1

The Conisbrough Estate and the southern boundary of Northumbria.

Environmental and archaeological evidence from a late sixth/early seventh century

structure and a later deer park boundary at Conisbrough, South Yorkshire

Paul C. Buckland,

David Hey,

Richard O’Neill

Ian Tyers

Abstract

Excavations close to the Anglo-Saxon church at Conisbrough, South Yorkshire, UK,

revealed a plank-walled construction dated by dendrochronology to the late sixth or

early seventh century. It is suggested that this formed part of a stock pond for fish,

associated with an elite residence to which a partly surviving Anglo-Saxon church

incorporating Northumbrian features is related. Environmental evidence shows a

neglected wood pasture landscape associated with the infilling of a ditch which cuts

through the structure. This is likely to be related to a deer park established shortly after

the Norman Conquest and associated with the castle.

Introduction

Conisbrough, south Yorkshire (NGR SK512988), lies south of the river Don, 15 km west

of Doncaster, at 64m OD, occupying the northeast end of a promontory overlooking the

confluence of the rivers Don and Dearne (figs. 1 and 2), at the point where the Don cuts

north-eastwards through the Magnesian Limestone cuesta. The village lies at the point

where a prehistoric and Roman trackway descends the limestone escarpment to a crossing

of the Don at Strafforth Sands and close to the place where the west – east Roman road

from the fort at Templeborough near Rotherham to Doncaster crosses this route. At the

end of the spur, on a small outlier of limestone surrounded by Coal Measure shales, lies

the buttressed cylindrical keep of the Norman castle and its bailey. Excavations on the

castle site (Johnson 1980) have failed to produce any evidence for pre-Norman

2

occupation, although the depth of later accumulation within the bailey precluded detailed

examination of the earliest deposits. It seems probable therefore that the ‘king’s burgh’

implied by the place name, first referred to in the will of the Mercian Wulfric Spott in

1002-4 (Whitelock 1979, no. 125, 586-589; Sawyer 1979, no. 3) lay elsewhere. The

parish church, dedicated to St Peter, lies 0.5km to the southwest of the castle, surrounded

by the modern village. Externally the present building is largely Perpendicular, but this

encapsulates an Anglo-Saxon nave, which Ryder (1980; 44-49; 1982, 45) suggests may

belong to the eighth century. Hey (1979, 32-33; 1986, 14-18), following Glanville Jones’

(1965, 79-81; 1975, 3-27) model of Anglo-Saxon multiple estates, has argued that St

Peter’s at Conisbrough was the minster church for an extended area south of the Don

from Hatfield and Tudworth, to the northeast of Doncaster, towards the borders of

Hallamshire in the southwest.

At the time of Domesday Book, the fee of Conisbrough was the most considerable estate

in south Yorkshire. It had belonged to Harold Godwinsson before the Conquest and was

an early grant to one of the Conqueror’s most trusted barons, William de Warenne. The

unusual form of its entry in Domesday Book, with over twenty sokelands, suggests that

Conisbrough may have been a special liberty or franchise, free from the usual obligations

to the Crown (Dalton 1994, 33-34). Within the fee, 108 plough-teams and about 300

peasants were recorded in 28 south Yorkshire townships, most of which lay south of the

river Don and which stretched as far as Yorkshire’s southern boundary (Faull and Stinson

1986).

Several clues indicate that in previous centuries this estate had belonged to the kings of

Northumbria on their border with Mercia. First, the place-name was recorded as

Cunugesburh in 1002-4 in the will of Wulfric Spott, the only document that survives for

south Yorkshire (Whitelock 1979, no. 125) before the Norman Conquest. Its etymology

is ‘the king’s stronghold’, the same meaning as Konigsberg (modern Kaliningrad) in

Russia and the two Konigsbergs in Germany (Smith 1961). Second, Conisbrough

attracted the attention of medieval chroniclers. Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote of oppidum

Caerconan quod nunc Cunungeburg appellatur and claimed that burge Conane was the

3

tomb of Hengist. In the thirteenth century Peter Langtoft noted that King Egbert and his

men went to Burh-Konan at Whitsuntide (Hunter 1828, 1, 197-215). We do not know

whether these myths had any kernel of truth, but they attest to Conisbrough’s presumed

past importance. Third, the church of St Peter, Conisbrough, is a large Anglo-Saxon

building, whose substantial nave may date from the eighth century. Its size and design

suggest a major minster church in the Northumbrian tradition (Ryder 1980), a royal

foundation for the southern part of the kingdom, beyond the river Don. The medieval

parish that it served extended to Yorkshire’s southern boundary at Harthill and across the

eastern lowlands beyond Doncaster to Hatfield, Thorne and Fishlake. In the late eleventh

century, when William, second Earl of Warenne, granted Conisbrough and its dependent

churches to the Cluniac priory that his father had founded at Lewes, these churches each

lay within the fee (Hunter 1828, 1, 197-215); three of them are recorded in Domesday

Book. Fourth, Conisbrough overlooks an ancient crossing of the river Don at Strafforth

Sands (the meeting place of Strafforth wapentake), where a prehistoric and Roman route,

evident both on aerial photographs and in later parish boundaries (cf. Hey 2003, 17, and

unpublished aerial photograph of Barnburgh Cliff (NGR SE 499038) in Doncaster

Museum collection), ran north-south along the crest of the Magnesian Limestone belt.

Known variously as Packman Lane or Ricknield Street, by late Anglo-Scandinavian

times this highway separated the fee of Conisbrough from the smaller lordship of

Laughton-en-le-Morthen, which the Normans placed within their new honour of Tickhill

(Hunter 1828, 1, 197-215). The strategic importance of Conisbrough was enhanced by

the east-west Roman road that linked the forts at Doncaster to Templeborough and which

must have crossed the north-south route to the south of the church.

A Roman villa has been identified to the south of this junction, within the medieval

hunting area that is still known as Conisbrough Parks (Malcolm Grant and Ian

Macdonald, pers. comm. 2009). As late as 1848, Conisbrough Parks formed a distinct

estate of 1,337 acres that had a separate Tithe Award (Borthwick TA348S). Only three

farms - Conisbrough Lodge in the centre, Birk Lodge in the south-west, and Parks Farm

in the north-east - were named, with two unnamed farms on the northern and southern

boundaries. The boundary (fig. 3), which followed streams wherever possible, appears to

4

pre-date the creation of the deer park, and it is possible that the Norman deer park was

coterminous with apparent boundaries of a Roman estate. The park boundary comes close

to three settlements and obviously prevented their expansion. Clifton, on the eastern

boundary, was recorded in Domesday Book; the etymology of Firsby to the west is

‘farmstead of the Frisians’; and Micklebring to the south has a topographical name,

meaning ‘the great slope’, that is usually considered to be early (Smith 1961). The

boundaries of both, on the east and west sides of the park respectively, appear to have

been cut out of a pre-existing more regular shaped estate, the later deer park, and on the

archaeological evidence presented here, the park once extended further north, having

been truncated by the development of Conisbrough between castle and deer park (figs. 1

and 3). Whether or not the original park estate boundaries extend back to a Roman estate

associated with a known villa, they appear to have been well-established before the

Norman Conquest.

Historians have long thought that, taken together, these clues point to an important royal

estate on the southern border of Northumbria, but it has not been possible to date its

foundation. The translation of the place name as ‘king’s fort’ goes back at least to the

early nineteenth century (Wainwright 1829, vi), whilst Jones (1975) points out the

similarity with villa regia’. The interpretation is also discussed by Buckland, Magilton

and Hayfield (1986, 20-23) in the introduction to the monograph on the excavations in

Doncaster. The dendrochronological and radiocarbon evidence considered here indicates

that a major structure there may date from early in the reign of Aethelfrith (~ AD 590-

615), the king who united Bernicia and Deira to form this kingdom, and this may be

interpreted as evidence for a villa regia, in the area surrounding the later Anglo-Saxon

church. The evidence is, however, insufficiently precise to preclude a structure belonging

to the last years of a preceding British elite site.

Wellgate

St Peter’s church, Conisbrough, lies at the northeast end of an outcrop of Lower

Magnesian Limestone close to the contact with the underlying impermeable Coal

5

Measure shales, and this throws out a series of springs. At Wellgate (fig. 4), north of the

church, a small rectangular well house, probably of late medieval origin, has been

constructed over one of these to cover a water source, which may to relate to supply to

the castle (Miller 1804, 268). The ground slopes steeply to the north and east down to the

floodplain of the Don, and were it not for the large keep of the Norman castle, the church

would dominate the landscape.

The modern village of Conisbrough (figs. 1 and 2) lies immediately west and north of the

church. In 2002, a group of 1960s flats, behind nineteenth century properties fronting

onto Church Street and along Wellgate, was demolished to make way for new housing

development. In advance of construction works, and following recommendations made

by the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service, an archaeological evaluation (Trenches 1-

15) was carried out by ARCUS (formerly Archaeological Research Consultancy at the

University of Sheffield, now part of Wessex Archaeology), the results of which prompted

further detailed excavation in five areas (Trenches A-E) (fig. 4) (NGR SK51179881).

Although much of the stratigraphy had been truncated by post-medieval activity, three

main phases of pre-modern activity were identified in several pockets of archaeology

surviving across the site (O’Neill 2004).

The earliest phase comprised a substantial cut feature of uncertain function (figs. 5 and

6), itself cut into by a broad linear feature. The proximity of the spring has led to the

survival of waterlogged materials, including a linear post and plank-faced structure,

stakes and a wicker fence or track. There was no dateable artefactual record associated

with these structures and the sixth to seventh century date was achieved by

dendrochronological and radiocarbon dates (see below). The original extent of the

planked structure could not be determined, but sufficient was recovered to indicate its

careful construction, and its interpretation and that of its successor form the focus of this

paper. This had been cut into by a broad, shallow ditch, which appeared to be on the same

alignment. Palaeoecological materials from these earlier phases of the site were well

preserved. Despite the site’s proximity to the church, there is little evidence of further

activity until the 11th -12/ 13th centuries, when several pits were dug, possibly within field

6

or property boundaries, in two concentrations north-east and west of the earlier features.

These may have been contemporary with the Norman castle, or a major rebuilding of the

church in the 12th century (Ryder 1982, 45). The steep drop of approximately two metres

between the churchyard and properties on the north side of Church Street indicates some

truncation of the stratigraphy before their construction and the last main phase identified

belongs to these post-medieval structures, the ancillary buildings of which had been

demolished prior to the building of the flats in the 1960s. One other building of note that

survived on the site until demolished in the 1940s was the Priory Manor House; this was

not identified during the investigations. The house, thought to be eighteenth century in

date, had survived in a central area of the site known as Low Fold, and it is possible that

this building was on the site of an earlier structure (Allport 1911), a lodging attached to

Lewes Priory in Sussex as part of its foundation with revenues from the Conisbrough

Estates in 1078 (Hunter 1828, 1, 197-215). The evidence for this location, however, is

equivocal as another post-medieval building called 'The Priory' lies immediately east of

St Peter's Church and High Street (fig. 1).

The Structures

The principal excavated area (Area A/Trench 4; figs. 6-10) lay east of the wellhead,

entirely on the weathered grey clay surface of the Coal Measures, and this impervious

horizon had lead to extensive waterlogging of the archaeological features dug into it.

Beneath the modern tarmac surface associated with the 1960s development, was the

corner of a post-medieval building, a boundary wall, culvert and associated buried topsoil

and subsoil deposits. Pottery of 17th to 18th century date from immediately below the

building provides a terminus post quem for its construction, although the quantity of

primarily 19th to early 20th century utilitarian wares recovered from demolition rubble and

accumulating soils beyond the building to the south and east might indicate a later date.

Beneath the eastern wall of the building was a single short section of stone wall, on a

different alignment to the later building and property boundaries, possibly of late

medieval date. Below the latter wall, and extending across the site above the natural clay,

was a layer, probably a soil, containing 13 -14th century and 15 - 16th century pottery.

7

The ‘Ditch’

Along the southern edge of the site, natural clay was encountered immediately beneath

the modern surface material, but to the north, a broad shallow linear feature [cut 4025]

(figs. 5 and 6), running east-west, had been cut into the clay, and this still took some

subsurface flow from the spring to the west. The feature [cut 432]/[4025]/[4047] was

traced for a length of at least 20m, and 6-9m in width, it survived to up to 1m in depth.

Becoming narrower and shallower with the slope towards the east, this was almost

certainly as the result of later landscaping [4011], perhaps associated with the

construction of 19th century properties in this area. The extent of the feature, interpreted

as a broad, shallow ditch, was not established, and insufficient was excavated to be

certain of its alignment, whether it was straight or curved around the church. Two other

trenches were excavated on the projected alignment of the feature. To the east (Trench 3),

the stratigraphy had been largely removed by the insertion of a post-medieval boundary

and associated reduction of ground levels, although a shallow deposit at the base of

Trench 3, similar to a deposit (413) filling the ditch feature in Area A/Trench 4, may have

been the base of the feature surviving beneath this later truncation. To the west, beyond

an extant 1960s housing block, since demolished, no trace of the feature or associated

deposits were identified in Trench 5, and no access was given to the adjacent area under

the housing block during later building work.

