;i.l1l1i:l

.f::l:i.ii:::

.:,"ryt,,

MAIDEN BOWER,BEDFORDSHIRE

NMR NUMBER SP 92 SE 6

NEOLITHIC INDUSTRY AND ENCLOSURE

AUGUST i994

RCHMENGLAND

RCHME (CAMBRIDGE)BroohLands

24 Broohlands Auenue,CAMBRIDGE, CB2 2BU

@ ncHur cRowN copyRrcHT

CONTENTS

l. Introduction

2. A-rchaeological history

3. Description of the earthworks

4. Interpretation and discussion

5. Survey and research method

6. Bibliography

LIST OF FIGURES

l. Location map

2. RCHME earthwork plan, surveyed onto OS superplan at I : 1000 scale

I

2

llt4

t6

17

l

t2

l.INTRODUCTION

Figure 1

Locatian map

In 1994, the Royat Commission on the Historicdl Monuments of England (RCHME)

undertoob an archaeological suruey of Maiden Bower in Bedfordshire (National Monuments

Record Number SP 92 SE 6). The depiction of the lron Age fort was amended slightly, but

the sun)q/ was not abLe to identify any earthworhs which might be associated with the putatiue

N eolithic cansewayed enclosure underlying it. A possible N eolithic ditch is revealed in section

in the edge of the adjqcent chalb quarry.

In August 1994, staff from RCHME's Cambridge and Swindon offices carried out an

analytical earthwork survey of the enclosure known as Maiden Bower as part of a national

project to record Industry and Enclosure in the Neolithic Period. The enclosure lies in the

parish of Houghton Regis in the district of South Bedfordshire, centred at National Grid

Reference SP 99662241. It is located on fairly level ground on the highest point of a

north-west facing chalk ridge, at an altitude of l50m above OD, overlooking the head of

the valley of the fuver Ouzel.

The principal surviving earthwork is a sub-circular enclosure, damaged by ploughing and

chalk quarrying, which has generally been described as a later prehistoric plateau fort or

hillfort. However, it was interpreted by EC Curwen ( 1930) as a possible Neolithic enclosure

and was therefore re-examined by RCHME. The enclosure bank is presently turf covered

and colonised with scrub, and the interior remains under arable cultivation. The site is

protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument (BEDS 11) and is recorded in the National

Monuments Record as SP 92 SE b.

Ha8rro"osn,"u \ a 6 s

MAIDEN BOWER I

ut*,

,,,iiiiiii

iitiririitii

2. ARCHAEOLOCICAL HISTORY

Maiden Bower has attracted the attention of local antiquarians and amateur archaeologists

since the early eighteenth century at least, initially because of occasional discoveries ofRoman coins, known locally as'Madning money', in the area, and early attempts to identify

the eanhwork with the Romano-British settlement of Magiovinum. Subsequently the area

proved attractive because of the wealth of material, primarily lithic in nature, which could

be picked up from the surface in and around the enclosure, and subsequently because ofthefeatures observed in the top of the quarry face to the north-west. It was material recovered

from some of these features which first suggested the presence of a possible Neolithicenclosure preceding the extant later prehistoric earthwork.

Archaeological investigation at Maiden Bower can effectiveiy be divided into three phases:

firstly, the surface coliection and quarry observations of Worthington Smith from at least

1878, and probably earlier, to around 1915, a period encompassing the only recorded

excavation at Maiden Bower. S econdly, a long period of observation and s aivage at the quarry

face by CL Matthews, initiaily with the Dunstable Rover Scouts and subsequently with rhe

Manshead Archaeological S ociety, over a period spanning the late I930's to the mid I 9 70's,

and thirdly and most recently, geophysical survey and surface collection in the interior by

Pollard and Hamilton (1994). Summarising the results of these various episodes is

complicated by inconsistencies in the various accounts published by Smith dealing with hisinvestigations, while publication of the work by Matthews is best described as incomplete.

Worthington Smith

When Worthington Smith undertook his earthwork survey in 1878, quarrying and erosionhad already begun to encroach on the extant earthworks. ln addition, the interior [as well,presumably, as the surrounding area) had long been under the plough. In the early

nineteenth century the interior was described as 'level ploughed land producing good wheat'

[Costin and Spence 1959). However, Maiden Bower had been visited by antiquarians and

described on a number of occasions prior to Smith. Henry Brandreth describes MaidenBower as follows:

It cotuists of a circular uallum, throum up on a level plain, and is about 2,500 t'eet incircumferetce. To the south, it has rc t'oss; to the south-west and west, only a uery small one-To the north and east, howeuer, the foss is broader and. deeper; while to the north,west thereis a descent to the meadows. The inner part of the ualLum is from eight to fourteen t'eet high,and the area contairs about nine acres. There is an opening on the south-east side, whichappears to be co-eual with the camp itseLf, and t'rom which there is a road stiLL visible...Thenorth side is leuel withh, and the ground t'alk as much within as without the other sides.

