging and this may be connected with the new northern European paradigm in which the newly introduced Roman church helped Saxon kings appeal to the heritage of Rome and thus legitimise their authority. However, the true anastrophic rise comes two centuries later. The landscape evidence is for ‘manorialisation’, nucleation, intensification of agricultural production, urbanism, and investment in herepaths or communications networks. The rise in charismatic authority and degree of centrality in the 9th century was the unification of England under Alfred and his successors against the Danes.

Empire as a whole, the situation in the South Cadbury region does not entirely conform to this general position. Whilst the empire was in crisis on the continent in the 3rd century including urban decline, soaring inflation and frequent invasions, Britain was relatively unaffected. The British rural economy was able to flourish. However, the Imperial state apparatus reformed in response to the crises with tighter controls on the economy, taxation and the military. The effects of this process were felt in the Cadbury region. The rationalisation of field systems in the 3rd century may have been a response to increasing taxation. Maximum efficiency was required in rural production in order to support an increasingly cumbersome imperial apparatus. Increasing ‘manorialisation’ (nucleation of rural settlements and tighter controls on tenants) was also part of this process. The investment of wealth in villas in the Ilchester area may also be a response to increased burdens on town councils. Renfrew cites a burgeoning central bureaucracy as part of a hyper coherent system in which efficiency is increased per capita but the system becomes more vulnerable to external pressures (Renfrew, 1984, 373). This is because productive output, tax and expenditure are in equilibrium. This finely balanced state of affairs was disrupted when barbarian invasions in the 4th century led to a loss of taxes for the late Roman state, which in turn, resulted in an inability to maintain state structures such as the military (Esmonde Cleary, 1989, 8). This situation was not endogenous with respect to Britain however, which may help to explain why the rural economy remained strong whilst Roman material culture disappeared. The collapse of the Roman Empire removed an external burden on the rural economy. It is true that benefits such as the protection of a well-equipped and organised army and a vast centrally driven economy capable of supporting specialised crafts and technologies, were lost. It is generally accepted that this would have removed a stimulus to rural production (Fowler, 2002, 286; Esmonde Cleary, 1989, 141). The evidence from alluvium in the Yeo valley at Ilchester suggests that arable cultivation may have declined (Thew, 1994) but without accompanying woodland regeneration (Dark, 1999, 266). In other words agricultural production became less intensive as arable fields were put over to pasture. This is supported by the evidence for continuity of field boundaries from the South Cadbury Environs. Surpluses were still produced as the evidence from imported pottery and the investment in South Cadbury Castle indicates. The rural infrastructure remained in tact in the 5th century in terms of farm and field.

This volume maintains that although there is clearly a severe collapse of complex social and economic structure at the end of the Romano-British period, there is also significant continuity in land tenure and rural infrastructure. The extreme positions typified by Dark for political continuity and Faulkner for revolution, economic and demographic disaster at the end of the 4th century are clearly equally untenable. The reality of the situation lies between the two poles of opinion. The economy clearly reverted to localised, less intensive modes of production but actually proceeded very well as a result of maintenance of the rural infrastructure introduced in the 3rd century and earlier. This sound basis to the rural economy subsequently enabled the anastrophic rise of Alfred the Great and a united England in the late 9th century. These two dramatic events, the collapse of Roman rule in Britain and the rise of Alfredian Wessex are both highly visible in the archaeological record and systems theory adequately explains the mechanisms by which sudden changes in the archaeological record are created. However the modes of social relations within the South Cadbury region, such as land tenure and relations of rents and services, have evolved slowly. This is what has created the underlying theme of continuity in the landscape in the environs of South Cadbury, a theme that has been painstakingly revealed through the combination of extensive geophysical survey, sample excavation and cartographic and documentary research. The theme is one of a gradual transition from the late prehistoric to the medieval period punctuated by the exogenous rise and fall of the Roman Empire and the eventual rise of medieval England.

The 5th century inhabitants of the South Cadbury region were able to benefit then from an investment in the rural economy instigated two centuries earlier. This equates with a high level of net rural marginality under Renfrew’s cusp catastrophe theory. This means that the burdens on 5th century farmers were low compared to the benefits derived from investment in state structure. Production could increase with minimal tax burdens on the populace. Renfrew inverted his cusp catastrophe model to introduce 133