It seems possible that the ditch reflects the northern edge of the deer park extending along

Old Road and Common Lane to the gates of the Norman castle (figs. 1 and 3), a line later

cut back by the development of the village of Conisbrough. Environmental evidence,

presented below, would support this interpretation.

The Planked Structure

The cutting of the linear feature had largely removed deposits associated with an earlier

structure which on the north side was faced with a timber revetment [4048] consisting of

8

large uprights, between 2m and 2.5m apart, into which horizontal planks had been fitted

into grooves in the uprights (figs. 7-10). This revetment had been constructed of large,

well finished horizontal oak timbers, fitted together with tongue and groove along the

tops of the planks. This planked wall survived over a length of 10.7m in three and one

half ‘bays’, two planks high at its western extent, the largest plank measuring 2.5m by

1.66m and 0.12m in thickness. The one vertical post where it was possible to expose the

base showed it to have been cut off square and the length of timberwork had been

inserted along the edge of the excavated feature, which had been cut into the natural

weathered surface of the Coal Measure shales. At no point did the woodwork survive to

its full original height and it had been hacked through during the digging of the overlying

linear feature [4025], disturbing some of its timber into the filling [413]. This suggests a

significant time gap between the destruction of any surface trace of the timber-revetted

feature and the cutting of the ditch.

The base of this feature had the remains of either a collapsed wattle fence or track [4064],

approximately parallel with the revetment, a small plank-lined pit [4060], a line of stakes

[4065] and other wood [4087]. Little remained of associated deposits [4052; 4059]

infilling this structure, since these had been largely cut away by the large linear feature

[4025].

The only dateable artefactual material recovered from the filling of all the features was a

few sherds of local Roman grey wares and samian, all of which were clearly residual. A

small quantity of worked flint and waste were also recovered, none of which was

diagnostic of any particular period. The quantity of material of all periods before the

medieval settlement is no greater than that which would have been obtained from local

field-walking and perhaps represents manuring scatters.

Some evidence of occupation in the vicinity is indicated, however, by large amounts of

smithing slag and numerous fire-cracked pebbles in the filling of features, particularly

from context 413, the upper fill of the linear feature or ditch, although like the Roman

pottery, none of this needs to be contemporary. Timbers in the ditch also appear to have

9

been redeposited either from the upper part of the planked wall or a structure

contemporary with it. Faunal remains were few in number and showed no evidence of

butchery or working, with the exception of two examples of worked antler, one of which

appeared to have been soaked to aid working.

Dating Evidence: Tree-Ring Analysis of Timbers and Radiocarbon Dating

In the absence of artefactual material from the timber structures, the dendrochronological

evidence represents a crucial element in site interpretation. All the large timbers from the

site were of oak. Complete sequences of growth rings in the samples which were selected

for dating purposes were measured to an accuracy of 0.01mm using a computer-based

travelling stage (Tyers 2004). The ring sequences were plotted onto semi-log graph paper

to enable visual comparisons to be made between sequences. In addition, a cross-

correlation algorithm (Baillie and Pilcher 1973) was employed to search for positions

where the ring sequences were highly correlated. These positions were checked using the

graphs and, where these were satisfactory, new mean sequences were constructed from

the synchronised sequences. The t-values reported below are derived from the original

CROS algorithm. A t-value of 3.5 or over is usually indicative of a good match, although

this is with the proviso that high t-values at the same relative or absolute position must be

obtained from a range of independent sequences, and that these positions are supported

by satisfactory visual matching. All the measured sequences from this assemblage were

compared with each other. Any that were found to cross-match were combined to form a

series of site master curves. These master curves and the remaining unmatched ring

sequences were then tested against a range of reference chronologies, using the same

matching criteria: high t-values, replicated values against a range of chronologies at the

same position, and satisfactory visual matching. Where such positions are found these

provide calendar dates for the ring-sequence.

These tree-ring dates can initially only date the rings present in the timber. Their

interpretation relies upon the nature of the final rings in the sequence. If the sample ends

in the heartwood of the original tree, a terminus post quem (tpq) for the felling of the tree

10

is indicated by the date of the last ring plus the addition of the minimum expected number

of sapwood rings that may be missing. This tpq may be many decades prior to the real

felling date. Where some of the outer sapwood or the heartwood/sapwood boundary

survives on the sample, a felling date range can be calculated using the maximum and

minimum number of sapwood rings likely to have been present. Alternatively, if bark-

edge survives, then a felling date can be directly utilised from the date of the last

surviving ring. The sapwood estimates applied through-out this report are a minimum of

10 and maximum of 46 annual rings, where these figures indicate the 95% confidence

limits of the range. These figures are applicable to oaks from England and Wales (Tyers

1998). The dates obtained by the technique do not by themselves necessarily indicate the

date of the structure or deposit from which they are derived. It is necessary to incorporate

other specialist evidence concerning the re-use of timbers, and the repairs of structures

before the dendrochronological dates given here can be reliably interpreted as reflecting

the construction date of phases within the archaeological sequence.

Results

Initially some samples were examined during November 2002 as part of an assessment of

the potential of the material following the archaeological evaluation. The majority of the

material was analysed during January and September 2003. All the material was assessed

for its potential for dendrochronological analysis and nine timbers were selected for

analysis. The rest of the material had no potential for analysis since they either contained

too few rings, or contained a variety of anatomical anomalies that prevented their reliable

analysis. The tree-ring sequences from seven samples (Fig. 11 and Table 1) were found to

cross-match with each other. A single composite 149-year sequence was calculated from

the overlapping series and a match was located for this sequence indicating the rings

covered parts of the period AD 425-573 inclusive. Sub-samples from a component timber

within the sequence were dispatched for radiocarbon analysis to confirm this dating.

These results provide some independent support for the dating of this sequence and this

match is accepted in the absence of opposing evidence (see below).

11

The Tree ring evidence: Discussion

A summary of the findings is presented in Table 1, and Figure 11. The overlaps in the

dendrochronological sequence leave no doubt that, as the excavated evidence would

suggest, that the plank-built wall [4048], small wooden framed pit [4060] and the wood

and wattle work on the floor of the structure [4064] are part of the same structural

sequence. The single timber from the upper filling of the ditch which cuts across the

earlier feature [413] has a similar ring sequence and was probably therefore disturbed

from it. As a caveat, however, none of the datable samples definitely include bark-edge;

one retains significant quantities of sapwood and a further sample is complete to the

heartwood/sapwood edge. The absence of datable bark-edge effectively prevents the

dendrochronological analysis from determining whether all of this material is precisely

contemporaneous or is the product of a number of temporally close construction events.

Accepting the structural evidence, that the timbers are precisely coeval, and hence the

result of a single event, the results can be combined into the narrowest common period,

and this would indicate the felling and probable initial use of the timbers fell within the

period AD 573-90.

In dendrochronological terms the quality of the cross-matching of the Wellgate sequence

to two contemporaneous sequences is good, but the dating this provides is supported by

relatively few other series, hence the result has poor levels of independent replication.

The two sites that yield highly significant correlations with the Wellgate sequence consist

of a single timber from Coppergate in York (Groves et al. in press), and a multiple series

of samples from a horizontal mill in Tamworth, Staffordshire (Baillie 1992). The

distribution of ‘dark-age’ tree-ring data within England is extremely uneven with the

Conisbrough sequence the first produced from South Yorkshire, whilst there still are

none from the East Midlands or the North-East. The situation has not changed

significantly since the most recent synthesis of the evidence (Tyers et al. 1994), with

most of the contemporaneous tree-ring series derived from London or the southern

counties. The absence of significant correlations between these and Wellgate suggests

that most of these are too far away, themselves aberrant, or too poorly replicated to yield

statistically significant correlations at these distances. Within this overall picture it should

12

be noted that the material from Tamworth provides some additional statistical support for

the dating evidence since there are significant correlations between several individual

series from Wellgate and similar series from Tamworth.

Given the archaeological significance of the findings at Wellgate and the crucial issue of

dating, it was felt that the dendrochronological dating would have to be backed up by a

series of radiocarbon results before they could be considered completely secure. Two

segments of timber 4 413 SF18 were independently submitted for radiocarbon analysis

(Table 2). These are samples Beta-183712, and Beta-185185, which are the inner and

outer halves respectively of this timber. Allowing for the offsets between the sample

locations within the timbers and the end dates of the sequence, these results individually

provide supporting evidence for the growth period of this timber as somewhere in the

third to eighth centuries AD. The original intention was to provide closer support for the

dendrochronological date by wiggle-matching the results obtained from a series of

radiocarbon samples of known decades from within the site sequence (Bronk Ramsey,

van der Plicht and Weninger 2001, 381-389). This sample was the only one still suitable

for radiocarbon analysis when this requirement became clear, its size is small, reducing

the amount of material usable for the analyses, and the relatively short length of the tree-

ring sequence from this sample also works against this aim. Analysis of the results using

the D_Sequence function in the radiocarbon calibration program Oxcal (Bronk Ramsey

1999) does yield a calibrated end-date for the Conisbrough sequence of AD 500-690 (at

95% confidence), but there is a caveat in that the internal correlation of the radiocarbon

data obtained with a known calendar interval is very poor. Given this statistical anomaly,

the radiocarbon results cannot be used to support the dendrochronological dating in the

way they were originally intended, but it should be stressed that the dating does not

disprove the dendrochronological date given here. An additional date (Beta-183713) was

obtained on another timber from the same context [413] and its range, of AD 380-650,

similarly overlaps. In view of the fact that these timbers are almost certainly disturbed

into this layer, it is unfortunate that further dates upon associated plant macrofossil

material are not available.

13

Archaeological Evidence: Discussion

It is unfortunate that radiocarbon dating was restricted to wood from the infilling of the

feature cut through the planked wall, with a view to validating the dendrochronological

sequence rather than dating the features per se, although the absence of evidence for

reworking of the timbers and their preservation suggest that there was a relatively short

interval between any earlier use and re-use. The structure must be dated to the late sixth

or early seventh century, and belongs to the period when locally the British kingdom of

Elmet was being absorbed into Saxon Northumbria.

The well finished nature of the woodwork (figs. 8-10) does raise the possibility of re-use

of timbers from an above ground building, or that the surviving fragment is the north wall

of a substantial cellar to a larger structure utilising this method of construction. The

grooved upright and horizontal plank technique, termed bulhus or bulværk in Sweden, is

known from Viking Age structures in Scandinavia (Bäck 2009; Fallgren 2008, fig. 7.2

from Carlsson 1981), and survived in peasant housing in the Baltic region, particularly on

Gotland, and in Denmark and southern Norway into the post-medieval period (Roede

1999, fig. 9). In England, this technique appears as early as the Late Iron Age at

Glastonbury lake village in Somerset, where it is used to revet a causeway (Coles &

Minnett 1995, fig. 4.13c). Goodburn (1994) has noted its use in mid-eleventh to late

twelfth century structures in London, it appears in a thirteenth century building at Weoley

Castle, Birmingham, where the planks are also slotted into a horizontal sill beam (Oswald

1964, fig. 44; see also Smith 1965), and Meeson (1983) has suggested that some of the

surviving timberwork in the isolated church at Rushton Spencer in north Staffordshire

reflects a similar thirteenth century plank-built structure, although a more recent

dendrochronological assessment indicates a slightly later date of ca. 1318 (Walker 1999,

table1). It is apparent, however, that the intermittent character of the evidence is a

product of both the limited nature of the waterlogged archaeological record and the

chance survival of timber buildings.

14

There is little excavated evidence of Middle Saxon buildings, beyond plans recovered

from the disposition of postholes, and still less of sixth century British structures,

particularly where preservation is sufficient to infer the detailed nature of any

timberwork. The evidence provided by excavated posthole and construction trench is

generally insufficient to indicate whether horizontal planks had been fitted into grooves

in uprights, rather than lodged behind them, or whether panels were infilled with wattle

and daub. A building at Thirlings in Northumberland roughly contemporary with that at

Conisbrough, apparently had planks slotted between vertical posts (Webster and Cherry

1975, 226, fig. 90; O’Brien and Miket 1991), and the closely spaced large postholes of

Saxon halls on sites such as Chalton in Hampshire, and Maxey, near Peterborough, for

example, would have allowed the intervening spaces to be filled with short, horizontal

planks (Rahtz 1976, fig. 2.15). Addyman, Leigh and Hughes’ (1972, fig. 13)

reconstruction of the Chalton evidence, however, suggests semicircular posts either side

of a horizontally planked wall, similar to Thirlings. It is at least as probable that the

spaces would be filled with wattle and daub panels, the ends of laths or wattling being

fixed into grooves in the uprights, a feature apparent in many later medieval buildings.