Brandreth 1838 'Observations on the Roman Station of Magiovintum'

MAIDEN BOWER 2

The first measured survey was that undertaken by Worthington Smith in 1878 (Smith 1894,

319-21;Goddard 1904,770; Smith (with additions) l9l5). He reported that:

The interior surface is almost flat, dipping 7ft t'rom south to north. The west side k 4t't 6inhigher than the centre, and the east side 2ft higher. It is almost surrounded by a uallum t'ormedof chalb rubbLe. lt was origirwlly almost surrounded by a t'osse, some 24ft or 25ft wide and8ft deep. The uaLlum uaies in width t'rom 28t't at the south-west and 27ft at the north east,

to 16ft at the north-west. The height varies lrom 10ft 6in at the north east to 6ft 3in near the

easteftL entrance t measured t'rom the outside. AII heights are Less as seen t'ron the iuide...Partof the edge of the t'osse is uisible at the north-east comer of the plan, where it is marbed. Itwas not caried any t'urther north at this point. The ground inside the camp, near the line ofthe risible margin of the t'osse, is 10t't higher than outside; this is in part due to the fosse notbeing entirely filled in.

The only other section of ditch marked by Smith on his plan is a short length to thenorth west, exposed in section in the quarry face, close to his entrance number 4. Smithstated that this length of ditch appeared to end at this entrance, although there is thepossibility that this was due to the enclosure earthworks turning away from the quarry face

at this point. Cenainly Smith did not consider this 'entrance'to be an original feature. Heobserved seven breaks ofvarying size in the circuit ofthe bank, but like Brandreth, considered

only that in the south east (Smith's entrance number l) to be 'originai'. Wedmore (1920)noted five 'entrances' when he visited fin 1908) and mentioned that a sixth was in theprocess of being formed, although he neglects to mention which one.

Smith initially appears to have been attracted to the site by the quantities of material whichcould be picked up from the surface. Some of his earliest finds are mentioned in his bookMan the Primeval Sarage, published in 1894. Later, he wrote that'the surface ofthe landis...strewn, especially within the camp, with worked flakes of white flint' (Smith l9l5). Hedoes not provide any quantification of these finds, but the main types listed are

hammer-stones, sling stones, polished axe fragments, scrapers, arrowheads, knives andfabricators, as well as Roman (glass, coins including a lost gold coin hoard, pottery) andMedieval material. He also reports finding human and animal remains, the latter includingcattle and sheep/goat, and 'rare' finds of Palaeolithic flints.

Also cited by Smith is anecdotal evidence for the discovery of 'numerous bronze celts andother metal objects'from the area. In 1894, he referred to the'bronze tools and....hoard ofgold coins' having been bought by marine-store dealers and jewellers 'before my time'.Smith himself lound only 'a small tabular piece of bronze with verdigris-white oxide'.

Subsequently, interest began to focus on features revealed by quarrying for chalk andsubsequent erosion on the north-west side of the earthwork enclosure. Smith (1915) refersto 'numerous discoveries of shallow pits, filled with chalk rubble, broken and cut antlers ofred-deer, f-lints, etc'being revealed by quarryingto the west of Maiden Bower. Healsonotesthat some pits further west also contained Roman material (probably the material recordedin the National Monuments Record as SP 92 SE 71.

IVTAIDEN BOWER 3

Ft-t-_rt--

r-In his earliest account ofthe 1897-99 discoveries, Smith (1904a) refers to five 'ancient

excavations' being dug into, which were iater interpreted as five segments of the ditch of a

causewayed enclosure [Piggott 1954, Dyer I955; Se]kirk 1972, I76). The features, said to

be between 50 and 87 feet from the western bank, are described as follows:

(l ) the nonhernmost feature was 8ft across and l0ft deep, and was filled with chalk rubble.

(21 moving south, the next feature was 4ft square, with rounded corners, and 4ft 6in deep.

Its fill included fragmentary human bones.

(3) a feature 20ft long and 1Oft wide, containing a large quantity of animal bones, including'Celtic ox', plus 'rude British pottery', flint flakes and a 'flint polishing stone', among a

general fill of chaLk rubble.

(4) a feature 40ft long and 1Oft wide. As with no. 3, the depth is not given. The fills of 3and 4 are dealt with together by Smith.

(5J the most southerly feature is described as'very large'but only 4 ft deep. It was also fiiledwith 'bones, flint and rubble'. lt had been cut through at some point by a later grave, 6ftdeep, containing an extended human inhumatron, on its back, head facing east. The head

was 57ft from the bank. The skeleton was retained by Messrs Forder and Co, owners ofthequarry.

In his l9l5 report, Smith only refers directly to the last three of these features. Numbers3 and,{ appear on his plan [numbered 9) and are described as follows:

(3) 25ft long, lOft wide and 4ft deep;

(4) 43ft long, 1Oft wide and 3ft deep.