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY

Bibliography Aston M, Hall T & Gerrard C (eds), 1998, The Shapwick Project, An Archaeological, Historical and Topographical Study: the 8th Report, University of Bristol, Department for Continuing Education. Aston M & Leech R, 1977, Historic Towns in Somerset, CRAAGS survey 2. Aston M & Lewis C (eds.), 1994, The Medieval Landscape of Wessex, Oxbow Monograph 46. Aston M, Martin MH & Jackson AW, 1998, ‘Soil Analysis as Part of a Broader Approach in the Search for Low Status Archaeological Sites at Shapwick, Somerset’, in Aston, Hall & Gerrard (eds), 53-68. Atthill R (ed), 1976, Mendip, a new Study, David & Charles, Newton Abbot. Baillie M, 1999, Exodus to Arthur, London, Batsford. Baker RH & Butlin RA (eds), 1973, Studies of Field Systems in the British Isles, CUP, Cambridge. Barker K, 1986, ‘Pen, Ilchester & Yeovil: A Study in the Landscape History and Archaeology of Southeast Somerset’, PSANHS 130, 11-45. Barker K & Darvill T (eds), 1995, Making English Landscapes, Oxbow Monograph 93. Barnwell PS, 1996, ‘Hflaeta, ceorl, hid and scir: Celtic Roman or Germanic?’, in Griffiths (ed), 53-61. Barrett JC, Bradley R & Green M, 1991, Landscape, Monuments and Society. The prehistoryof Cranborne Chase. Cambridge. Barrett JC, Freeman PWM & Woodward A, 2000, Cadbury Castle Somerset: the later prehistoric and early historic archaeology. English Heritage archaeological report 20, London Bates Harbin, SW, 1936, ‘Somerset Enrolled Deeds’, Somerset Record Society Vol. 51. Bell M, 1990, Brean Down: Excavations 1983-1987, EH Archaeological Report 15. Beresford MW & Hurst JG (eds.), 1971, Deserted Medieval Villages, London. Blair J, 1996, ‘Palaces or Minsters? Northampton and Cheddar Reconsidered’, Anglo-Saxon England 25, 97-121. Bloch M, 1961, Feudal Society. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Boddington A, 1990, ‘Models of Burial, Settlement and Worship: The Final Phase Reviewed’, in Southworth (ed.), 177-99. Boddington A, 1996, Raunds Furnells, the Anglo-Saxon Church and Churchyard, EH, London. Bonney DJ, 1966, ‘Pagan Saxon Burials and Boundaries in Wiltshire’, WAM 61, 25-30. Bowen HC, 1961, Ancient Fields: a Tentative Analysis of Vanishing Earthworks and Landscapes, British Association for the Advancement of Science, London. Bowen HC & Fowler PJ (eds), 1978, Early Land Allotment in the British Isles, BAR Brit. Series 48. Bowersock GW, 1988, ‘The Dissolution of the Roman Empire’, in Yoffee & Cowgill (eds.), 165-175.

Abrams L, 1996, Anglo-Saxon Glastonbury: Church and Endowment. Studies in Anglo-Saxon History 8, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge. Addleshaw GWO, 1954, The Development of the Parochial System from Charlemagne (768-814) to Urban II (1088-1099). St.Anthony’s Hall Publications No.6, St. Anthony’s press, London. Alcock L, 1971, ‘Excavations at South Cadbury Castle 1970. Summary Report’, The Antiquaries Journal, vol.51, Part 1, pp.1-7. Alcock L, 1972, By South Cadbury is that Camelot…excavations at Cadbury Castle 1966-70. Thames & Hudson, London. Alcock L, 1995, Cadbury Castle, Somerset. The Early Medieval Archaeology, University of Wales Press, Cardiff. Allen FJ, 1935, ‘The Problematic Early Work at Milborne Port Church’, PSANHS 80, 25-31. Allen JRL & Fulford MG, 1986, ‘The Wentlooge Level: a Romano-British Saltmarsh Reclamation in South-East Wales’, Britannia 17, 91-117. Arnold CJ & Wardle P, 1981, ‘Early Medieval Settlement Patterns in England’, Medieval Archaeology 25, 145-9. Aston M, 1982, ‘The Medieval Pattern 1000-1500 AD’, in Aston & Burrow (eds.), pp.122-33. Aston M, 1985a, ‘Rural Settlement in Somerset: Some Preliminary Thoughts’, in Hooke D (ed.), 81-100. Aston M, 1985b, Interpreting the Landscape, Batsford, London. Aston M, 1986, ‘Post-Roman Central Places in Somerset’, in Grant E (ed.), 1986, 49-77. Aston M, 1988, ‘Settlement Patterns and Forms’, in Aston M (ed.), 67-81. Aston M, 1989a, ‘A Regional Study of Deserted Settlements in the West of England’, in Aston, Austin & Dyer (eds.), 105-128. Aston M, 1989b, ‘The Development of Medieval Rural Settlement in Somerset’, in Higham R (ed.), 19-40. Aston M, 1994, ‘Medieval Settlement Studies in Somerset’, in Aston & Lewis (eds.), 1994, 219-237. Aston M, 2000, ‘Medieval Rural Settlement’, in Webster CJ (ed.), 2000, 93-8. Aston M (ed.), 1988, Aspects of the Medieval Landscape of Somerset, Somerset County Council, Taunton. Aston M (ed), 1989, The Shapwick Project: A Topographical and Historical Study, 2nd Report, University of Bristol, Department for Continuing Education. Aston M, Austin D & Dyer C (eds.), 1989, The Rural Settlements of Medieval England, Blackwell, Oxford. Aston M & Burrow I (eds.), 1982, The Archaeology of Somerset, Somerset County Council, Taunton. Aston MA & Costen MD (eds.), 1993, The Shapwick Project…4th Report, Department for Continuing Education, University of Bristol. 134