James, Marshall and Millett (1984, 182-215) provide a discussion of early medieval

buildings using plank and post construction, although in several cases the excavated

evidence, for example, in the putative Roman amphitheatre at Inveresk (Neighbour 2007,

fig. 7) and the pre-rampart structure beneath the castle at Hen Domen (Barker and

Higham 1982, fig. 13), the excavated evidence remains unconvincing.

The construction of the Wellgate structure, with well finished tongued and grooved

horizontal planks fitting into grooved uprights, is curious if all that was intended was a

revetment, since a more effective way of supporting the side of any below ground

structure would have been, as in many medieval wharves, to have fitted planks behind

vertical retaining posts (e.g. Hull, Ayers 1979, fig. 6; Kings Lynn, Clarke and Carter, fig.

46). It is possible that, as in the ninth century horizontal mill at Tamworth, Staffordshire

(Rahtz and Meeson 1992, fig. 82), the joints were intended to provide a more rigid

watertight structure. The catchment of the spring in Wellgate, however, is small, and it is

15

very unlikely that it would have provided more than a trickle of water, insufficient to

power a mill, but perhaps enough to fill a fishpond.

Environmental Samples

In the absence of an artefactual record, the palaeoecological evidence may provide

contextual as well as landscape information (cf. Buckland et al. 2001), and samples were

collected for macrofossil analysis, although because of limited funding this research had

to be limited to examination of a number of samples for their fossil insect faunas.

Samples of approximately five litres each were taken from the base of the filling [4052],

adjacent to the planked structure, and as a column of six samples through contexts 416

and 413/439 in five 10 cm thick slices with a basal sample of 5 cm at the bottom of

context 416, close to the base of the ditch in the western part of the excavation (fig. 7,

Section 10). The matrix of the samples consisted of a dark grey clay with a few evident

plant remains. Sample 4052, associated with the wattle and timberwork adjacent to the

planked wall, was a cleaner, lighter grey. All samples contained occasional well rounded

pebbles of Coal Measure sandstone and quartzite pebbles from the Sherwood Sandstone

group and these derive from patches of local glacial deposits (cf. Mitchell et al. 1947,

136).

The samples were washed out over a 300µm sieve and subjected to paraffin (kerosene)

flotation (Coope 1986). The resultant floats were washed in detergent and stored in

alcohol before sorting under a low power binocular microscope. Insect remains were

identified using the reference collection then housed at the University of Sheffield (now

at the University of Edinburgh) and critical identifications were checked against the more

extensive collections of the Doncaster Museum. Table 3 lists the taxa identified.

Taxonomy for the Coleoptera follows Böhme (2005), and habitat and fossil record data

are derived from the database BugsCEP (Buckland and Buckland 2006), checked against

primary sources where necessary; the latter software was also used to generate the

summary diagram figure 12 (see Appendix 2).

16

Interpretation

The Planked Structure

The one sample [4052] contemporary with the planked structure provides evidence of

permanent water conditions, with the remains of larval caddis flies (Trichoptera) and

several water beetles. The absence of strictly synanthropic species implies a natural

deposit accumulating in a shallow pond with muddy shores and some plant litter

accumulation in a grassland environment. Whilst the accumulation may post-date the

actual use of the structure, the implication is of an outdoor construction rather than the

basement of a larger building. The few xylophagous taxa, the click beetle Dalopius

marginatus, woodworm, Anobium sp. and the bark beetles Hylesinus oleiperda and

Leperisinus sp., both normally associated with ash, Fraxinus excelsior, are widespread at

the present day and may reflect individual trees in an otherwise open landscape. The

fauna contains one particularly rare and notable species, the colydiid Myrmechixenus

subterraneus. Usually associated with ants of the genera Formica, particularly F. rufa

(Fowles 1994), and Lasius (Päivinen et al. 2003), the beetle has few recent records from

Britain, the most northerly being from Cromford in Derbyshire in 1956 (Hyman 1992,

223), although it is probable that because of its subterranean habitat it is under-recorded.

The ‘Ditch’

It is evident from the Bugstats summary bar diagram (fig. 12) that the infilling of the

broad feature cut through the planked structure relates to a natural landscape, perhaps

best described as wood pasture, or hay meadow with old tree pollards (cf. Hæggström

1998). All the species in the faunas, which are associated with human activity, are also

found in natural situations, particularly in association with old trees, and obligate

synanthropes are absent. The succession, whilst it has evidence for damp ground and wet

mud, contains only one dytiscid water beetle, the large Dytiscus circumcinctus, a strong

flier (Nilsson and Holmen 1995, 197), which is probably adventitious in the deposit. The

insect faunas are remarkably consistent, and despite proximity to the parish church, only

17

50m to the south of the site, and any adjacent settlement, they provide little evidence for

human occupation. Although the cucujid beetle Cryptolestes ferrugineus is one of the

most common pests of stored products, and in most fossil assemblages would be regarded

as an indicator of stored grain, it is cold hardy, able to maintain populations outdoors in

England, and has also been recorded from under bark (Halstead 1993, 99-197). The

species has numerous fossil records, largely from Roman grain deposits (Buckland 1991,

updated in Buckland and Buckland 2006), and it may be significant that there is then a

gap in records until the period around the Norman Conquest when it re-appears on the

Parliament Street site in York (Carrott et al. 1995). The species was perhaps largely

restricted to ‘natural’, or at least wood pasture habitats, during periods of a reduction in

the large scale movement and storage of grain (cf. Kenward, in Hall and Kenward 2004,

424). The large assemblage of other species which can be associated with wood pasture

at Conisbrough suggests that this is the most likely origin for the specimens. Alexander

(2002, 48) also notes that early records of the nitidulid Carpophilus sexpustulatus are

from stored products, but that it has become increasingly common in wood pasture, and

Garland (1983, 9) regards it as an old woodland species, noting several records from the

Doncaster region. Continental records also indicate that it occurs under damp bark on

damaged deciduous trees, and this is likely to be its primary habitat (Koch 1989, 143).

The often synanthropic endomycid Mycetaea subterranea is also found in the wild in the

well rotted interiors of trees, as well as in compost (idem, 234). Overall, the image which

the faunas from the broad ditch produce is one of a wood pasture environment, in keeping

with the deer park, known to have been attached to the castle throughout the medieval

period.

The assemblages are dominated by two elements, the one associated with fresh hay and

the other with old moribund trees, the carrion element perhaps reflecting a long

established raptor’s or large corvid’s nest in an adjacent tree. The fauna associated

directly with ruderals, docks, clovers and grasses (Table 4), is outnumbered by species

occurring with the early stages of decay of plant material, part of what Kenward (in

Kenward et al. 1978, 67) has termed the ‘sweet compost’ assemblage. This includes the

hydrophilids, Cercyon spp., Megasternum boletophagum and Cryptopleurum minutum,

18

many of the staphylinids, including Micropeplus, Omalium and Xylodromus spp., as well

as rhizophagids, cryptophagids and latridiids. There is significant overlap between this

community and those of herbivore dung, and some of the histerids and scarabaeids may

have been attracted to any heaps of decaying plant debris. Indeed, most of this element in

the fauna could be recovered from a summer heap of ‘grass’ cuttings from a rather weedy

lawn at the present day in south Yorkshire.

The dead wood fauna from the ditch samples is extensive and includes several species,

which are currently rare or endangered in Britain. Although the woodworm beetle,

Anobium punctatum/inexpectatum, could have been associated with structural or

discarded timber, the bulk of the xylophagous element reflects trees, rather than worked

timber. The bark beetle assemblage indicates the proximity of several living deciduous

trees, including ash, probably oak and perhaps alder. The ostomid Nemosoma elongatum

is a predator on these scolytids, often in elm, but also in a range of other timbers; it has

not been recorded over the past century north of Nottinghamshire and Cheshire (Hyman

1992, 421). The fauna from beneath peeling mouldy bark includes the cucujid Pediacus

dermestoides, widespread in southern England, and extending northwards to North

Yorkshire. The much rarer pselaphid Trichonyx sulcicollis, whilst essentially a dead

wood species (cf. Alexander 2002), is also recorded from compost heaps, but has no

modern records outside central southern England (Hyman 1994, 78-79). The fossil

record, however, includes several specimens from Roman to Anglo-Scandinavian York,

as well as a Roman record from Ribchester in north Lancashire (Hall and Kenward 1990;

Kenward and Hall 1995; Carrott et al. 2000). The minute histerid Aeletes atomarius is

usually associated with the borings of the lesser stag beetle Dorcus parallelipipedus, but

may also occur with Sinodendron cylindricum, which is present in the Conisbrough

assemblage. Abraeus perpusillus is also associated with soft, well rotted wood; both these

small histerid beetles are now restricted to scattered localities where there is sufficient

dead wood (Hyman 1992, 335-336).

The chafer beetles in the assemblage provide some evidence of the nature of any

woodland, for whilst the rose chafer Cetonia aurata may breed in either wood mould or

19

compost, Melolontha hippocastani is a woodland species, whose larvae probably feed on

roots. It is present as a fossil, however, in the otherwise open landscapes of the Bronze

Age Wiltshire Chalk at Wilsford and in the similarly open Iron Age landscape around

Tattershall Thorpe in south-east Lincolnshire (Osborne 1989; Chowne et al. 1986); both

sites lie well outside its modern distribution, which is essentially upland and north-

western (Hyman 1992, 393) The Conisbrough site is similarly marginal to its modern

distribution, although there are old records from Derbyshire, and an association with a

habitat that is now rare in the lowlands is probable. The chafer may rely on unimproved

grassland in woodland clearings, and whilst some elements of the old woodland fauna

have found temporary sanctuaries in the old trees of lowland wood pastures, any

associated pasture has often been ploughed, fertilized and otherwise improved, destroying

the species’ habitat and its continuity. Buckland (2005, 95) further suggests that M.

hippocastani may have benefited from the former presence of free ranging swine and

wild boar in parkland, opening up the otherwise rather densely grazed sward.

The suggestion of either a raptor or corvid nesting in an adjacent old tree rests on the

carrion elements in the fauna, on the relative numbers of Trox scaber, Omosita discoidea,

and several histerids. There were few bones in the deposits, and since all of these taxa are

recorded from bird nests, this appears a probable explanation. The indeterminate fleas,

Siphonaptera, unfortunately insufficiently well preserved to identify, may also have

dropped from the same source, although they could equally relate to small rodents

foraging in the compost.

Discussion

The ‘Bulhus’ Structure

The limited nature of the evidence, constrained by standing buildings to the south and

west (fig. 4) and the truncation of the stratigraphy to the east, does allow the possibility

that the plank-walled structure, with gentle slope from the south side and vertical

revetment to the north, did not extend much beyond the excavated area. The fossil insect

evidence from sample 4052 would support an interpretation involving standing water,

rather than a cellar beneath a building. It is possible that it formed the middle section of

20

an elongate pond, at least 11m long by 7m wide, perhaps utilising the water from the

spring for a fishpond or other agricultural function, such as retting of flax or hemp.

Retting (Higham 1989), however, produces particularly foul residues and any water

surface or wet mud would have attracted a characteristic eutrophic insect fauna (Gearey

et al. 2005). Another possible explanation for the Wellgate structure is that it relates to

water management for either a fish or stock pond, trapping the water just below the

source, with the planked revetment along the northern, downslope side of the feature. The

stake and wattle structures in the base of the linear feature have parallels with the

numerous fish weirs, dating from the seventh to twelfth centuries, identified along the

River Trent and the Humber foreshore (e.g. Elliott, Jones and Howard 2004, fig. 7.3), but

it is unlikely that there was sufficient flow for large scale water management. The limited

environmental evidence provides a little support for the presence of standing water, but

there were no bones of aquatic vertebrates, fish or amphibian, in the small assemblage

from the site. At Conisbrough, any fishponds – and the dating evidence is particularly

early for such structures in the post-Roman, pre-Norman period - are more likely to have

been located along either the River Don or Dearne, 0.5km to the north, or in the valley a

similar distance north-east of the site, where a millpond existed into the last century. The

catchment of the Wellgate springs, close to the top of the slope is also relatively slight

and there would be insufficient water to power a mill, and the scale of the work would

suggest a more substantial purpose than a watering hole for stock. A more prominent

obligate dung fauna would also have been expected if livestock had drunk directly from

the feature.

Truncation of the structure by the later broad ditch makes interpretation difficult and

allows the possibility that it was asymmetric, with a gentle cut slope southwards towards

the present church and the downhill side strongly revetted to provide a vertical wall.

Despite the limited length excavated, the scale of the structure is clearly quite significant

and the question has to be asked as to whether it formed part of an enclosure around a

site, perhaps the temenos of a monastery or the original burh of Conisbrough, centred on

the later church. The form is without parallel in Anglo-Saxon defences, however, and it

is probable that the feature, if linear, was demarcatory rather than defensive. In the latter

21

case, it could only have been effective where strong enfilading power would have

enabled the trapping of an enemy against the wooden wall; it is therefore not surprising

that such form appears with the development of firearms in late and post-medieval

architecture, and this suggestion can perhaps be discounted.