He states that they were excavated in 1897, and mentions broken and/or spiit animal bones,antler, and parts of a human skeleton ('aged...with greatly,worn teeth'] as being among thefill. Cattle, red deer, sheep,/goat, pig and'large dog' are said to be represented among theanimal bones. Smith states that the animal bones numbered in the thousands.

Feature number 5 (l I on Smith's l9l5 plan, although given as l0 in the text] was excavatedin July 1899. The later grave is described as being cut through 'a large spread out mass ofold broken and split bones and chalk rubble'with the lowest 2ft being cut inro solid chalk.The whole of the skeleton is said to have been present. Smith speculated somewhatinconclusiveiy on the date of the burial, though overall he seemed to prefer medieval.

ln the same area as these features, Smith noted a length ofthe ditch ofthe later prehistoricfort (marked as number 8 on his plan) being exposed in the quarry face, presumably at a

later date. He describes the exposed section as being Sft deep and l40ft long, and ,filled

in with chalk rubble inciuding old broken bones, flint flakes, one or two scrapers, teeth andsuch objects as are commonly found on the surface.' He remarks that the ditch appearedto end beside his entrance number 4, although there must be a possibility that this was dueto the curvature of the quarry face.

MAIDEN BOWER 4

In January 1907, at a point roughly midway between feature number 3 (above) and the

enciosure ditch, quarrying uncovered a quantity of Roman pottery (marked l0 on Smith's

plan) 3ft to 3ft 6in below the surface. Eleven vesseis in all were recovered along with five

Samian paterae and 'other objects'. Also mentioned are a 'bronze ring... I %in diamete r, held

by an iron staple, nearly 3in long' plus broken and burnt pieces of wood 'resembling parts

of aboxorcoffin.' TheVictoia County History account (Page and Keate I908], for whichWorthington Smith provided the information, has some differences ofdetail (eg the numberof pots), but aiso adds that two of the larger pots still contained bones, and that overall,

Smith considered 'that there were proofs of four cremations' (Smith apparently retainedthese cremated remains as well as the finds). In addition, it was also noted that'the oldsurface of the ground was burnt, showing that cremation had apparently taken place on thesite of the burial.' Iron nails were also reportedly present among the burnt pieces of wood.

Excavation in the south-eastern entrance

In l9l3 the only documented excavation in the interior of Maiden Bower occurred. Thiswas undertaken by the farmer and owner, Mr Dan Cook, in the presence of Smith, u,hopublished an account of the work (Smith l9l5). The chosen location was inside thesouth-eastern entrance, on its western side, because Cook and his workmen'ohen fanciedthat they heard a hollow sound when laden carts were Ied backwards and forwards throughthis entrance.' Smith noted that the 'old prehistoric surface' was encountered at a depth ofroughly 3ft, and the solid chalk bedrock some 9ft below the present surface. AJI the depthmeasurements given by Smith are from the top of the solid chalk, although he noted that'all the circular excavations with their connecting passages could be traced upwards to theancient surface ljne of the camp.' Features encounteled were as foilows:

[ ) 'An old passage filled with comminuted chalk' at the southernmost extent of the trench(C on Smith's plan);

(2) Slightly to the north, up against and roughly at the midpoint of the rampart, a 'shallowpit' (H on plan) 3ft diameter and cut lft gin jnto the solid chalk deep and roughly circularin shape;

(3) A shallow trench lft 4in wide (J on the plan) led roughly north from this, eventuallymeeting after I ft 6in with (4);

{,{) A further 'pit', this one 5ft in diameter and zft 3in deep (K on the plan);

(5) A funher length of shallow trench (L) 7ft long connected this 'pit' to another (6)

(6) Again a circular 'pit' (M), of similar dimensions to the first.

[7] Next came a further short length of shallow trench (N), I ft 6in iong;

(8) This led to a much larger pit (O), l4ft long and 7ft wide, and IO-l lft deep. Its lowerfill consisted ofa large quantity ofhuman bones (smith estimated over fifty individuals wererepresented) plus animal bones, pieces of tile, nails, some burnt wood, some fragments ofAndernach lava quernstone, plus some small pieces of bronze from 'the upper part,

[according to Dyer (1959J, Smith had all the human bones from the excavation reburied).A short distance above this deposit, and a little over 3ft below the modern ground surface

MAIDEN BOWER 5

:::::::::::::

they encountered a structure consisting of a flat sandstone slab c.lSin in diameter resting

on 4 chalk blocks, the whole structure covered by numerous flint and quartzite blocks. Below

the sandstone slab were three incomplete human bones.

(9) directly below the earthwork rampan, a shailow pit or ditch was observed in section IP).It was described by Smith as 'a slight excavation in the ancient surface'and its fill stated to

be 'chalky humus'.