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Cunliffe B, 1976, Iron Age Sites in Central Southern England. CBA Research Report 16, London. Cunliffe B, 2000, The Danebury Environs Programme: The Prehistory of a Wessex Landscape. Volume 1, Introduction, EH and Oxford Committee for Archaeology Monograph 48. Dark KR, 1994, Civitas to Kingdom: British Political Continuity 300-800, Leicester University Press. Dark KR, 2002, Britain and the End of the Roman Empire, Stroud, Tempus. Dark KR (ed.), 1996, External Contacts and the Economy of Late Roman and Post-Roman Britain, TheBoydell Press, Woodbridge. Dark KR & Dark SP, 1997, The Landscape of Roman Britain, Sutton, Stroud. Dark SP, 1996, ‘Palaeoecological Evidence for Landscape Continuity and Change in Britain ca. AD 400- 800’, in Dark KR (ed.), 23-51. Dark SP, 1999, ‘Pollen Evidence for the Environment of Roman Britain’, Britannia 30, 247-72. Davey JE, 2000, Multiple Estates and Medieval Field Systems on the South Scarp of Mendip, Unpublished Undergraduate Dissertation, University of Bristol. Davey JE, 2002a, ‘The Seventh Century Cemetery at Hicknoll Slait, Compton Pauncefoot’, in Tabor (ed.), 80-99. Davey JE, 2002b, ‘The Early Medieval Period’, in Tabor (ed.), 25-31. Davey JE, 2004, ‘The Environs of South Cadbury in the Late Antique and Early Medieval Periods’, in Collins & Gerrard (eds), 43-54. Davey JE, 2004a, ‘Castle Farm, South Cadbury: Excavations in 2003’, in Tabor (ed), pp.61-8. Davey, JE, 2004b, ‘Gradiometer Survey and Excavations at Englands, Charlton Horethorne 2003’, in Tabor (ed), pp.77-84. Davey JE, 2004c, ‘A Medieval Pottery Series’, in Tabor (ed), pp. 3-7 Davey JE, 2004d, The Roman to Medieval Transition in the Environs of South Cadbury Castle, Somerset. PhD thesis, University of Bristol. David A, 1994, ‘The Role of Geophysical Survey in Early Medieval Archaeology’, in Filmer-Sankey & Griffith (eds), 1-26. Davies H, 2002, Roads in Roman Britain, Stroud, Tempus. Davies W, 1979, ‘Roman Settlements and Post-Roman Estates in South East Wales’, in Casey (ed), 153-73. Davis P, 2002, ‘Preliminary Report on Mollusca from Hicknoll Slait’, in Tabor (ed), 96-7. Dickinson FH (ed.), 1889, ‘Kirby’s Quest for Somerset…’ SRS Vol.3. Dickinson T & Griffiths D (eds.), 1999, ‘The Making of Kingdoms’, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 10, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Dix B (ed), 1987, ‘The Raunds Area Project: Second Interim Report’, Northamptonshire Archaeology 21, 3-29

Bradley R, Entwistle R & Raymond F, 1994, Prehistoric Land Divisions on Salisbury Plain. The work of the Wessex Linear Ditches Project. English Heritage Archaeological Report 2, London. Branigan K, 1976, ‘Villa Settlement in the West Country’, in Branigan & Fowler (eds.), 1976, 120-41. Branigan K & Fowler PJ (eds.), 1976, The Roman West Country: Classical Culture and Celtic Society, Newton Abbot. Branigan K, 1977, The Roman Villa in Southwest England, Moonraker Press, Bradford on Avon. Brown EAR, 1974, The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe. American Historical Revue 79, 1063-1088. Burrow I, 1981, Hillfort & Hilltop Settlement in Somerset in the First to Eighth Centuries AD, BAR British Series 91. Campbell E, 1996, ‘The Archaeological Evidence for External Contacts: Imports, Trade and Economy in Celtic Britain AD 400-800’, in Dark KR (ed.), 83-96. Carruthers W, 1991, ‘The Plant Remains’, in Fasham & Whinney, 1991, 67-75. Casey PJ (ed), 1979, The End of Roman Britain, BAR British Series 71. Charles Edwards TM, 1972, ‘Kinship, Status and the Origin of the Hide’, Past and Present 56, 3-33. Chisolm M, 1968, Rural Settlement and Land Use. Hutchinson, London. Coleman-Smith R & Pearson T, 1988, Excavations in the Donyatt Potteries, Phillimore, Chichester. Collins R & Gerrard J (eds), 2004, Debating Late Antiquity in Britain AD 300-700, BAR British Series 365. Collinson J. 1791, The History and Antiquities of Somerset Cooper G, 2000, ‘Place Names and Field Names as Archaeological Indicators’, Independent Archaeology newsletter 37, Sept. 2000. Cooper G, 2002, ‘Fieldname Survey’, in Tabor R (ed.), 15-25. Cooper G, 2004, ‘Gradiometer Survey and Excavations at Englands, Charlton Horethorne 2003: Initial Inspection’, In Tabor (ed), pp. 75-6 Cooper G & Davey JE, forthcoming, ‘Romano-British Sites in the Parish of Sandford Orcas’, PDNHAS. Costen M, 1985, ‘Rimpton in Somerset, A Late Saxon Estate’, Southern History vol.6, 13-24. Costen M, 1992a, The Origins of Somerset, Manchester University Press. Costen M, 1992b, ‘Huish and Worth: Old English Survivals in a Later Landscape’, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 5, 65-83. Cox PW, 1988, ‘A Seventh Century Inhumation Cemetery at Shepherds Farm, Ulwell near Swanage, Dorset’, PDNHAS 110, 37-47. Crawford OGS & Kieller A, 1928, Wessex from the Air, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Cunliffe B, 1973, ‘Chalton, Hants: The Evolution of a Landscape’, Antiquaries Journal 53, 173-90.