A stock pond for fish, with the wood-lined central pit functioning as a trap after draining

appears the most probable interpretation of the structure. Fishponds are known from

Roman sites in England (Zeepvat 1988) and fisheries figure in Anglo-Saxon monastic

charters, as well as Domesday, although there is insufficient detail to define particular

structures. The will of Wulfric Spott (1002 x 4; Whitelock 1979, no. 125, 586-589;

Sawyer 1979, no. 3) refers to renders of fish to Burton Abbey, although the source of

these is likely to have been in the eastern part of the Conisbrough estate on the Don at

Tudworth, where fisheries belonging to the lord of Conisbrough, providing 20,000 eels,

are recorded in Domesday (Hunter 1828, I, 97; Hey 2003, 44). There is no convincing

evidence of fishponds in the period between the end of the Roman period and the Late

Saxon, and Currie (1991) in his study of the spread of carp suggests that the earliest large

scale ponds are a creation of the Norman aristocracy. Whatever the Conisbrough

construction is, its location suggests association with other elite buildings, either

monastery or palace, close to the later minster church.

The Ditch

The insect assemblages from the ditch quite clearly indicate an environment, wherein

decaying plant material, perhaps intended as fodder, accumulated, or was disposed of in

the wet, grassed over linear feature, which continued to silt up. The stratigraphy (fig. 7)

indicates at least one re-cutting along the same alignment (4054 cut into 4055/4027 and

4090 into 4084/4046], suggesting the need to renew a structure which, even allowing for

its truncation is more likely to be demarcatory than defensive, a point reinforced by the

environmental evidence. Nearby, probably along any associated bank, were old trees,

perhaps pollards with much dead and decaying wood, with possibly the nest of a corvid

or raptor. The fact that the earthwork is oblique to the existing street plan and appears to

have had little if any influence on the layout of the village suggests that any significant

22

late Saxon and Norman settlement lay elsewhere, and that the feature had largely silted

up before the present village plan developed. The paucity of any artefactual evidence also

supports this. There is little dating evidence and the radiocarbon and dendrochronological

dates on oak timbers seem to relate to material disturbed from the plank-walled structure

or a contemporary building during the cutting of the ditch. The extent of truncation

means that it is not possible to be certain when the ditch was abandoned, although the

environmental evidence suggests a process of silting up in a wood pasture environment,

perhaps with some disposal of plant litter, fodder as opposed to any domestic debris. The

possibility has to be considered that the structure relates to the primary northern boundary

of the medieval deer park known to be associated with the castle.

The park at Conisbrough survived into the sixteenth century, and Hey (2003, 70) notes

that as late as 1539 there were 440 fallow deer within the park. The known bounds of the

medieval deer park (fig. 3), however, still shown as the civil parish of Conisbrough Parks

on the Ordnance Survey map, can be defined as a north-south irregular, elongated oval,

south of the Doncaster Tinsley turnpike road to Hill Top, and then the parish boundary to

Firsby and Ravenfield, east to Micklebring, and north through Clifton back into

Conisbrough, a circuit which excludes St Peter’s church, castle and village, but does

include the site of a Roman villa close to its eastern boundary. It is possible that the

excavated feature reflects an earlier park boundary, extending along Old Road and

Clifton Hill north-eastwards to the gatehouse of the Norman castle, but this would place

the existing parish church within the park. Although the evidence would suggest that the

excavated feature did not influence the layout of the medieval and later village, the south

eastward deflection of Old Road/Church Street may be a reflection of the course of the

excavated feature. It is probable that any remaining feature had been levelled or had

largely silted up before the present village plan developed, perhaps in the late twelfth

century when the Saxon church was enlarged (cf. Ryder 1982). The grant of a weekly

market and annual fair in 1201 may provide a context for this (Hey, 2003, 70). The ditch

would therefore date from shortly after the Conquest, when the initial Norman ringwork

or motte and bailey was constructed on the site of the later stone castle, itself rebuilt in

stone in the late twelfth century (Johnson 1980), and it provides no evidence for a pre-

23

Conquest deer park, although the plank-walled structure must relate to a significant

residence on the site in the latest sixth or early seventh century.

An immediately post-Conquest date is itself interesting and the evidence does suggest an

earlier boundary to either park or estate. Both Hooke (1986, 159-163; 1988, 123-156;

1998, 21) and Rackham (2003, 189-191) note the problems over the meaning of the place

name element haga, the root of both hay and hedge, and the probability of enclosures,

predating the earliest reference to a park (derhage), that at Ongar in Essex in an Anglo-

Saxon Will of 1045. Fallow deer, that archetypal park animal, appear not to have been re-

introduced until after the Norman Conquest, probably directly from Sicily (Sykes 2004,

75-84; see also now evidence for Roman fallow deer in Sykes et al. 2006, 948-959) and

the idea of a formalized enclosed park may have come with it. Rowley (1984) has

suggested that the idea for Henry I’s (1100-1135) park at Woodstock in Oxfordshire

derived directly from Sicily, where the Normans, under Robert Guiscard de Hauteville,

had been established since 1060. Liddiard (2003, 4-23) has recently argued that the

absence of references to deer parks in Domesday is an artefact of that document in they

were not places where the king could derive revenue directly and were therefore not

included, and Hooke (1985, 159-163; 1988, 123-152; 1998, 19-32), on field and place

name evidence, has argued for the existence of pre-Norman parks in Wessex and

southern Mercia. On the Continent, Nitz (1988, 272) and Hauck (1963, 30-74) have both

noted the existence of hunting parks attached to Carolingian palaces, and it is apparent

from sources from the mid-seventh century onwards (cf. Kiess 1998, 11) that it remains

possible that hunting reserves may have been attached to the palace sites of peripatetic

English Saxon kings.

With only a single section, the projected extent of a boundary at least in part coeval with

a later deer park can only be hypothetical, and any enclosed area at Conisbrough may

have been much smaller. The ditch may have encircled a site centred on the later Saxon

church, although the environmental evidence would imply an old, established boundary

with mature trees and grassland, which fits better with the wood pasture of a deer park.

24

An interpretation to be considered is that the structure forms part of the enceinte of the

‘king’s burh’ implied by the place name, a ‘villa regia’.

Of the extensively excavated palace sites, any boundary at Northampton (Williams et al.

1985) has not been examined, and that at Cheddar (Rahtz 1979) shows no enclosure ditch

on the scale of the Conisbrough feature. At Yeavering, at the other end of the kingdom of

Northumbria from Conisbrough, the palace complex includes a large enclosure,

surrounded by what appears to have been a walkway supported on two rows of large

posts, a construction for which Hope-Taylor could find no contemporary parallels.

Initially interpreted as a ‘fort’, in the final report, he is less certain, and opts for the

neutral term ‘enclosure’ (Hope-Taylor 1977). It appears particularly massive for a simple

enclosure for domestic animals, and it is possible that any walkway faced inwards rather

than outwards, and like the segmental structure on the same site interpreted as a ‘theatre’,

it may owe its origins to the imitation of Rome and the ritualized animal hunts in the

circus. At both Yeavering and Conisbrough, a church and cemetery later came to occupy

part of the enclosure.

The construction of the large church at Conisbrough in an evidently Northumbrian style

(Ryder 1982, 45), in a position which must lie within any enclosure defined by the ditch,

implies that the site remained in royal hands at least into the eighth century, and there is

some evidence to suggest that the site had earlier significance. Miller (1804, 262) notes

the discovery of what must have been a cist grave in the area of the churchyard. Sub-

Roman, or Anglian burials of this form have been discussed by Faull (1979, 5-9, see also

Buckland 1984, 55), and the burial may have lain on the boundary of an estate centred on

the Conisbrough Park Roman villa (For similar examples, see the discussion in Zadora-

Rio 2003, 1-20). Some deliberate attempt to reinforce the connection with Rome may be

evident in the building materials of the early church for although the church lies

immediately adjacent to excellent freestone in the Lower Magnesian Limestone, it

incorporates large, evidently reused amounts of Coal Measure sandstones, as well as

reused blocks of the limestone. Both may have come from the villa site, particularly its

bath house, but like the sandstones in the nearby churches of Laughton-en-le-Morthen,

25

Arksey, Bolton-on-Dearne and Burghwallis, it may have travelled further, from the ruins

of the Roman forts at Templeborough, near Rotherham, and Doncaster. From the material

surviving in Rotherham Museum, the fort at Templeborough appears largely to have

utilised the Upper Carboniferous Rotherham Red Rock (May 1922), whilst the surviving

stretch of the late Roman fort wall in Doncaster is of Lower Magnesian Limestone,

although Upper Carboniferous sandstones were recovered from the Roman urban

defences (Buckland and Magilton 1986, 102). Such deliberate transport of Roman

materials (cf. Morris 1988, 191-200) may have been seen as enforcing the legitimacy of

Northumbrian rule, although it has to be admitted that it has been argued elsewhere

(Buckland 2010) that there is evidence that such redistribution took place in the Anglo-

Scandinavian period.

On the dendrochronology, the plank-built structure belongs to the late sixth century or

early seventh century and this allows alternative explanations, either as a fishpond or

building associated with a British stronghold or monastic site, later taken over by

Northumbrian kings, a southern parallel for Yeavering in Northumberland.

The historical context of the Conisbrough estate

The region either side of the River Don appears to have been a frontier zone from at least

the late Iron Age onwards. The most northerly pre-Vespanianic Roman forts, at

Templeborough, west of Rotherham, and Rossington Bridge, south of Doncaster, lay

close to the river, and Buckland (in Buckland, Hartley and Rigby 2001, 86-87) has

argued that the concentration of Roman pottery kilns in the area south of Doncaster

reflects the movement of potters to the northern limits of their own, or at least their

owners’ civitas, that of the Corieltauvi; to the north of the river lay the Brigantes. How

this division persisted into the post-Roman period is uncertain. Both Hunter Blair (1948,

98-126) and Buckland, Magilton and Hayfield (1986, 16-19) have argued that the so-

called Roman Rig, a linear earthwork running from the Don near Sheffield to both the

Don and Dearne, north of Conisbrough, reflects the border of Northumbria, either the

delimitation of the northern frontier of Mercia, perhaps under Offa, or the southern limit

26

of the British kingdom of Elmet, although Higham (2006) has recently argued otherwise

and Roberts (2010) in a study of cropmarks on the Magnesian limestone outcrop prefers

an Iron Age origin and dates on linear earthworks elsewhere in west Yorkshire would

support this (cf. Roberts et al. 2001). Whatever its date, its eastern terminus was close to

the Don at Strafforth Sands, the ford over the river below Conisbrough, where Rickneild

Street, a prehistoric route along the limestone escarpment, descends to the crossing.

Strafforth is also the name of the Wapentake. As Buckland and others (1986, 19),

following older authors note, Conisbrough may be the Villa Regia of Bede, one of the

centres with Doncaster, if this is his Campodunum, within the large multiple estate

extending eastwards to Hatfield. At Doncaster, the late Roman fort was refortified at least

twice before the construction of the Norman castle and the earlier of these has been

described as ‘Anglian’, although it lacks convincing dating evidence (Buckland, Magilton

and Hayfield 1986, 72-83).

To the west, the region of Hallamshire has its origins in a further estate centred on the

church at Ecclesfield and a probable civil centre at Sheffield; it was bounded on the

southern side by the river Sheaf, a tributary of the Don (Hey 2000, 31-47). A meeting

took place in 828 at Dore on this river between the Northumbrians and the victorious

Egbert of Wessex, and Dore is also mentioned as the northern limits of Mercia in 942,

when Edmund of Wessex incorporated the Danelaw into his expanding kingdom

(Rollason 2003, 262).

The dating evidence, both dendrochronological and radiometric, points to an origin for

the structure either at the very end of the sixth or early in the seventh century, and the

historical context is significant. In 606, the Bernician king Æthelfrith took over Deira,

killing its king Ælle and driving the latter’s son Edwin into exile with Cearl, King of

Mercia. In ca. 615, Æthelfrith, now king of a temporarily united Northumbria, defeated

the Britons at Chester. Higham (1993) has suggested that Bede (HE II, 2), with his

concern for the moral superiority of the Roman church over the British, conveniently fails

to mention Mercian involvement in the conflict, which seems to have led to the collapse

of Mercia and Edwin having to seek refuge with Rædwald of East Anglia, where Bede

27

alleges that Æthelfrith attempted to engineer his murder. The subsequent events leading

to the death of Æthelfrith in 616 at the Battle of the Idle, presumably close to the place

where the Roman road from Lincoln to Doncaster crossed the river, on the south-east

boundary of the Conisbrough multiple estate, should be seen not as an altruistic move by

Rædwald in support of Edwin, but as a reaction to the perceived threat to East Anglian

hegemony of an expanding Northumbria. Edwin appears to have remained Rædwald’s

client until the latter’s death in ca. 624-5, but his ability to strike at Cuichelm of Wessex

shortly thereafter without regard to opposition from Mercia suggests that the damage

inflicted on any Midland warbands at Chester was not yet repaired. Within ten years

however, Penda had successfully rebuilt Mercia and in alliance with Cadwallon of

Gwynedd had defeated Edwin at the Battle of Heathfield in 633. Although Revill (1975)

has argued that this conflict took place near Cuckney in Nottinghamshire, the inclusion of

Hatfield with Lindsey in the Tribal Hidage, which following Brooks (1989, 159-171),

Higham (2000, 46-47) has interpreted as a Northumbrian document of the time of Edwin,

might support a site on the eastern boundary of the Conisbrough estate, between Thorne

and Hatfield Moors. The order of places in the Tribal Hidage suggests that Elmet had

previously been tributary to Mercia, and it is tempting to see the takeover or creation of

the multiple estates of Conisbrough and Ecclesfield as a development of the defeat at

Chester and the need for Æthelfrith to drive a wedge between Mercia and its sometime

ally of Elmet to the north. The incorporation of Elmet into Northumbria by Edwin and the

expulsion of its British king Ceretic in 617 was a natural consequence of its isolation.