Discussion of Smith's discoveries

The features discovered in the south-east entrance by Smith and Cook were interpreted by

Dyer (1955) as representing three post holes linked by a palisade trench. Afourthpostholeis believed to have either cut or been cut by the large rectangular pit containing the deposit

of human bones. Dyer suggested this arrangement was probably mirrored on the otherside

ofthe entrance by a similar post hole/palisade arrangement, thus forming a 'typical Iron Age

A'funnel' entrance'. The'cist'and burial pit have proved slightly more complicated. Smithdid not record stratigraphic relationships, and his descriptions of the positions of finds are

rather vague. Although the possibility has been raised that the pit in particular may be

Neolithic, it appears more likely that both it and the 'cist' are much later, possibly, if notprobably, post dating the main period of hillfort occupation.

The first published suggestion that Maiden Bower may have had its origins in the Neolithicwas made by Curwen (1930] in his paper on Neolithic camps, although in his review ofNeolithic pottery published the following year, Piggott claimed that he was recording theNeolithic settlement at Maiden Bower'for the first time.' Curwen's assessment appears tobe based on the form of the extant earthwork enclosure, plus the quantity of prehistoricmaterial from the site, notably the flints and an antler'comb' found by Smith. He includedMaiden Bower in his list of'other possible sites'. Piggott's view was based on examinationof potsherds from the site which were then in the possession of Bedford Modern School

Museum (and now in Luton Museum), although he notes that their relationship to theearthwork enclosure is unknown. However, he argued that the pottery , together with theflints and the antler comb'imply a permanent Neolithic settlement on the site.' In I954,Piggott amended his account slightly, noting the discovery [by Srnith) of 'what appears tohave been segments of a causewayed ditch' which 'yielded Western Neolithic sherds, and a

typical antler comb of Windmill Hill type'.

Dunstable Scouts and the Manshead Society

The next recorded investigations at Maiden Bower occurred in the late 1930's, and againstem from features revealed in the quarry face by erosion. Matthews (1962, 1976) refersto a iengthy longitudinal section of ditch being revealed 'with a cross-section' visible wherethe eanhwork met the eastern edge of the quarry. The evidence of Matthews, along withDyer's (1955) and Davies' (1956) sketch plans, would place this feature at approximatelySP 9965 2258. Human bones were observed protruding from the lower levels ofthe ditch,and the local Ministry of Works inspector gave permission for a rescue excavation,undertaken by CL Matthews and the Dunstable Rover Scouts.

MAIDEN BOWER 6

The bones proved to be the remains ofa crouched inhumation, lying on its side on the bottomofthe ditch and surrounded by large chalk blocks. The skull and some ofthese blocks had

already been lost to erosion. A 2ft thick layer of chalk rubble above this burial contained

three funher adult inhumations plus an infant. Only one of these adults retained its skull,although Matthews states that the neck vertebrae of this skeleton 'had been sliced cleanlyin half by a single blow'. The three adults appeared to him to have been thrown into theditch 'and were lying spreadeagled above the primary burial'; one ofthem lay on its back onthe inner slope ol the ditch.

At around the same depth as these skeletons, but 14ft away (and to the north-east, cfsectiondrawing in Matthews 1976) were two further human skeletons, this time ofyoung children(the age of one is estimated at five or six years, the other about ten). According to Davies(1956) they were excavated in September 1951. They were lying 'along the ditch'side-by side, head to toe, and with the arm ofone lying across the body ofthe other. Aboutl2in below them was a 1Zft length of carbonised wood, although no traces of burning wereobserved within the ditch fill. Slightly above this, and a little to the east ofrhe child skeletons(some 10ft in Matthews 1962; but roughly 5ft on the section drawing published by Matthewsin 1976) was a bronze 'bangle' 2%in diameter (now in Luton Museum) decorated with a

zrg-zag patt-ern on its inner and outer faces. In addition, hundreds of sling stones wererecovered from the whole length of this ditch section, many apparently resting directly onthe bottom of the ditch. Quantities of sling stones are also noted from other exposedfeatures in the quarry face, while Smith had earlier recorded collecting them from thesurface.

Matthews notes some variation in the form of the ditch as exposed on the quarry face,although his account ( 1962) is somewhat confusing, referring to a 'west section' and a 'centralsection', in addition to the 'west section with the burials'. At the point where the crouchedburial was found, the ditch varied between 12ft to I 3ft 6in deep, and was 5ft wide at thebottom with a U-shaped profile; however, the'central section', presumably further alongthe quarry face to the south west, the ditch is lOft deep and ofv-shaped profile. The latter'sfill is described as 'a uniform fine rain-wash silt'whereas the former is'loose lump chalk'containing all the burials, sealed by 'a brown clay which is probably a fossilized turfsoil' (thisis described as a 'band of loam' on the section drawing published in Matthews 1976]. Asfar as datable material is concerned, Matthews refers to some sherds of flint-gritted potteryfrom the 'clay loam siit' (no layer is described as such on the published section d.rawingpossibly he is referring to the 'band of loam'J, plus a sherd of a burnished carinated bowl'decorated with triangular pattern in the same stratum'. Abone needle was also apparentlyrecovered from the bottom of the ditch.