135

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY Fowler P, 2000, Landscape Plotted and Pieced: Landscape History and Local Archaeology in Fyfield and Overton, Wiltshire, Society of Antiquaries Research Report 64. Fowler P, 2002, Farming in the First Millennium AD, CUP. Fulford M, 1990, ‘The Landscape of Roman Britain: A Review’, Landscape History 12, 25-31. Geake H, 1999, ‘Invisible Kingdoms: the use of Grave Goods in Seventh Century England’, in Dickinson & Griffiths (eds.), 203-15. Gelling M, 1984, Place-Names in the Landscape, London, Phoenix Press. Gelling M, 1993, ‘Why Aren’t we Speaking Welsh’, in Filmer Sankey (ed), 51-6. Gerrard C, 1989, ‘Fieldwalking results, Methodological Experiments and Future Strategy’, in Aston MA (ed), 21-57. Gerrard C & Gutierrez A, 1993, ‘Summary of Fieldwalking Results 1989-1990’, in Aston & Costen (eds.), 48-71. Gerrard J, 2004, ‘How Late is Late? Black Burnished Ware and the 5th Century’, in Gerrard and Collins, (eds), 65-76. Gerrard J, 2004b, ‘The Romano-British Pottery’, in Tabor (ed), 68-70. Gingell C, 1992, The Marlborough Downs: a later Bronze Age landscape and its origins. Wilts. Archaeol. And Nat. Hist. Soc. Monograph 1, Stroud. Gittos B & Gittos M, 1989, ‘The Evidence for the Saxon Minster at Yeovil’, Chronicle Vol.4, No.4, April 1989, 95-104. Going CJ, 1992, ‘Economic ‘Long Waves’ in the Roman Period? A Reconnaissance of the RomanoBritish Ceramic Evidence’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11, 93-117. Goodier A, 1984, ‘The Formation of Boundaries in Anglo-Saxon England: A Statistical Study’, Medieval Archaeology 28, 1-21. Grant E (ed.), 1986, Central Places, Archaeology and History, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield. Green CS, 1996, ‘Poundbury, Dorset: Settlement and Economy in Late and Post-Roman Dorchester’, in Dark KR (ed), 121-152. Gregson N, 1985, ‘The Multiple Estate Model: Some Critical Questions’, Journal of Historical Geography, vol. 11, 339-351. Griffiths D (ed), 1996, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, vol. 9, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Grove JC, 2002, ‘Reclamation and Utilisation of the Upper Axe Valley During the Roman Period’, Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 13, 65-87. Grundy GB, 1935, The Saxon Charters and Field Names of Somerset, SANHS, Taunton. Hadley DM, 1996, ‘Multiple Estates and the Origin of the Manorial Structure of the Northern Danelaw’, Journal of Historical Geography, 22, 1(1996), 3-15.