Blair (2005, 275-279) has argued recently that it is ‘hard to recognise a category of royal

palaces during the seventh to early ninth centuries which were inherently deep-rooted and

stable’ and that the seventh- and eighth-century sites with large timber halls that have

been identified by aerial photography were largely or wholly unenclosed. Instead, a king

and his retinue would move around, living off food-renders from the various territories

that made up his kingdom. If the Conisbrough structure is interpreted as a stock pond for

fish, and it currently has no parallels, it might relate to provisioning of king or monastery.

The latter may have developed into a minster, sites, which by contrast, had a more

permanent character and, unlike nearly all the secular sites that are known, continued

28

through into the high middle ages and afterwards as stable central places. They were

often known as burhs, which before the mid eighth century seems to have been a

vernacular alternative to mynster. Once a minster had been founded within a regio it

might become ‘so much its natural centre as to become synonymous with the territory’.

From the mid ninth century onwards, minsters were annexed by kings, lords, and

religious corporations as secular centres. By the time of the Domesday survey old minster

sites, such as the Yorkshire ones of Ripon, Beverley, Otley, Gilling, Whitby, and

Dewsbury, had become ‘secular places containing residually important churches’. Blair

(2005, 326) draws attention to the various “Kingsburys’, another form of the name

Conisbrough, such as those in St Albans and Aylesbury, which developed in this manner.

Can the development of Conisbrough be seen in this way? The place-name first appears

in surviving documents in 1002-4, when it took the Old Norse form of Cunugesburh,

which may have replaced an Old English cyning, ‘king’. Was an old minster site

demarcated, if not fortified in the Anglo-Saxon period long before the Norman castle was

built at the end of the promontory? St Peter’s Church, which stands on the crest of the

hill above the archaeological feature being discussed, is a large church, whose nave

measures internally c. 13.4 m by 5.28 m, comparable to the 14 m by 5.3 m of Ledsham

church (21 miles to the north), which Taylor and Taylor (1965; see also Faull 1986)

considered to be of eighth-century date. This similarity was first raised by Davies (1969)

in a local history pamphlet and developed by Ryder (1982). Both churches have large,

side-alternate quoins in the Northumbrian style. The surviving architecture, the

dedication, and the large medieval parish of Conisbrough suggest that it was an important

minster, and the burh element of the place-name may have been acquired without

fortification; only further excavation can reveal whether this is the case.

Could the late sixth / early-seventh century structure described above be associated with

an even earlier minster, perhaps an eccles within the British kingdom of Elmet? If so, it

would have been comparable with Ecclesfield, 10 miles to the west, where St Mary’s

Church served the whole of Hallamshire. This Northumbrian shire (which may have been

an even earlier territory) covered 71,526 acres on the edge of the Pennines and included

29

chapels at Sheffield and Bradfield. In 1620 Roger Dodsworth noted that, ‘This church is

called (and that deservedly) by the vulger the Mynster of the Moores’ (Clay 1904, 4-9).

Sheffield, not Ecclesfield, was developed as a secular, fortified site after (and perhaps

before) the Norman Conquest, but the name of this distinctive shire, on the south-western

border of Northumbria, still survives. Conisbrough seems to have been the central place

of a similar territory, with Doncaster perhaps as the equivalent secular centre, and

stretching from the river Don to Northumbria’s southern border.

Conclusion

Whilst the hypothesis that multiple estates had origins in the Middle Saxon period, if not

earlier, has been the subject of much criticism, (cf. Hadley 1996) - and the view that sees

Doncaster as the centre of a late Roman civitas (Whitwell 1977) is perhaps even more

extreme, some sort of organisation must have persisted in the region after the end of the

Roman period. Conisbrough provides a little evidence, which, whilst it is open to

different interpretations, reinforces the belief that it was an important site long before it

was recorded in surviving documents. We conclude, not without reservations, that the

massive oak planked structure and associated wooden structures is most likely to be a

stock pond for fish belonging to the end of the sixth or early seventh century. After a

period of disuse sufficiently long to obscure the buried timberwork, a broad shallow

ditch, orientated towards the castle was cut across it and this was itself re-cut at least

once. The archaeoentomological data suggest a wood pasture landscape with neglected

old trees and perhaps hay fodder in the ditch. The feature is interpreted as the primary

course of the deer park boundary before the development of the modern, presumably later

medieval village.

Acknowledgements

This report owes much to discussion with the late John Magilton to whom primary

acknowledgement must be made. Charles Frederick provided useful commentary on

sediments in the field, and Eva Panagiotakopulu, Peter Robinson and two un-named

30

referees commented on an earlier draft leading to extensive revision. Martin Limbert at

Doncaster Museum is thanked for access to modern reference material of insects, and

Colin Howes of the same institution provided data upon Yorkshire deer parks. The site

drawings are the work of Cathy Speight and Jo Mincher of the former archaeological

consultancy ARCUS. The initial assessment and analysis of this material was funded by

ARCUS, on behalf of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, Hallam Housing

Society, and South Yorkshire Housing Association.

Appendix 1. Pollen analysis of samples from the ditch

Dr B. Gearey5

A monolith sample was collected from the filling of the linear feature [4047] in

Excavation Trench A/Trial Trench 4 for pollen analysis. Three sub-samples of 1cm3

were extracted from the monolith sequence from contexts 4056, 4085, and 4084.

Samples were prepared using standard techniques including KOH digestion, HF

treatment and Acetylation (Moore et al. 1991) with the addition of exotic spores to

permit the calculation of pollen concentrations (Stockmarr 1971). The samples

were mounted in silicon oil and counted at a magnification of x400 using a Leica

DMLB microscope. Samples would normally be counted to a minimum o f 150

land pol len grains , but pollen concentrations were very low and thus counting

proceeded until one complete slide had been counted.

The raw data counts are presented in Table 5. Pollen concentration was very low for

all three samples, which is perhaps unsurprising given the high inorganic

component of the sediment. Due to the low numbers of grains present, the data are

presented as raw counts rather than percentages. Preservation of the palynomorphs

was in general good although most grains displayed some signs of mechanical damage.

4056: In the basal silt of the ditch, the most abundant grains identified are spores of

bracken, Pteridium aquilinum, although the group including dandelions, Lactuceae

31

undiff., hazel, Corylus avellana-type, pine, Pinus sylvestris, and heaths, Ericaceae

undiff., are also present.

4085: The grasses, Poaceae undiff., and bracken Pteridium aquilinum are the most

abundant taxa, with tree and shrubs including ash, Fraxinus excelsior, alder, Alnus

glutinosa , oak, Quercus, birch, Betula and Corylus avellana-type also evidence. The

herbs sorrel, Rumex acetosa, narrow-leaved plantain, Plantago lanceolata, the

bedstraws, Rubiaceae and Lactuceae undiff. occur.

4084: The shrub Corylus avellana-type is the most common taxon, with other tree

taxa, including alder, birch, elm, Ulmus, oak, and ash present. Bracken is again

also relatively well represented. The highest counts for herbs include grasses and

sedges, Cyperaceae, but others namely the sorrels, Rumex acetosa and R. obtusifolius-

type, fat hen, Chenopodiaceae, Plantago lanceolata and Lactuceae undiff. are also

present.

Given the very low concentrations of pollen in the samples, it is difficult to draw any

secure conclusions from the data. However, a few general comments may be made. It

seems unlikely that the feature was used for retting - no Cannabis-type pollen is

recorded and concentrations of this grain are generally found to be high in

sediments from these contexts (cf. Gearey et al. 2005). Little other positive information

regarding the function of the feature can be drawn from the data. As regards the

character of the surrounding landscape, the most abundant grains in the primary and

secondary fill contexts include bracken and grasses, with other herbs including

sorrel, plantain and the dandelion group present. These grains all reflect open,

disturbed grassland contexts but tree and shrub pollen is present albeit in low

quantities. Given the fact that the pollen source area for a feature of this sort would be

expected to be relatively small, some scattered mixed woodland might have been

present near to the site. The sample from [4084] is distinguished by higher counts for

Corylus avellana-type which may reflect more hazel cover in the vicinity of the site in

the period during the later infilling of the pond/channel. This may also be supported

by the recovery of hazel shells from the feature.

In general, the pollen assemblages are not inconsistent with the interpretation from the

32

insect faunas of a managed landscape of trees set among mown hayfields, but the low

counts preclude much more detailed comment.

Appendix 2. Explanation of Bugstats summary diagram (Fig. 12)

Dr P I Buckland6

The Bugstats module of the Bugs Coleopteran Ecology Package (BugsCEP; Buckland &

Buckland 2006) has the facility to produce graphical, bar graph, illustrations of the

habitats represented by beetle faunas. It includes a variety of options for limiting, refining

and scaling the visualisation, including the ability to proportionally scale reconstructions

for increased comparability between samples and sites. By scaling the indications for

each habitat as a proportion of the total number of habitat indications, the differential

influence of varying sample size and diversity are effectively removed. This allows for a

more comparable visualisation of the habitats represented in the fauna of each sample. It

is especially useful where sample volumes are not known, but also has the advantage

over volume or weight standardisation of sidestepping a number of issues related to

sedimentation rates and sample richness and the representivity of insect assemblages. The

software can also be configured to exclude identifications above species level, increasing

the reliability of the reconstruction but potentially losing some useful information which

can be gained from genus level identifications of stenotopic genera.

The habitat classifications used in BugsCEP are derived from those commonly used by

palaeoentomologists, and species have been assigned to habitats by the authors in

reference to ecology data stored in BugsCEP (Buckland 2007). The significantly more

detailed classification system of Koch (1989-92) was also used as reference, as was the

advice of a number of species area experts.

Bugstats can be set to ignore abundance values (numbers of individuals per taxon),

which, although environmentally significant, can sometimes be misleading due to both

ecological and taphonomic issues. Different species occur naturally at different

population densities, and may occur at different densities within their habitat ranges;

some species are more likely to be deposited in certain sediments than others; some

33

genera are more easily identified than others; and there may be some bias in the recovery

of different species from samples. There are also potential problems associated with the

intercomparability of habitat indications between samples with very different total

abundances. The software, however, provides an abundance scaling option as a research

and data exploration tool for those wishing to explore these factors.

The visualisation used in this paper uses the most stringent settings for removing

uncertainty: no abundance data, habitat sum proportional scaling (%SumRep) and species

level identifications only. This provides the most probable reconstruction results as can

be expected from a semi-quantitative classification based statistic, and an excellent

complement to a species by species indicator based interpretation. The reconstruction has

the advantage of being universally comparable to any other site or sample run through the

system with the same settings. It allows broad scale environmental reconstruction

comparisons to be made irrespective of site type, age or location, and the system is freely

available and transparent in terms of its data and methods (see Buckland 2007 for more

details of the calculation methods). The Conisbrough species list and abundance data are

also freely available in the BugsCEP database.

The specific methods used for this diagram (fig 12) are as follows:

- Beetle taxa have been assigned to habitat classes (EcoCodes in BugsCEP) by the

authors as part of the Bugs database project. A taxon may represent more than one

habitat (e.g. Pasture/dung and Foul habitat/dung), but only ever one indicator class

(e.g. Dung, Deciduous, Standing water), these being narrow subsets of the general

classes.

- The software, configured as described above, tallies the habitat classes represented

by each taxon in a sample and stores the totals for each class. These numbers are

then divided by the sum of all habitat totals and divided by 100 to produce a

standardised graph. Indicator classes are excluded from this standardisation total as

their inclusion would dilute the impact of the other habitats represented in samples

where these habitats were present.

- This process is repeated for each sample, and the results graphed. The graph, raw

and calculated data are exported in an MS Excel workbook.

A report showing a sample by sample breakdown of the habitats represented by each

34

taxon can be generated using the Bugstats module in BugsCEP for a more detailed

investigation of the fauna and exactly what represents what. The software also allows the

user to explore source data and form their own interpretations should they wish to.