Also in 1962, a member of the Manshead Society took some photographs of Maiden Bowerfrom aglider (Manshead Archaeol Socl962l. some features observedonthe photo withinthe enclosure were interpreted at the time as possible hut circles, while one feature,described as a 'square within a square', was suggested as being reminiscent of a Romantemple. However, examination of the photograph suggest that these are unlikely to be

MAIDEN BOWTR 7

archaeological. As Pollard and Hamilton (1994) point out, they appear to follow the pattern

of cultivation; funhermore, similar features did not show up on Pollard and Hamilton's

geophysical survey.

Dyer (1955J refers to a section of Neolithic ditch lOft deep, and 5ft wide at the bottom,

having been revealed in the quarry side in 1950, where it could be seen to be cut by the lron

Age ditch. He notes that sherds of 'black Abingdon Ware' were tecovered from the earlier

ditch. Matthews (1962) refers to a ditch beneath the Iron Age rampart appearing'during

the last five years'. Erosion eventually revealed 'an irregularly-bottomed ditch 46ft plus

long', with 1Oft given as the maximum depth. The exposed ditch apParently ran beneath

the centre of the Iron Age rampart, though at one point he states that 'the inner wall of the

lron Age ditch is just touching the Neolithic ditch', before speculating that another 10ft of

erosion should uncover their exact relationship. lts fill is described as 'loose nodule chalk

sealed by a datk seam of loam and chalk. It is remarkably free from debris'. 'Ashes of a fire

and a few fragments of animal bones'were fou.td at thebottomof this ditch. In February

1962 a barbed and tanged arrowhead was found 'in the sealing stratum I 8" below the Iron

Age turf level'. He also notes that'70ft away to the east...can be seen another depression

beneath the ramparts', which he speculates may be a further section of the Neolithic

enclosure. The fill is described as being a fine rain-washed silt.

In 1960, erosion revealed for the first time a iine of post holes running along the centre ofthe rampart. Matthews' [1976] section drawing and a 1963 sketch plan (Manshead Archaeol

Soc 1963) (see attached copiesJ suggests that these were discovered at the same point as

the group ofburials discovered in 1937. A line of six post holes were recorded spaced 6ft,

6ft, 8ft lOin, 4ft, and 6ft apart centre to centre. They are described as being up to l4in indiameter (25 3Ocm) and 32in (91cm) deep. Matthews suggests that they were 'tailor-made'

for the posts, which showed signs ofhaving been cut with a 2in wide blade. Their fills were

identicai - chalk with increasing quantities of 'charcoal' or 'carbonised dust', suggesting to

Matthews that the posts had rotted in situ. Each post hole was cut through the oid ground

surface beneath the rampart. The section also apparently demonstrated that turf removed

to allow the digging of the ditch formed the base of the rampart. At one point on the surface

of the old turf line was a 'band of ash' extending for some 6ft. Scattered around it were

bones of ox and sheep.

It was also reported in 1960 that evidence of the probable Neolithic enclosure was now

showing as 'two flat bottomed ditches running beneath the Iron Age rampaft' (Coilins I 960).

It was subsequently stated [Matthews 1963) that they appeared to be going in different

directions, resulting in a reconstruction 'sketch' showing a rather small causewayed enclosure

to the west of, and just overlapping with, the later earthwork enclosure. In addition, at

roughly SP9955 2242, a small pit was observed on the quarry face. Described as being 2ft6in wide and 2ft deep, its fill consisted of 'loam and small chalk together with broken animal

bones which included the jawbone of an ox and several fire crackled flints and sandstone

pebbles'. No potsherds or other datable material was recovered, but'the state ofthe bone

suggests that it probably belongs to the early period rather than the Iron Age'.

MAIDEN EOWER 8

In I 96 7 it was reported that erosion had now revealed that the Iron Age ditch had been recut

Again location infonnation is lacking but the Published section drawing (Manshead Archaeol

Soc 1967, Matthews 1976J cenainly indicates that a V-shaped ditch replaced an earlier,

shallower flat-bottomed ditch. Matthews believed that this solved the apparent anomaly of

finding Iron Age B and lron Age First A sherds together in the ditch. No post holes were

observed in this section. A rabbit scrape at the 'most western section' contained a human rib

bone and more sling stones, apparently from the bottom of the ditch.

Two years later IManshead Archaeol Soc 1969), further post holes were revealed, this time

'on the most westerly (sic) side of the quarry face where a longitudinal section of the lron

Age rampart is built over the ditch of the Neolithic causewayed camp'. The post holes are

described as cutting through the'Neolithic'ditch running below the rampart, although the

published section drawing (Manshead Archaeological Society 1969) appears to show a rather

more complex situation (see below] . Three post holes were observed, again spaced at roughly

6ft intervais. Size and fill was similar to the slx post holes discovered earlier. The pit shown

on the left hand side ofthe section appears to be that described in Matthews (1976) as pit

number I I, described as being 92cm long and 46cm deep and 'filled with dark loam' (but

note the location map in the same publication]. Only half of the pit remained, but 94

potsherds were recovered from it. Isobel Smith (in Matthews 1976) noted similarities withthe sherds discovered by Smith and discussed by Piggott, and argued that the two collections

'display the formal and decorative traits appropriate to the round bottomed bowls in the

Abingdon style of the Upper Thames Valley and in the Mildenhall style of East Anglia.'