Drinkwater J & Elton H (eds.), 1992, Fifth Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? CUP. Dunning RW, 1987, A History of Somerset, 2nd Edition, Somerset County Library. Dunning RW (ed.), 1999, A History of the County of Somerset, vol.7, Institute of Historical Research, Oxford University Press. Ellis P, 1984, Catsgore, 1979. Further Excavation of the Romano-British Village, Western Archaeological Trust, Excavation Monograph 7. Esmonde Cleary S, 1989, The Ending of Roman Britain, London, Batsford. Esmonde Cleary S, 2001, ‘The Roman to Medieval Transition’, in James S & Millett M (eds.), 90-97. Everson & Williamson (eds.), 1998, The Archaeology of Landscape, MUP. Evison VI, 1987, Dover: the Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, Historical Buildings and Monuments Commission of England, Archaeological Report 3, London. Faith R, 1997, The English Peasantry and the Growth of Lordship, Leicester University Press. Fasham PJ & Whinney RJB, 1991, Archaeology and the M3, Hampshire Field Club Monograph 7. Faulkner N, 2000, The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain. Tempus, Stroud. Faulkner N, 2002, ‘Are Major Journals Stifling Debate?’ Current Archaeology 182, 66. Faulkner N & Reece R, 2002, ‘The Debate About the End: A Review of Evidence and Methods’, Archaeological Journal 159, 59-76. Faulkner N, 2004, ‘The Case for the Dark Ages’ in Collins & Gerrard (eds), 5-12. Field J, 1972, English Field Names, David & Charles, Newton Abbott. Field NH, 1967, ‘A Thirteenth Century Kiln at Hermitage, Dorset’, PDNHAS 88, 161-75. Filmer Sankey W et al (eds.), 1992, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History vol.5, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Filmer Sankey W & Griffith D (eds), 1994, AngloSaxon Studies in Archaeology and History vol.7, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Finberg HPR, 1964, The Early Charters of Wessex, Leicester University Press. Finch Smith R, 1987, Roadside Settlements in Lowland Roman Britain, BAR British Series 157. Findlay DC, 1965, The Soils of the Mendip District of Somerset, Agricultural Research Council, Harpenden. Fleming A, 1984, ‘The Prehistoric Landscape of Dartmoor: Wider Implications’,Landscape History 6, 5-19. Foard G & Pearson T, 1985, ‘The Raunds Area Project: First Interim Report’, Northamptonshire Archaeology 20, 3-21. Fowler P, 1981, ‘Farming in the Anglo-Saxon Landscape: an Archaeologists Review’, Anglo-Saxon England 9, 263-80. Fowler P, 1998, ‘Moving through the landscape’, in Everson and Williamson (eds.), 25-41. 136

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET James S & Millett M (eds.), 2001, Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda, CBA Res. Rep. 125. John E, 1960, Land Tenure in Early England, Leicester University Press. Jones GRJ, 1961, ‘Early Territorial Organisation in England and Wales’, Geografiskar Annaler 43, 17481. Jones GRJ, 1976, ‘Multiple Estates and Early settlement’, in Sawyer P (ed.), 1976, 15-40. Jones M, 1978, ‘The Plant Remains’, in Parrington M, 1978, 93-110. Keen L, 1984, ‘The Towns of Dorset’, in Haslam J (ed), 203-47. Kellaway GA & Welch FBA, 1948, British Regional Geology; Bristol and Gloucester District, HMSO, London. Knight FA, 1909, Cambridge County Geographies; Somerset, CUP. Kristiansen K, 1998, ‘Chiefdoms, States and Systems of Social Evolution’, in Kristiansen & Rowlands (eds.), 243-67. Kristiansen K & Rowlands M (eds.), 1998, Social Transformations in Archaeology, Routledge, London. Laidlaw J, 1966, ‘South Cadbury’, CBA Archaeological Revue for 1966, No.1, Dept. Extra Mural Studies, University of Bristol, 25. Laidlaw J, 1967, ‘South Cadbury’, CBA Archaeological Revue for 1967, CBA Groups 12 & 13 (Wessex & the SW), No.2, Dept. Extra Mural Studies, University of Bristol, 17. Laidlaw J, 1997, South Cadbury Extra 1966-1967, Unpublished Report, University of Glasgow. Leach P, 1982, Ilchester Volume 1; Excavations 19741975, Western Archaeological Trust. Leach P, 1994, Ilchester Volume 2; Archaeology, Excavations and Fieldwork to 1984, Sheffield Excavation Reports 2. Leach P, 2001, Roman Somerset, Dovecote Press, Wimborne. Leach P, 2002, ‘Roman Pottery Fabric and Form Series’, in Tabor R (ed.), 50-56. Leach P & Ellis P, 1994, ‘A Prehistoric Enclosure in the South Meadows, Ilchester’, in Leach P, 1994, 117-20. Leach P & Tabor R, 1994, The South Cadbury Environs Project Fieldwork Report 1994, BUFAU Report No.327. Leach P & Tabor R, 1996, The South Cadbury Environs Project Field Report 1996, BUFAU, Report 457. Leech R, 1976, ‘Larger Agricultural Settlements in the West Country’, in Branigan & Fowler (eds.), 142-61. Leech R, 1977, Romano-British Rural Settlement in South Somerset and North Dorset, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bristol. Leech R, 1981, ‘The Excavation of a Romano-British Farmstead and Cemetery on Bradley Hill, Somerton, Somerset’, Britannia XII, 177-252. Leech R, 1982, Excavations at Catsgore, 1970-73, WAT Monograph 2, Bristol.