BugsCEP is available for download from http://www.bugscep.com and the database is

browsable at http://www.sead.se

35

FOOTNOTES

1. Paul C. Buckland, 20 Den Bank Close, Crosspool, Sheffield, S10 5PA, England, UK.

paul.buckland@bugscep.com

2. David Hey, Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10

2TN, UK. dg.hey@btinternet.com

3. Richard O’Neill, Wessex Archaeology, Unit R6, Sheaf Bank Business Park, Prospect

Road, Sheffield S2 3EN. r.oneill@wessexarch.co.uk

4. Ian Tyers, Dendrochronology Laboratory, Sheffield University, West Court, 2 Mappin

Street, Sheffield S1 4DT.

5. Ben Gearey, Birmingham Archaeoenvironmental, University of Birmingham,

Birmingham, B15 2TT, England, UK. b.r.gearey@bham.ac.uk

6. Philip I. Buckland, Environmental Archaeology Lab., Department of Historical,

Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå University, SE90187, Umeå, Sweden.

phil.buckland@arke.umu.se

36

REFERENCES

Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, York, TA348S

Bede, Hist. Ecc. Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (ed. C. Plummer), 1896, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Addyman, P. V., Leigh, D. and Hughes, M. J. (1972). Anglo-Saxon houses at Chalton,

Hampshire. Medieval Archaeology, 16, 13-32.

Alexander, K. N. A. 2002. The invertebrates of living and decaying timber in Britain and

Ireland. A provisional annotated checklist. Peterborough: English Nature

Allport, C. H. 1913. History of Conisbrough from the earliest ages to the present day

Ayers, B. 1979. Excavations at Chapel Lane Staithe 1978. Hull Old Town Report Series

3. East Riding Archaeologist, 5, 1-97.

Bäck, M. 2009. Vikingatida bebyggelse funnen utanför Birkas stadvall. Fornvännen, 104,

262-273.

Baillie, M. G. L. 1992 Dendrochronology, in P. Rahtz, and R. Meeson (eds.), An Anglo-

Saxon Watermill at Tamworth: Excavations in the Bolebridge Street area of

Tamworth, Staffordshire in 1971 and 1978. London: Counc. Brit. Archaeol.

Res.Rep. 83, 122-4

Baillie, M. G. L. and Pilcher, J. R. 1973. A simple crossdating program for tree-ring

research, Tree Ring Bulletin, 33, 7-14

Barker, P. and Higham, R. 1982. Hen Domen, Montgomery. A timber castle on the

English Welsh Border. London: Royal Archaeol. Institute

Blair, J. 2005. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Böhme, J. 2005. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. K. Katalog (Faunistiche Übersicht) (2nd ed.).

Munich: Spektrum Academic

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1999. OxCal: A Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis Program,

Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit <http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/>.

Bronk Ramsey, C., van der Plicht, J. and Weninger, B. 2001. 'Wiggle Matching'

Radiocarbon Dates, Radiocarbon, 43, 381-9

37

Brooks, N. 1989. The formation of the Mercian kingdom, in S. R. Bassett (ed.) The

origins of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, 159-170. Leicester: Leicester University

Press.

Buckland, P. C. 1984. The Anglian Tower and the Use of Jurassic Limestone in York, in

P. V. Addyman, and V. E. Black (eds.) Archaeological Papers from York

presented to M. W. Barley, 51-57. York: York Archaeological Trust.

Buckland, P. C. 1991. Granaries, stores and insects. The archaeology of insect

synanthropy, in D. Fournier, and F. Sigaut (eds.) La preparation alimentaire des

cereales, 69-81. Rixenart: PACT.

Buckland, P. C. 2005. Palaeoecological evidence for the Vera hypothesis? In K. M.

Hodder, J. M., Bullock, P. C. Buckland and K. J. Kirby Large herbivores in the

wildwood and modern naturalistic grazing systems. Peterborough: English Nature

Research Report 648, 62-116.

Buckland, P. C. 2010. Ragnarök and the stones of York, in J. Sheehan, and D. Ó Corráin,

(eds.) The Viking Age. Ireland and the West. 47-59. Dublin: Four Courts Press.

Buckland, P. C., Hartley, K. F. and Rigby, V. 2001. The Roman Pottery Industry at

Rossington Bridge: Excavations 1956-61. J. Roman Pottery Stud., 9

Buckland, P. C. and Magilton, J. R. 1986. The archaeology of Doncaster. 1. The Roman

civil settlement. Oxford: Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Brit. Ser., 148

Buckland, P. C., Magilton, J. R. and Hayfield, C. 1989. The Archaeology of Doncaster. 2.

The medieval and later town. Oxford: Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Brit. Ser., 202

Buckland, P. C., Parker Pearson, M., Wigley, A. and Girling, M. A. 2001. Is there

anybody out there? A reconsideration of the environmental evidence from the

Breiddin Hillfort, Powys, Wales. Antiq. J., 81, 51-76

Buckland, P. I. 2007. The Development and Implementation of Software for

Palaeoenvironmental and Palaeoclimatological Research: The Bugs Coleopteran

Ecology Package (BugsCEP). PhD thesis, Environmental Archaeology Lab.

Department of Archaeology & Sámi Studies. University of Umeå, Sweden.

Archaeology and Environment 23, 236 pp + CD. URL: http://www.diva-

portal.org/umu/abstract.xsql?dbid=1105

38

Buckland, P. I. & Buckland, P. C. 2006. BugsCEP Coleopteran Ecology Package. IGBP

PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #

2006-116. NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. URL:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/insect.html (Versions: BugsCEP v7.63;

Bugsdata v7.11; BugsMCR v2.02; BugStats v1.22) [Downloaded 1 1 11 from

www.bugscep.com]

Carlsson, D. 1981. Från stengrund til bulhus - gotländska husformer under yngre

järnalder-tidig medeltid. Ett rekonstruktionsförlag utifrån Fjäle i Ala.

Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift, 2, 37-47

Carrott, J., Dobney, K., Hall, A., Issitt, M., Jaques, D., Johnstone, C., Kenward, H. and

Milles, A. 1995. An evaluation of biological remains from excavations at 44-45

Parliament Street, York (site code: 1994.3210). Reports from the Environmental

Archaeology Unit, York 95/08.

Carrott, J., Fell, V., Large, F., Kenward, H. and Kent, P. 2000. Insects and other

invertebrate remains, in K. Buxton and C. Howard-Davies (eds.) Bremetenacum:

excavations at Roman Ribchester 1980, 1989-1990. Lancaster Imprint Ser. 9, 387-

400

Chowne, P., Girling, M. and Greig, J. 1986. Excavations at an Iron Age defended

enclosure at Tattershall Thorpe, Lincolnshire. Proc. Prehist. Soc., 52, 159-188

Clarke, H. and Carter, A. 1977. Excavations in Kings Lynn 1963-1970. London:

Medieval Archaeology Monograph 7

Clay, J. W. 1904. Yorkshire Church Notes, 1619-1631, by Roger Dodsworth. Yorkshire

Archaeol. Soc. Record Ser., 34. 4-9

Coope, G. R. 1986. Coleoptera analysis, in B. E. Berglund (ed.) Handbook of Holocene

Palaeoecology and Palaeohydrology, 703-713. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons

Currie, C. K. 1991. The early history of the carp and its economic significance in

England. Agricultural History Rev., 39, 97-107

Dalton, P. 1994. Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship: Yorkshire 1066-1154. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Davies, G. 1969, St Peter's church, Conisbrough, in Anon (ed.) Sprotbrough in local

history. Part 2. Doncaster: Workers’Educational Association Local History Group

39

Elliott, L., Jones, H., and Howard A. J. 2004. The medieval landscape, in D. Knight and

A. J. Howard (eds.) Trent Valley Landscapes, 153-182. Kings Lynn: Heritage

Marketing & Publications Ltd.

Fallgren, J.-H. 2008. Farm and village in the Viking age, in S. Brink, and N. Price (eds.)

The Viking World, 67-76. London: Routledge

Faull, M. L. 1977. British survival in Anglo-Saxon Northumbria, in L. Laing (ed.) Studies

in Celtic survival, 1-56. Oxford: Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Brit. Ser. 37

Faull, M. L. 1986. The decoration of the south doorway of Ledsham church tower. J.

Brit. Archaeol. Assoc., 139, 143-147

Faull, M. and Stinson, M. 1986. Domesday Book: Yorkshire (2 vols.). Chichester:

Philimore

Fowles, A. P. 1994. A review of the ecology of the red wood ant Formica rufa L.

(Hymenoptera, Formicidae) and its status in Wales. Cardiff: Countryside Council

for Wales

Garland, S. 1983. Beetles as Primary Woodland Indicators. Sorby Rec., 21, 3-38

Gearey, B. R., Hall, A. R., Kenward, H. K., Bunting, M. J., Lillie, M. C. and Carrott, J.

2005. Recent palaeoenvironmental evidence for the processing of hemp

(Cannabis sativa L.) in eastern England during the medieval period. Medieval

Archaeology, 49, 317-322

Goodburn, D. 1994. Beyond the postholes. Notes on stratigraphy and timber buildings

from a London perspective, in L. Shepherd (ed.) Interpreting stratigraphy 5.

Proceedings of a conference held at Norwich Castle Museum on Thursday 16th

June 1994, 43-52. Huntington: Witley Press.

Groves, C. and Hillam, J. (forthcoming). Tree-ring analysis of timbers excavated at York

Coppergate: Periods 3-5, in Hall, R. A. and Hunter-Mann, K., Early Medieval

Occupation at 16-22 Coppergate Archaeology of York. York: Counc. Brit.

Archaeol. for York Archaeol. Trust

Hadley, D. M. 1996. Multiple estates and the manorial structure of the northern

Danelaw'. J. Hist. Geog., 22, 3-15

40

Hæggström, C.-A. 1998. Pollard meadows: multiple use of human-made nature, in K. J.

Kirby and C. Watkins (eds.) The ecological history of European forests, 33-41.

Wallingford: CAB International.

Hall, A. R. and Kenward, H. K. 1990. Environmental evidence from the Colonia

Archaeology of York, 14/6. London: Counc. Brit. Archaeol. for York

Archaeological Trust

Hall, A. R. and Kenward, H. K. 2004. Setting people in their environment : plant and

animal remains from Anglo-Scandinavian York, in R. A. Hall, D. W. Rollason,

M. Blackburn, D. N. Parsons, G. Fellows Jensen, A. R. Hall, H. K. Kenward, T.

P. O'Connor, D. Tweddle, A. J. Mainman and N. S. H. Rogers (eds.), Aspects of

Anglo-Scandinavian York. York: Counc.Brit. Archaeol. for York Archaeol. Trust.

8/4: 372-426

Hall, A. R., Rowland, S., Kenward, H. K., Jaques, D. and Carrott, J. 2000. Evaluation of

biological remains from excavations on the land to the rear of 7-15 Spurriergate,

York (site code: 2000.584). Reports from the Environmental Archaeology Unit,

York 2000/80

Halstead, D. G. H. 1993. Keys for the identification of beetles associated with stored

products. II. Laemophloeidae, Passandrinae and Silvanidae. J. stored Prod. Res.,

29, 99-195

Hauck, K. 1963. Tiergärten im Pfalzbereich. Deutsche Königspfalzen Beiträge sur ihrer

historischen und archäologischen Erforschung 1, 30-74. Göttingen:

Veröffentlichtungen des Max-Planck-Institut für Geschichte.

Hey, D. 1979. The making of South Yorkshire. Ashbourne: Moorland Publ. Co.

Hey, D. 1986. Yorkshire from AD 1000. London: Longman

Hey, D. 2000. Yorkshire's southern boundary. Northern History, 37, 31-47

Hey, D. 2002. Historic Hallamshire. Ashbourne: Landmark Publishing

Hey, D. 2003. Medieval South Yorkshire. Ashbourne: Landmark Publishing

Higham, M. C. 1989. Some evidence for 12th- and 13th century linen and woollen textile

processing. Medieval Archaeology, 33: 38-52

Higham, N. J. 1993. The kingdom of Northumbria AD 350-1100. Stroud: Alan Sutton

41

Higham, N. J. 2000. King Edwin of the Deiri: rhetoric and the reality of power in early

England, in H. Geake and J. Kenny (eds.) Early Deira: archaeological studies of

the East Riding in the 4th to 9th centuries AD, 41-50. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Higham, N. J. 2006. Northumbria's southern frontier: a review. Early Medieval Europe,

14, 391-418

Hooke, D. 1985. The Anglo-Saxon Landscape: the Kingdom of the Hwicce. Manchester:

Manchester University Press

Hooke, D. 1988. Regional variation in southern and central England in the Anglo-Saxon

period and its relationship to land units and settlement, in D. Hooke (ed.) Anglo-

Saxon Settlements, 123-152. Oxford: Blackwell

Hooke, D. 1998. Medieval forests and parks in southern and central England, in C.