In I 9 7l , Kennett noted that the Manshead S ociety had discovered two further Neolithic pits

beneath the Iron Age rampart, although he may be referring to the pit previously described

and the adjacent portion of ditch.

Matthews published details ofall his excavation and salvage work in the area in t 976. Maiden

Bower is unfortunately dealt with in summary form rather than in detail, with the resuit that

the problems arising from earlier interim statements are not adequately resolved. Of the two'Neolithic' ditch sections observed beneath the later rampart, the largest, 'more than' 20m

long and up to 3.66m deep, is placed on the western edge of Maiden Bower. 'The floor is

irregular but erosion is still taking place and a new shape appears every year'. Two barbed

and tanged arrowheads are reported from the upper levels 'but only the smallest fragments

of pottery and bone have been found in the ditch ffll'. The second ditch is placed 27.5m to

the east 'and at present appears as a squared pit 2.14m deep and 3.55m wide. It is probably

being viewed end on as each year it retains its shape but gets deeper'. No finds are reported

ftom this feature. The fill ofboth ditches is described as 'strata of rain wash loam and chalk.

The dark bands of occupational loam usually found in silted pits and ditches are missing'.

Numerous shells of Pomatias Eiegans are reported from the lower levels of both ditches.

Matthews also mentions in passing that 'a recent walk over the freshly ploughed interior ofMaiden Bower produced numerous flakes and nine good scrapers. A similar walk along the

ridge (between Maiden Bower and Puddlehill) produced twelve scrapers and innumerable

flakes'

MAIDEN BOWER 9

Geophysical Survey

No further work by the Manshead Society is mentioned subsequent to this publication. The

next investigations were geophysical and fieidwalking surveys (Hamilton and Pollard 1992;

Pollard and Hamilton )994J in 1991. The work involved three elements: the surface

collection of artefacts, resistivity survey and magnetometer survey. Their primary aim was

to 'locate and establish the extent of surviving features belonging to the earlier Neolithic

enclosure. In addition it was hoped to gain an insight into the character of the later

prehistoric and Romano-British activity at the site'.

One of the major discoveries was the existence of a ditched feature c.Z5m inside and

concentric to the existing earthwork bank. Around ,100/o of its probable circumference fell

within the area examined, and although some apparent breaks were noted, no obvious

entrance was observed. There was no gap corresponding to the south eastern entrance ofthe earthwork bank. ln addition, a number of features identified as probable pits or scoops

were recorded, as well as some short linear features, plus possible quarry scoops against ihe

inner face of the earthwork bank. It has recently been suggested that these may represent

a continuation ofthe possible Neolithic ditch visible in section in the quarry face, described

below (Horne 1996,30).

The fieldwalking exercise covered a 100/o sample ofthe interior, and recovered 465 pieces

of prehistoric worked and burnt flint and 95 sherds of Iron Age and Roman pottery. Thegreatest concentration of flint was towards the centre of the enclosure, 'roughly

corresponding to a band running south-west to north-east', with a secondary concentrationtowards the west, close to the areas where the Neolithic ditch sections had been exposed

in the quarry face. The remainder of the material showed a light scatter throughout theenclosure, although a concentration was noted in the western quarter, an area where thegeophysical survey suggested the possibility of a building.

The lithic assemblage contained a small early Neolithic component, but the majority of thepieces - at least three hundred - are believed to belong to a later Neolithic/Early Bronze Age

horizon. The nature of the assemblage suggested that primary working had taken place

elsewhere, with only the final stages of core reduction being identified from the surface

assemblage. As for the pottery, Romano British sherds accounted for 900/o of the total.

MATDEN BOWER IO

3- DESCRIPTION OF THE EARTHWORKS

For terms and letters in bold script used in the text, see eafthwork plan surveyed at l:1000

(Figure 2). The three visible elements of Maiden Bower recorded by the RCHME are: the

fort rampart, an inner concentric bank, and the ditch sections still visible in the quarry (AJ

The fort rampart is now the most prominent surviving component at the site. The bank

forms an almost complete circuit, excePt along the north west side where quarrying for

chalk and subsequent erosion have encroached since the Ordnance Survey Second Edition

map was revised in 1901. It encloses a sub-circular area ofc.4.9ha, measuring 233m north

to south by 2l4m transversely. The rampart has a maximum basal width of 9 3m and an

outer scarp still standing up to 2.9m high. The most likely entrancc is a a break 7.3m wide

in the south-east, which is accommodated within a subtle out turn of the rampart, perhaps

indicating that there was originally some elaboration at this point in the defences.