Hall TA, 2000, Minster Churches in the Dorset Landscape, BAR Brit. Series 304. Halsall (ed.), 1998, Violence and Society in the Early Medieval West, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge. Hamerow HF, 1991, ‘Settlement Mobility and the ‘Middle Saxon Shift’: Rural Settlements and Settlement Patterns in Anglo-Saxon England’, AngloSaxon England 20, 1-17. Hamerow HF, 2003, Early Medieval Settlements: Archaeology of Rural Communities. OUP, Oxford. Hardwick J, 1978, ‘Strip Lynchets: The Case Study of South Cadbury, Somerset’, PSANHS 122, 29- 35. Hardy P, 1999, The Geology of Somerset, Ex Libris Press, Bradford-on-Avon. Harfield MG, 1958, ‘The Lost Village of Whitcomb’, SDNQ vol.27, 177 Harrison GV, 1984, ‘The South West: Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall’, in Thirsk (ed), 358-389. Hase PH, 1994, ‘The Church in the Wessex Heartlands’, In Aston M & Lewis C (eds.), 1994, 47-81. Haslam J (ed), 1984, Anglo Saxon Towns in Southern England. Chichester. Haverfield F, 1912, The Romanisation of Roman Britain, Oxford. Henig M & Booth P, 2000, Roman Oxfordshire, Sutton, Stroud. Higham NJ, 1992, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, Seaby, London. Higham NJ, 1994, The English Conquest: Gildas and Britain in the Fifth Century, Manchester University Press. Higham R (ed.), 1989, Landscape and Townscape in the South West, Exeter Studies in History 22, University of Exeter Press. Hindle BP, 1989, Medieval Roads, Shire Archaeology Series, No. 26. Hindle BP, 2001, Roads and Tracks for Historians, Chichester, Phillimore. Hingley R, 1989, Rural Settlement in Roman Britain, Seaby, London. Hodder MA, 1992, ‘Continuity and Discontinuity in the Landscape: Roman to Medieval in Sutton Chase’, Medieval Archaeology 36, 178-81. Hodges R, 1982, Dark Age Economics. Duckworth, London. Hodges R & Whitehouse D, 1983, Mohammed, Charlemagne & the Origins of Europe. Duckworth, London. Hooke D (ed.), 1985, Medieval Villages, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 5. Hooke D (ed), 1988, Anglo-Saxon Settlements, Blackwell, Oxford. Horne, Dom. E, 1929, ‘Saxon Cemetery at Camerton, Somerset’, PSANHS 74, 61-70. Horne, The Very Rev. Prior, 1934, ‘Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Camerton, Somerset:Part II’, PSANHS 79, 39-63. James S, 2003, ‘Roman Archaeology: Crisis and Revolution’, Antiquity 77, 178-184.

137

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY Poly JP & Bournazel E, 1991, The Feudal Transformation, 900-1200. Holmes & Meier, New York. Pountney WJ, 1920, Old Bristol Potteries, JW Arrowsmith, Bristol. Powlesland D, Haughton C & Hanson J, 1986, ‘Excavations at Heslerton, North Yorkshire 1978-82’, Archaeological Journal 143, 53-173. Pryor F, 1996, ‘Sheep, stockyards and field systems: Bronze Age livestock populations in the Fenlands of eastern England’, Antiquity, vol.70, no.268, June 1996, 313-324. Rahtz P, 1977, ‘Late Roman Cemeteries and Beyond’, in Reece (ed), 53-64. Rahtz P, 1979, The Saxon and Medieval Palaces at Cheddar, BAR British Series 65. Rahtz P et al. 1992, Cadbury Congresbury 1968-73: A Late/Post-Roman Hilltop settlement in Somerset. BAR British Series 223. Rahtz P, Hirst S & Wright SM, 2000, Cannington Cemetery, EH Britannia Monograph Series 17. Rawlings M, 1992, ‘Romano-British Sites Observed Along the Codford to Ilchester Water Pipeline’, PSANHS 136, 29-60. Reece R, (ed), 1977, Burial in the Roman World, CBA Research Report 22. Renfrew C, 1984, Approaches to Social Archaeology, Edinburgh University Press. Reynolds S, 1994, Fiefs and Vassals; the Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted. OUP, Oxford. Richards J, 1978, TheArchaeology of the BerkshireDowns: an introductory survey. Berkshire Archaeological Committee Publication no.3, Reading. Richards J, 1990, The Stonehenge Environs Project. English Heritage Archaeological Report 16, London. Rippon S, 1997, ‘Roman and Medieval Settlement on the North Somerset Levels: Survey and Excavation at Banwell and Puxton, 1996’, in Rippon S (ed.), 1997, 39-52. Rippon S, 1997b, ‘The Severn Estuary, Landscape Evolution and Wetland Reclamation’, Leicester University Press. Rippon S (ed.), 1997, Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 1996 (Volume 7), SELRC. Rippon S, 2000, ‘Romano-British Exploitation of Coastal Wetlands: Survey and Excavation on the North Somerset Levels, 1993-7’, Britannia 31, 69200. Roberts B, 1977, Rural Settlement in Britain. Dawson & Sons, Folkestone. Roberts B, 1981, ‘Townfield Origins: The Case of Cockfield, County Durham’, in Rowley T (ed), 14561. Rowlands M, 1987, ‘Centre and Periphery: A Review of a Concept’, in Rowlands, Larsen & Kristiansen (eds.), 1-11. Rowlands M & Frankenstein S, 1998, ‘The Internal Structure and Regional Context of Early Iron Age Society in South-western Germany’, in Kristiansen & Rowlands (eds.), 334-374.