Watkins (ed.) European woods and forests. Studies in cultural history, 19-32.

Wallingford: CAB International

Hope-Taylor, B. 1977. Yeavering: An Anglo-British Centre of Northumbria. London:

HMSO

Hunter Blair, P. 1948. The Northumbrians and their southern frontier. Archaeol. Aeliana,

fourth ser., 26, 98-126

Hunter, J. 1828-31. SouthYorkshire: the history and topography of the Deanery of

Doncaster (2 vols.). London: J. B. Nichols & son for the author.

Hyman, P. S. 1992. Review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain.

Part 1. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservancy Council

Hyman, P. S. 1994. Review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain.

Part 2. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservancy Council

James, S., Marshall, A. and Millett, M. 1984. An early medieval building tradition.

Archaeol. J., 141, 182-215

Johnson, S. 1980. Excavations at Conisbrough Castle 1973-1977. Yorks. Archaeol. J., 52,

59-88

Jones, G. R. J. 1965. Early territorial organization in Northern England and its bearing on

the Scandinavian settlement, in A. Small (ed.) Fourth Viking Congress, York

1961, 67-84. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd for University of Aberdeen

42

Jones, G. R. J. 1975. Early territorial organisation in Gwynedd and Elmet. Northern

History, 10, 3-27

Kenward, H. K., Williams, D., Spencer, P. J., Greig, J. R. A., Rackham, D. J. and

Brinklow, D. A. 1978. The environment of Anglo-Scandinavian York, in R. Hall

(ed.) Viking Age York and the North. London: Counc. Brit. Archaeol.Res. Rep.

27, 58-70

Kenward, H. K. and Hall, A. R. 1995. Biological evidence from 16-22 Coppergate.

Archaeology of York, 14/7. York: Counc. Brit. Archaeol. for York Archaeol.

Trust

Kiess, R. 1998. The word 'Forst/forest' as an indicator of fiscal property and possibly

consequences for the history of Western European forests, in C. Watkins (ed.)

European woods and forests. Studies in cultural history, 11-18. Wallingford:

CAB International

Koch, K. 1989-92. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Ökologie, 1-3. Krefeld: Goecke & Evers.

Liddiard, R. 2003. The deer parks of Domesday Book. Landscapes, 4, 4-23

May, T. 1922. The Roman Forts of Templeborough near Rotherham. Rotherham:

Rotherham Borough Council

Meeson, R. 1983. Plank-walled building techniques and the church of St. Lawrence,

Rushton Spencer. Vernacular Architecture, 14, 29-35

Miller, E. 1804. The history and antiquities of Doncaster and its vicinity. Doncaster: W

Sheardown

Mitchell, G. H., Stephens, J. V., Bromehead, C. E. N. and Wray, D. A. 1947. Geology of

the country around Barnsley. Explanation of Sheet 87. London: British

Geological Survey, HMSO

Morris, R. K. 1988. Churches in York and its hinterland: building patterns and stone

sources in the 11th and 12th centuries, in J. Blair (ed.) Minsters and Parish

Churches: the local church in transition 950-1200, 191-200. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Neighbour, T. 2007. A semi-elliptical timber-framed structure at Inveresk (the most

northerly amphitheatre in the Empire?). Britannia, 38, 125-140

43

Nilsson, A. N. and Holmen, M. 1985. The aquatic Adephaga (Coleoptera) of

Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. Dytiscidae. Leiden: E. J. Brill

Nitz, H.-J. 1988. Settlement structures and settlement systems of the Frankish central

state in Carolingian and Ottonian times, in D. Hooke (ed.) Anglo-Saxon

Settlements, 249-274. Oxford: Blackwell.

O'Brien, C. and Miket, R. 1991. The early medieval settlement at Thirlings,

Northumberland. Durham Archaeol. J., 7, 57-91

O’Neill, R. 2004. Final report of archaeological investigations at Wellgate (Areas A, B

and C), Conisbrough, Doncaster, South Yorkshire. ARCUS unpublished report

670c.6. Sheffield: South Yorkshire Archaeology Service Sites and Monuments

Record, Sheffield and Doncaster Museum

Osborne, P. J. 1989. Insects, in P. Ashbee, M. Bell and E. Proudfoot (eds.) Wilsford shaft

excavations 1960-62, 96-99. London: English Heritage

Oswald, A. 1964. Excavation of a thirteenth-century wooden building at Weoley Castle,

Birmingham, 1960-61. Medieval Archaeology, 6-7, 109-134

Päivinen, J., Ahlroth, P., Kaitala, V., Kotiaho, J. S., Suhonen, J. and Virola, T. 2003.

Species richness and regional distribution of myrmecophilous beetles. Oecologia,

134, 587-595

Rackham, O. 2003. Ancient woodland - its history, vegetation and uses in England. (new

ed) Dalbeattie: Castlepoint Press

Rahtz, P. 1976. Buildings and rural settlement, in D. M. Wilson (ed.) The archaeology of

Anglo-Saxon England, 49-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Rahtz, P. 1979. The Saxon and medieval palaces at Cheddar. Oxford: Brit. Archaeol.

Rep. Brit. Ser. 65

Rahtz, P. and Meeson, R. 1992. An Anglo-Saxon Watermill at Tamworth: Excavations in

the Bolebridge Street area of Tamworth, Staffordshire in 1971 and 1978. London:

Counc. Brit. Archaeol. Res. Rep. 83

Revill, S. 1975. King Edwin and the Battle of Heathfield. Trans. Thoroton Soc. Notts.,

79, 40-49

Roberts, I. 2010. Understanding the cropmark landscapes of the Magnesian Limestone.

Wakefield: Archaeological Services WYAS and English Heritage

44

Roberts, I., Burgess, A. and Berg, D. (eds.) 2001. A new link to the past. The

archaeological landscape of the M1-A1 link road. Yorkshire Archaeology 7.

Wakefield: West Yorkshire Archaeology Service.

Roede, L. 1999. Grindbygg og bindingsverk, in H. Schjelderup and O. Storstetten (eds.)

Grindbygde hus i Vest-Norge, 113-121. Oslo: Byggens Museum

Rollason, D. W. 2002. Northumbria. The rise and fall of a kingdom 500-1100.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Rowley, T. 1984. The Norman heritage 1066-1200. London: Granada

Ryder, P. 1980. St Peter's Church, Conisbrough (SK 512988). Programme of the Summer

Meeting at Wentworth Woodhouse, Monday 14 July to Saturday 19 July, 44-52.

London: Royal Archaeol. Inst.

Ryder, P. F. 1982. Saxon Churches in South Yorkshire. Sheffield: South Yorkshire

Archaeological Service

Sawyer, P. H. 1979. The charters of Burton Abbey. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Smith, A. H. (ed.) 1961. The placenames of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Lower and

Upper Strafforth and Staincross Wapentakes. 1. Survey of English Place Names

30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, J. T. 1965. The structure of the timber kitchen at Weoley Castle, Birmingham.

Medieval Archaeology, 9, 82-93

Sykes, N. 2004. The introduction of fallow deer to Britain: a zooarchaeological

perspective. Environmental Archaeol., 9, 75-84

Taylor, H. M. and Taylor, J. 1965. Anglo-Saxon Architecture. I and II. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Tyers, I. 1998. Tree-ring analysis and wood identification of timbers excavated on the

Magistrates Court Site, Kingston upon Hull, East Yorkshire, Sheffield: ARCUS

Rep. 410

Tyers, I. 2004 Dendro for Windows program guide 3rd edn, Sheffield: ARCUS Rep.

500b

Tyers, I., Hillam, J. and Groves, C. 1994. Trees and woodland in the Saxon period: the

dendrochronological evidence, in J. Rackham (ed.) Environment and Economy in

Anglo-Saxon England, London: Counc. Brit. Archaeol. Res. Rep. 89, 12-22

45

Wainwright, J. 1829. An historical and topographical introduction to a knowledge of the

ancient state of the wapentake of Strafford and Tickhill: with ample accounts of

Doncaster and Conisbrough.... Sheffield

Walker, J. 1999. Late-Twelfth and Early-Thirteenth-Century Aisled Buildings: A

Comparison. Vernacular Architecture, 30, 21-53

Webster, L. E. and Cherry, J. 1975. Medieval Britain in 1974. Medieval Archaeology, 19,

220-260

Whitelock, D. 1979. English Historical Documents. I. 500-1042 (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Whitwell, J. B. 1982. The Coritani. Some aspects of the Iron Age tribe and the Roman

civitas. Oxford: Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Brit. Ser. 99

Williams, J., Shaw, M. and Denham, V. 1985. Middle Saxon Palaces at Northampton.

Northampton: Northampton Development Corporation

Zadora-Rio, E. 2003. The making of churchyards and parish territories in the early

medieval landscape of France and England in the 7th - 12th centuries: a

reconsideration. Medieval Archaeology, 47, 1-20

Zeepvat, R. J. 1988. Fishponds in Roman Britain, in M. Aston (ed.) Medieval fish,

fisheries and fishponds in England, 17-26. Oxford: Brit. Archaeol. Rep Brit. Ser.

182

46

List of Figures

Fig. 1. Conisbrough, South Yorkshire location map. The base map is the First Edition

Ordnance Survey Map of 1843, with the Doncaster New Road (Tinsley Turnpike) of

1764 removed to emphasise the line of the Old Road and Clifton Hill marking the

northern limit of the medieval deer park. The northern edge of the park boundary, as

indicated on the tithe award map of 1848, is indicated by a dotted line in the lower left of

the map (see fig. 3).

Fig. 2. Conisbrough, South Yorkshire, May 2011: The village from the north east, viewed

across the river Don. Although the foreground has been infilled with modern housing, the

siting of the castle and parish church on a long, narrow promontory is still evident.

Conisbrough Parks, the site of the medieval deer park, lies to the south.

Fig. 3. The outline of Conisbrough Parks from the 1848 tithe award superimposed on the

modern map. The modern estate of Conanby, west of Conisbrough, and the lines of

dismantled railways have been removed to make the park limits clearer, although the line

of the M18 motorway cutting through the Lower Magnesian Limestone escarpment

below Micklebring in the south-east corner of the map has been retained. Conisbrough

parish church and the castle are the top right hand corner of the map, linked to the park

by the line of Old Road (see fig. 1). Note the intakes of Firsby to the west and Clifton to

the east cutting into the Park. (Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her

Majesty’s Stationary Office. © Crown Copyright Licence No. AL 50228A).

Fig. 4. Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: detailed trench location plan. The structures

discussed in this paper were located in Trench 4 (reproduced with the permission of the

Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. © Crown Copyright Licence No. AL

50228A).

47

Fig. 5. Excavations in Wellgate, Conisbrough in progress, October 2002, Trench 4

looking west. Work was constrained by 1960s housing units, since demolished. The cut

and dark, organic infill of the medieval ditch is apparent in the section and the post and

plank structure occurs centre right.

Fig. 6. Wellgate. Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: Site plan (Trench A/4)

Fig. 7. Wellgate, Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: Sections 10, 43 and 50 in Trench 4

showing the post and plank structure [4048] cut through by the broad ditch [4055 et

seq.].

Fig. 8. Wellgate, Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: Oblique photograph looking northwest.

The thick, horizontal oak planks have been fitted into grooves cut in the upright oak posts

and are fitted to the overlying planks by a continuous tongue locating into a groove

(Scale 2m).

Fig. 9. Wellgate, Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: Face view of plank and upright at west

end of trench. A fragment of a second layer of planking sits over a tongue in the upper

edge of the lower plank (Scale 1m).

Fig. 10. Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: Plank and post structure elevation (Section 48)

Fig. 11.Bar diagram showing the relative and absolute positions of the dated

dendrochronological samples from the Wellgate site, Conisbrough. Each bar is annotated

with an interpretation based on the date of the ring sequence and the presence of

sapwood.

Fig 12. Bugs bar chart of habitat frequency of species in the Conisbrough insect

assemblages (see Appendix 2 for explanation).

48

Figure 1. Conisbrough, South Yorkshire location map. The base map is the First Edition

Ordnance Survey Map of 1843, with the Doncaster New Road (Tinsley Turnpike) of

1764 removed to emphasise the line of the Old Road and Clifton Hill marking the

northern limit of the medieval deer park. The northern edge of the park boundary, as

indicated on the tithe award map of 1848, is indicated by a dotted line in the lower left of

the map.

49

Fig. 2. Conisbrough, South Yorkshire, May 2011: The village from the north east, viewed

across the river Don. Although the foreground has been infilled with modern housing, the

siting of the castle and parish church on a long, narrow promontory is still evident.

Conisbrough Parks, the site of the medieval deer park, lies to the south.