A second break in the perimeter on the north side of the site, shown on the Ordnance

Survey First Edition (surveyed 1879) and Second Edition (revised 1900), would appear to

be a recent feature from its form, perhaps created by farm traffic. The north-eastern half

of the gap has not been quarried away, and at the time of the RCHME survey ephemeral

traces of an outer ditch were recorded up to 6.4m wide and 0.2 deep. [n January 1995 itwas found that this ditch had been ploughed away completely.

The recent geophysical survey undertaken at Maiden Bower (Pollard and Hamilton I994)

identified the remains of an inner enclosure lying concentrically to the fort rampart,

represented by an anomaly interpreted as a ditch. During the course of the RCHME survey

a low earthen bank was recorded, also lying concentrically within the rampart, at a distance

of some 30m from it, ie immediately within the ditch revealed by the geophysics. Thebank

is spread up to 4.0m wide and no more than 0.3m highand is best preserved on the western

sideofthesite. This may be associated with the feature recorded by the geophysical survey,

but is more probably a headland formed by the ploughing regime in the interior. Only

excavation will clarii, the nature of this feature.

At the intersection of the southern rampart and the quarry edge (SP 9955 2248, marked Aon plan], two ditch sections are still exposed and continue to erode into the disused chalk

quarry. The more northerly ditch, which is that of the later prehistoric fon, has a sharp

V-shaped profile, is up to 3.5m wide and 2.3m deep. A series of prominent tiplines are

visible in the ditch fill. The feature has been cut obliquely by the quarry and subsequent

erosion, thus the recorded dimensions rnust be treated with caution.

Approximately 5m to the south ofthe first ditch lies a second with a broad, shallow U-shaped

profile 3.lm wide at the top and up to 0.9m deep. Several distinct layers are visible in the

fill with varying levels of chalk inclusions. The primary silt contains some animal bones,and

the whole ditch is overlain by a mid-brown layer of loam 0. l5m deep which may be an old

turfline. This same layer appears to overlie the V-shaped ditch.

MAIDEN BOWER I I

--7z.):-.

"-1==chark -::_=-=---aLarry

=: :

=-a--_

iNi:-=.- - ------'...---: -\\ti-\_..- ..- ___--_,

\ \- . \r-..--r--.--\>,/-..'\ +}\\S\S-\ \\\\\>/. .\\ \\\\\.-/.l\ r.\)-/

MAIDEN BOWER,BEDFORDSHIRE

$.|,:ii:i:,':r':ii'|iiirri"

Jr'

\,..r'::j'

N.s*/ it.)r '..

A:.1 . ::

)/.: ::/ iE ::

== r: bank

=Ei=tz-= t:.o'-?-- :-

,-'.;1....,,;i.

\a.

'.......\ \.t.

RCHM.NCLAN D10 O lOO METRESffi-._-

Figure 2: RCHME earthuork plan, surueyed onto OS superplan at 1:1000 scaLe.

MATDEN BowER l2

The context of the U,shaped ditch is more problematical. It is unclear what the true

alignment of the latter ditch was, but it is certainly from an earlier site underlying the fort.

The fact that it was not recorded continuing into the interior of the fort by the geophysical

survey may be simply due to the vagaries of the subsoil and the techniques used. Again,

only further excavation can confirm the alignment and chronology of this ditch

MAIDEN BOWER 13

4. INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION

There is a traditional presumption that the Maiden Bower enclosure is of Iron Age date and

probably of two phases, based panly on the evidence for the re'cutting of the ditch on the

western side, and that it was preceded by some form of Neoiithic earthwork or enclosure.

However, none of the identified features is reliably dated, and any potential dating evidence

is either poorly described with regard to its stratigraphy and associations, or is not fully

published (often both).

The nature of the Neolithic activity at Maiden Bower remains unclear. Smith examined at

least two lengths of apparently segmented ditch outside the extant earthwork enclosure, in

an area now lost to the quarry, and which produced finds which would lend support to the

theory of a causewayed enclosure having existed there. In addition, features have been

observed and investigated beneath the existing bank, which may belong to such an enclosure,

although their precise date is uncertain, as is their relationship to the features examined by

Smith. There is iittle to support the suggestion that the ditch segments were part of a later

Neolithic herge {contra Ashbee I984, l8l). However, it has recentiy been suggested thatat least some of the features may be associated with a Neolithic long barrow, possibly withsegmented flanking ditches, similar to that at Badshott in Surrey (Horne 1996, 30-l). The

I969 section drawing appears to show a pit and section of ditch sealed by a turf line and

possibly separated by the remains of a bank and/or a deposit of pioughsoil, which in turnwas sealed by a further turf line on top of which the later bank was constructed. However,

dating evidence for this is lacking, unless the pit is that described in 1976 as producing a

quantity of Neolithic pottery.