Leech R, 1986, ‘The Excavation of a Romano-Celtic Temple and a Later Cemetery on Lamyatt Beacon, Somerset’, Britannia XVII, 259-328. Le Patourel JHE, 1968, ‘Documentary Evidence and the Medieval Pottery Industry’, Medieval Archaeology vol. XII, 101-26. Lovell J, forthcoming, ‘Excavation of a Romano-British Farmstead at RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset’, PSANHS. Maxwell Lyte HC (ed.), 1901, Calendar of Patent Rolls…Henry V… HMSO, London. McAvoy F, 1986, ‘A Section across the OtterbourneNew Forest Roman Road (Route 422)’, Proceedings of the Hants Field Club and Archaeological Society 42, 158-9. McCarthy M & Brooks C, 1988, Medieval Pottery in Britain AD 900-1600, Leicester University Press. McDonnell RRJ, 1979, ‘The Upper Axe Valley, An Interim Statement’, PSANHS 123, 75-82. McDonnell RRJ, 1985, Archaeological Survey of the Somerset Claylands: Report on Survey Work in 19845, Somerset County Council Report, SCC, Taunton. Meaney A, 1964, A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites, Allen & Unwin, London. Meaney AL, 1992, ‘Anglo-Saxon Idolators and Ecclesiasts from Theodore to Alcuin; A Source Study’, in Filmer Sankey et al (eds.), 1992, 103-125. Miles D, 1982, The Romano-British Countryside: Studies in Rural Settlement and Economy. Volumes 1& 2, BAR Brit. Series 103. Miles D, 1989, ‘The Romano-British Countryside’, in Todd (ed), 115-26. Neale F, 1976, ‘Saxon and Medieval Landscapes’, in Atthill (ed), 76-99. Newman C, 1992, ‘A Late Saxon Cemetery at Templecombe’, PSANHS 136, 61-72. Newman C, Morris EL & Bonner D, 2001, ‘Iron Age and Romano-British Sites Along the Bowden Reservoir Link Pipeline, South-East Somerset’, PSANHS 143 (for 1999), 1-27. Olivier A, 2000, ‘The Brooches’, in Barrett, Freeman & Woodward, 132-143. Orwin CS & Orwin CS, 1938, ‘The Open Fields’, Clarendon, Oxford. Overend E, 1985, The Geology of the Frome Area, Frome 1300 Publications, Frome. Palmer R, 1984, Danebury. An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. An aerial photographic interpretation of its environs. RCHME Supplementary Series 6, London. Parrington M, 1978, The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement, Bronze Age Ring Ditches and Roman Features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon, 197476, Oxford Archaeological Unit & CBA. Parry AHH, 1992, Webbs Farm, Bradley Stoke, Northavon: Site Specific Archaeological Evaluation and Excavation in advance of Proposed Development, Unpublished Excavation Report, Avon Archaeological Unit. Pearson T, 1982, ‘The Post-Roman Pottery’, in Leach P, 169-217. 138

THE ROMAN TO MEDIEVAL TRANSITION IN THE REGION OF SOUTH CADBURY CASTLE, SOMERSET Taylor CC, 1979, Roads and Tracks of Britain, London, Dent & Sons. Taylor CC, 1981, ‘Archaeology and the Origins of Open-Field Agriculture’, in Rowley T (ed), 13-21. Taylor CC, 1983, Village and Farmstead; a history of rural settlement in England. George Philip, London. Taylor CC, 1995, ‘Dorset and Beyond’, in Barker & Darvill (eds), 9-25. Taylor CC, 2000, Fields in the English Landscape, 2nd edition, Sutton, Stroud. Taylor RF, 1967, ‘An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Compton Pauncefoot’, PSANHS 111, 67-9. Thew N, 1994, ‘Geology and Geoarchaeology in the Yeo Valley at Ilchester’, in Leach P, 157-171. Thirsk J, 1964, ‘The Common Fields’, Past and Present 29, December 1964, 3-25. Thirsk J (ed), 1984, The Agrarian History of England and Wales; vol. 5: Regional Farming Systems. Cambridge University Press Thorn FR, 1989, ‘Hundreds and Wapentakes’, in Williams & Erskine (eds), 32-41. Thorn C & Thorn F (eds.), 1980, Domesday Book, Somerset, Phillimore, Chichester. Timperley HW & Brill E, 1965, Ancient Trackways of Wessex, Dent & Sons, London. Todd M (ed), 1989, Research on Roman Britain, 196089, Britannia Monograph 11. Van Dam R, 1992, ‘The Pirenne Thesis and Fifth Century Gaul’, in Drinkwater & Elton (eds.), 321-3. Watts L & Leach P, 1996, Henley Wood, Temples and Cemetery Excavations 1962-9 by the Late Ernest Greenfield and Others, CBA research Report 99. Webster CJ, 2000a, Interim Report on the Excavation of a post-Roman cemetery at Stoneage Barton Farm, Cothlestone, Somerset, Somerset County Council. Webster CJ, 2000, ‘The Dark Ages’, in Webster CJ (ed), 79-83 Webster CJ (ed.), 2000b, Somerset Archaeology: Papers to Mark 150 Years of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, Somerset County Council. West S, 1985, West Stow: the Anglo-Saxon Village, East Anglian Archaeology 24. White W, 1988, The Cemetery of St. Nicholas Shambles, LAMAS, London. Whitelock D, 1979, English Historical Documents Volume I, c.500-1042, OUP. Whitfeld M, 1981, ‘The Medieval Fields of South East Somerset’, PSANHS 125, 17-29. Williams A & Erskine RWH (eds), 1989, Domesday Book Studies: Introduction and Translation, Alecto Historical Editions, London. Williams H, 1997, ‘Ancient Landscapes and the Dead: The reuse of Prehistoric and Roman Monuments as Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites’, Medieval Archaeology 41, 1-32. Williamson T, 1987, ‘Early Co-axial Field Systems on the East Anglian Boulder Clays’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 53, 419-31.