50

Fig. 3. The outline of Conisbrough Parks from the 1848 tithe award superimposed on the

modern map. The modern estate of Conanby, west of Conisbrough, and the lines of

dismantled railways have been removed to make the park limits clearer, although the line

of the M18 motorway cutting through the Lower Magnesian Limestone escarpment

below Micklebring in the south-east corner of the map has been retained. Conisbrough

parish church and the castle are in the top right hand corner of the map, linked to the park

by the line of Old Road (see fig. 1). Note the intakes of Firsby to the west and Clifton to

the east cutting into the Park. (Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her

Majesty’s Stationary Office. © Crown Copyright Licence No. AL 50228A).

51

Fig. 4. Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: detailed trench location plan. The structures

discussed in this paper were located in Trench 4 (reproduced with the permission of the

Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. © Crown Copyright Licence No. AL

50228A).

52

Fig. 5. Excavations in Wellgate, Conisbrough in progress, October 2002, Trench 4

looking west. Work was constrained by 1960s housing units, since demolished. The cut

and dark, organic infill of the medieval ditch is apparent in the section and the post and

plank structure occurs centre right.

53

Fig. 6. Wellgate. Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: Site plan (Trench A/4)

Fig. 7. Wellgate, Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: Sections 10, 43 and 50 in Trench 4

showing the post and plank structure [4048] cut through by the broad ditch [4055 et seq.]

54

Fig. 8. Wellgate, Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: Oblique photograph looking northwest.

The thick, horizontal oak planks have been fitted into grooves cut in the upright oak posts

and are fitted to the overlying planks by a continuous tongue locating into a groove

(Scale 2m).

55

Fig. 9. Wellgate, Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: Face view of plank and upright at west

end of trench. A fragment of a second layer of planking sits over a tongue in the upper

edge of the lower plank (Scale 1m).

Fig. 10. Conisbrough, South Yorkshire: Fence elevation (Section 48)

56

Fig. 11. Bar diagram showing the relative and absolute positions of the dated samples

from the Wellgate site, Conisbrough. Each bar is annotated with an interpretation based

on the date of the ring sequence and the presence of sapwood.

Wellgate, Conisbrough

Calendar Years

Span of ring sequences

AD500 AD450 AD550

Trench 4 413 SF18 after AD554

Trench A 4048 SF4 after AD522 SF5 after AD558

SF6 after AD567

Trench A 4062 SF7 after AD547 SF15 AD573-90

Trench A 4064 SF14 AD565-601?

KEY

heartwood sapwood felled after felled between

57

Fig. 12. Bugs bar chart of habitat frequency of species in the Conisbrough insect

assemblages (see Appendix 2 for explanation).

58

Trench/Context/S

F

Rings Sap or

bark

ARW

Date of sequence Interpretation

A 4047 SF12 66 - 0.82 undated -

A 4048 SF4 88 - 1.64 AD425-AD512 after AD522

A 4048 SF5 119 - 1.52 AD430-AD548 after AD558

A 4048 SF6 103 - 1.73 AD455-AD557 after AD567

A 4062 SF15 89 29 0.74 AD485-AD573 AD573-90

A 4062 SF7 92 - 2.41 AD446-AD537 after AD547

A 4064 SF1 87 21+Bw 1.48 undated -

A 4065 SF14 83 ?H/S 1.15 AD473-AD555 AD565-601?

4 413 SF18 61 - 1.33 AD484-AD544 after AD554

KEY

ARW: average ring width (mm/year)

Bw: winter felled

?H/S: ends at the heartwood/sapwood boundary

The material is Oak: = Quercus spp.

Table 1. Dendrochronological details of the analysed samples from the Wellgate site

(A670), Conisbrough

Radiocarbon

Age BP

Calibrated Age

range d1

Calibrated Age

range d2

Delta 13C

rel. PBD

(%)

Lab code

1430±60 AD580-660 (68%) AD530-690 (95%) -25.0‰ Beta-183712

1550±70 AD420-600 (68%) AD380-650 (95%) -25.0‰ Beta-183813

1660±70 AD330-440 (68%) AD230-550 (95%) -25.0‰ Beta-185185

Table 2. Radiocarbon dates from Context 413

59

Sample no. s413 s439 s416/s0 s416/s10 s416/s20 s416/s30 s416/s35 s4052

Coleoptera Carabidae Nebria brevicollis (F.) 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Clivina fossor (L.) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 C. collaris (Hbst.) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Clivina sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Trechus quadristriatus (Schr.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 T. obtusus Er. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 T. obtusus/quadristriatus Er./(Schr.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bembidion lampros (Hbst.) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. clarkii (Dawson) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 B. mannerheimi Sahl. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bembidion sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pseudoophonus rufipes (Deg.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Poecilus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pterostichus melanarius (Ill.) 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Amara sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dytiscidae Hydroporus spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Agabus bipustulatus (L.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Dytiscus circumcinctus Ahr. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydraenidae Hydraena sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ochthebius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Limnebius truncatellus (Thun.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Hydrophilidae Helophorus spp. 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Sphaeridium sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cercyon atricapillus (Marsh.) 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 C. analis (Payk.) 9 3 5 5 2 4 2 0 Cercyon spp. 4 1 2 4 3 1 1 0 Megasternum obscurum (Marsh.) 4 0 1 3 1 3 2 4 Cryptopleurum minutum (F.) 2 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 Enochrus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Histeridae Onthophilus striatus (Müll.) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Abraeus perpusillus (Marsh.) 1 0 3 2 1 2 2 0 Aeletes atomarius (Aubé) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Acritus nigricornis (Hoff.) 5 1 3 4 0 1 1 0 Hister impressus F. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Hister sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atholus duodecimstriatus (Schrank) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Silphidae Ablattaria laevigata (F.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Catopidae Choleva/Catops sp. 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 Clambidae Clambus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

60

Scydmaenidae Neuraphes sp. 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Stenichnus sp. 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Scydmaenus tarsatus Müll. & Kunze 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Orthoperidae Sericoderus lateralis (Gyll.) 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 Ptiliidae Ptenidium fuscicorne Er. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptenidium sp. 2 1 0 4 0 2 0 0 Oligella sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acrotrichis sp. 5 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 Staphylinidae Scaphisoma agaricinum (L.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Micropeplus tesserula Curt. 2 2 3 2 0 0 3 2 M. staphylinoides (Marsh.) 1 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 M. fulvus Er. 2 0 7 2 0 2 1 1 Megarthrus prosseni Schatz. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 M. depressus (Payk.) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proteinus ovalis Steph. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Acrulia inflata (Gyll.) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Phyllodrepa ioptera (Steph.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 P. vilis (Er.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Omalium rivulare (Payk.) 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 O. caesum Grav. 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 O. excavatum Steph. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Omalium spp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Xylodromus depressus (Grav.) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 X. concinnus (Marsh.) 2 2 4 6 2 3 2 0 Acidota cruentata Mann. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lesteva punctata Er. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 L. pubescens Mann. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Carpelimus bilineatus (Steph.) 3 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 C. fuliginosus (Grav.) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Carpelimus spp. 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 Oxytelus sculptus Grav. 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 O. laqueatus (Marsh.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Anotylus rugosus (F.) 3 2 0 3 1 2 1 0 A. inustus (Grav.) 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 A. sculpturatus (Grav.) 5 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 A. nitidulus (Grav.) 2 2 9 4 1 1 1 4 A. tetracarinatus Block 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 Platystethus arenarius (Geoff.) 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 Stenus spp. 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 Rugilus rufipes (Germ.) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 R.. orbiculatus (Payk.) 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 Lithocharis ochracea (Grav.) 3 0 3 1 1 3 0 0 Lithocharis sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lathrobium (s.l.) sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Leptacinus intermedius Donis. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 L. batychrus (Gyll.) 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 L. pusillus (Steph.) 4 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 Phacophallus parumpunctatus (Gyll.) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

61

Gyrohypnus liebei Scheer. 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Gyrohypnus fracticornis (Müll.) 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 G. angustatus Steph. 3 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 Xantholinus linearis (Ol.) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X. linearis/longiventris (Ol.)/Heer 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Xantholinini indet. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Othius subuliformis Steph. 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Philonthus politus (L.) 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Bisnius cephalotes (Grav.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Philonthus (s. l.) spp. 3 0 2 3 0 3 0 2 Ocypus aeneocephalus (Deg.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ocypus sp. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quedius mesomelinus (Marsh.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Quedius sp. 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Tachyporus sp. 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 Tachinus laticollis Grav. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tachinus spp. 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 Cypha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Cordalia obscura (Grav.) 2 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 Falagria caesa Er. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Aleochara sp. 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Aleocharinae indet. 6 5 8 8 2 4 4 2 Euplectus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 Trichonyx sulcicollis (Reich.) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bryaxis sp. 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Melyridae Dasytes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Elateridae Dalopius marginatus (L.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Eucnemidae Melasis buprestoides (L.) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dascillidae Dascillus cervinus (L.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Scirtidae Scirtidae indet. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Ostomidae Nemosoma elongatum (L.) 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Nitulidae Carpophilus sexpustulatus (F.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Epuraea sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Omosita discoidea (F.) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhizophagidae Rhizophagus ferrugineus (Payk.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 R. parallelocollis Gyll. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhizophagus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Monotoma picipes Hbst. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M. testacea Mots. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M. longicollis (Gyll.) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Monotoma spp. 0 0 3 4 1 0 2 0 Cucujidae Psammoecus bipunctatus (F.) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pediacus dermestoides (F.) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

62

Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Steph.) 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Cryptophagidae Cryptophagus scutellatus Newm. 1 0 4 1 0 1 1 0 C. lycoperdi (Scop.) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Cryptophagus spp. 3 0 2 3 1 0 1 1 Atomaria spp. 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 Ootypus globosus (Waltl) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latridiidae Latridius minutus (L.) (grp.) 1 0 4 2 2 0 1 0 L. pseudominutus (Strand) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Latridius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Enicmus fungicola Thom. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. transversus (Ol.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Enicmus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Corticaria punctulata Marsh. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. crenulata (Gyll.) 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 C. fulva (Com.) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Corticaria spp. 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Corticariinae indet. 3 0 3 2 1 2 0 1 Colydiidae Myrmechoxenus subterraneus (Chevr.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Cerylon histeroides (F.) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Mycetaea subterranea (Marsh.) 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Anobiidae Grynobius planus (F.) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Anobium sp. 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 Hemicoelus fulvicornis (Strm.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ptinus fur (L.) 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Ptinus sp. 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 Anthicidae Omonadus formicarius (Goeze) 5 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 Anthicus sp. 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Scarabaeidae Trox scaber (L.) 4 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 Geotrupes stercorarius (L.) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Geotrupes (s.l.) sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Oxyomus sylvestris (Scop.) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Aphodius prodromus (Brahm) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 A. ater (Deg.) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aphodius spp. 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 Melolontha hippocastani F. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Cetonia aurata (L.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lucanidae Sinodendron cylindricum (L.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Chrysomelidae Gastrophysa viridula (Deg.) 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Phyllotreta sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Longitarsus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Chaetocnema concinna (Marsh.) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 C. hortensis (Geoff.) 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Chaetocnema sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Scolytidae

63

Scolytus multistriatus (Marsh.) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Scolytus sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hylesinus oleiperda (F.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Leperisinus sp. 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 Dryocoetinus villosus (F.) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 D. alni (Georg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Xyleborus dryographus (Ratz.) 3 0 4 1 2 2 1 0 Platypodidae Platypus cylindrus (F.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Curculionidae Apion frumentarium L. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Apion (s.l.) sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phyllobius/Polydrusus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Trachyphloeus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Polydrusus cervinus (L.) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P. mollis (Ström.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Barynotus moerens (F.) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sitona lineellus (Bons.) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sitona sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phloeophagus lignarius (Marsh.) 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Tychius sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Hypera meles (F.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Nedyus quadrimaculatus (L.) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Trichoptera Trichoptera larvae indet. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Siphonaptera Siphonaptera indet. 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Hymenoptera Formicidae Myrmica sp. 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Table 3: Insect remains from Wellgate, Conisbrough

64

Taxon Host Plant

Gastrophysa viridula (Deg.) Rumex spp (dock)

Apion frumentarium (Payk.) “ “ “

Phyllotreta spp. Brassicaceae

Chaetocnema concinna (Marsh.) Polygonaceae

C. hortensis (Fourc.) Poaceae (grasses)

Scolytus multistriatus Marsh. Deciduous trees

Hylesinus olieperda (F.) Fraxinus excelsior (ash)

Leperisinus sp. “ “ “ “

Dryocoetinus villosus (F.) usually in Quercus sp. (oak)

Xyleborus dryographus (Ratz.) “ “ “ “

Platypus cylindrus (F.) “ “ “ “

Dryocoetinus alni (Georg) usually in Alnus glutinosa (alder)

Polydrusus cervinus (L.) Adults on deciduous trees, larvae on the

roots of the grass Dactylis glomerata

P. mollis (Strom.) Adults on deciduous trees

Sitona lineellus (Bons.) Usually on Trifolium spp (clover)

Hypera meles (F.) “ “ “ “ “

Cidnorhinus quadrimaculatus (L.) Urtica dioica (nettle)

Table 4: Phytophagous beetles and their hosts from Conisbrough