Rowlands M, Larsen M & Kristiansen K (eds.), 1987, Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, CUP. Rowley T (ed), 1981, The Origins of Open Field Agriculture, Croom Helm, London. Russell JR, 1990, ‘Excavations at Baileys Court Farm. Stoke Gifford, 1990 (a Preliminary Note)’, Bristol and Avon Archaeology vol.8, 53-4. Salway P 1981, Roman Britain, Oxford University Press. Saville A, 1990, Hazleton North, Gloucestershire, 197982. The excavation of a Neolithic long cairn of the Cotswold-Severn group, EH Archaeological Report no.13. Sawyer P (ed.), 1976, Medieval Settlement, Edward Arnold, London. Schofield J, 1988, ‘The Cemetery of St. Nicholas Shambles’, in White W, 7-27. Seager-Smith, R. and Davies, S, 1993, ‘Roman Pottery’ in P. Woodward et al. 202-299. Shennan S, 1985, Experiments in the Collection and analysis of Archaeological Survey Data: the East Hampshire survey. Sheffield. Southworth (ed.), 1990, Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries: A Reappraisal, Sutton, Stroud. Stamp AE (ed.), 1927-32, Calendar of Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry IV Preserved in the PRO, AD 13991413. Volume III, HMSO, London. Stevenson SJ & Alcock L, 1995, ‘Late Saxon, AD 101020’, in Alcock L, 91-8. Stoodley N, 1999, ‘Burial Rites, Gender and the Creation of Kingdoms: The Evidence from Seventh-Century Wessex’, in Dickinson & Griffiths (eds), 99-107. Straker V, 1990, ‘Carbonised Plant Macrofossils’, in Saville A, 1990, 214-8. Tabor R, 1998, Regional Perspectives in Archaeology: from sampling to narrative. Birmingham, Unpublished PhD thesis. Tabor R, 2000, ‘Cadbury Castle: focussing the landscape’, in Webster CJ (ed.), 25-30. Tabor R, 2002a, ‘A Prehistoric Series’, in Tabor R (ed.), 34-50. Tabor R, 2002b, ‘The Prehistoric Ceramics’, in Tabor (ed), 91-2. Tabor R, 2004, Regional Perspectives in Archaeology; from Strategy to Narrative, BAR International Series 1203. Tabor R (ed), 2002, South Cadbury Environs Project Interim Fieldwork Report, 1998-2001, University of Bristol, Centre for the Historic Environment. Tabor R (ed), 2004, South Cadbury Environs Project Interim Fieldwork Report, 2002-2003, University of Bristol, Centre for the Historic Environment. Tabor R & Johnson P, 2000, ‘Sigwells, Somerset, England: Regional Application and Interpretation of Geophysical Survey’, Antiquity 74, 319-25. Tainter JA, 1988, The Collapse of Complex Societies, CUP. Taylor CC, 1966, ‘The Pattern of Medieval Settlement in the Forest of Blackmoor’, PDNHAS 87, 251-4. Taylor CC, 1975, Fields in the English Landscape, Dent, London. 139

JOHN EDWARD DAVEY Williamson T, 1988, ‘Settlement Chronology and Regional Landscapes: The Evidence from the Claylands of East Anglia and Essex’, in Hooke D, 153-75. Williamson T, 2003, Shaping Medieval Landscapes; Settlement, Society and Environment, Windgather Press, Macclesfield. Woodward PJ, 1991, The South Dorset Ridgeway. Survey and excavations 1977-84. Dorset Nat. Hist.and Archaeol. Soc. Monograph 8, Dorchester. Woodward P et al, 1993, Excavations at Greyhound Yard, Dorchester 1981-4, Dorchester, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Monograph 12. Wykes R, 2003, Prehistoric Agricultural Landscapes: The Limestone Region of the SW in the Counties of Somerset, West Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, Unpublished PhD thesis, U.o.B. Yoffee N & Cowgill GL (eds.), 1988, The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilisations, University of Arizona Press. Yorke B 1995, Wessex in the Early Middle Ages, Leicester University Press.

140