At present the available evidence would suggest that if a Neolithic enclosure did exist, itwas partly overlapped rather than completely overlain by the later suniving earthwork (Dyer1955; Selirk 1972; Horne 1996). The faiiure ofthe geophysical survey (Hamilton and

Poilard I 99 2; Pollard and Hamilton 1994) to uncover any lengths of interrupted ditch withinthe interio.ofthe extant enclosure indicates that it may have been only tangentially overlain

[Horne 1996). This would suggest that most of the enclosure has been destroyed byquarrying, and as argued by Pollard and Hamilton, would strengthen the case for samplingwhat survives, particularly with regard to the recovery of datable material.

Alternatively, the circuit of an earlier Neolithic earthwork could be hidden by the existing

rampart, a suggestion possibly supported by the evidence from the shallow ditch-like section

exposed in the excavations at the south-eastern entrance in 1913, and the ditch sections

exposed in the chalk quarry. However, the surviving earthworks do not correspond to theearlier enclosure suggested by Smith in 1915, and lying on the western side of its circuit.

The bone-filled pit excavated by Cook and Smith near the south-eastern entrance has been

suggested by Dyer to be a segment of Neolithic ditch. Although Smith's account is vague,

the presence of tile, nails etc is suggestive of a much later date for the pit, if not for thehuman and animal remains.

MAIDEN BOWER 14

T!

il

In view of the insufficient evidence currently available for the nature of the Neolithicmonument, it remains difficult to understand the site in terms of its location within thelandscape. A recent attempt to do so (Horne 1996) has pointed to the concentration oflong barrows between Maiden Bower and the possible henge at Waulud's Bank (TL 061246-see Figure ll.The circular internal ditch like anomaly revealed by geophysical survey remains of unknownfunction and date. Pollard and Hamilton considered a range of possibilities, such as anearlier, possibly Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age, enclosure superseded by the extantearthwork, a henge, or a surviving eiement of a Neoiithic causewayed enclosure complex.The henge hypothesis was rejected because ofthe 'anomalous' location for such a monument.lf the bank recorded by the RCHME survey (probably a recent ploughing headland) shouldprove to be associated with the ditch, the fact that it lies within the ditch wouid seem toconfirm that it is not a henge. The lack of possible causeways evident on the gephysical plotwas taken to imply that an earlier Neolithic date was unlikely, though this assumes that aL]earlier Neolithic enclosures were formed by circuits of rnterrupted ditches and banks.

A further possibility which does not seem to have been explored by pollard and Hamiltonis that the inner ditch (and less probably the slight bank recorded by the RCHME survey)are actually contemporary with the main surviving fort rampan and form a part ofthe overalldefences of the site. Clearly further excavation is required to clarify certain details, inparticular whether more than one site is represented, and what the chronological contextsof the various features are.

MAIDEN BOWER I 5

fxtI;r_-4r_rtar-t-Ta

r;;

;

f,Is;I;

B;ft;

Er_f-(aIt:rfa

t-_fia

I-_FTll

r,r-fa

t--r-(rr(rr_F{l

t--l-(.

t-

5. SURVEY AND RESEARCH METHODS

The archaeological survey was carried out by Peter Topping of RCHME's Cambridge Office

and David Field of the Swindon Office. Details of the plan were added to an Ordnance

Survey Superplan plot at l:1000 scale, using normalgraphical methods and Ordnance Survey

control. The history of archaeological research was researched and written up by Martyn

Barber of RCHME's National Monuments Record, and the report as a whole was written

by Peter Topping and edited by Alastair Oswald. The plan was re-drawn for publication by

Trevor Pearson. The site archive has been deposited in the National Monuments Record,

Kemble Drive, Swindon SNZ ZGZ (SP 92 SE 6).

Crown copyright: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.

MAIDEN BOWER 16

ri:,,i:,:,::::::::,:::::::]:::::::::::

.:.

6. BIBLIOCRAPHY

Allcroft AII 1908 Earthworh of Englanl l-ondon, Macmillan

Ashbee P 1984 The Earthen Long Barrow in England [znd Ed]' Norwich' Geo Books

Avery M 1993 HiX/o rt Defences of Southem Britain Oxford,BAR lBritish Series] 231

Brandreth H 1838 ',observations on the Roman station of Magiovintum',4rchcuologia27 ,96 108

Collins J 1960 'Edit ooal' The Manshead Magazirc 4 [June 1960), 39

costin P & spence JR 1959 The'Maiden Bower'pan the fint -ffact & ffantasy The Marchead Magazirw 7

Qan l9s9), l8-21

Curwen EC 1930 'Neolithic Camps' AtLn4uity lV ,72'54

Davies GH 1956 'Maiden Bower near Durstable' Tftz Bedt'ordshire Archrcologisr I [part 2], 98-l0l

Dyer J 1955a ,A Secondary Neolithic camp at waulud's Bank, Leagrave, Beds' Tfu Bedt'ordshire

Archaeobgist \ fpart l] (March 1955),9-16

1955b 'Maiden Bower near Dunstable' TXr Bedfordshire Archaeoltgist I lPAft l), 47 -52

1959 ','Middling for Wreck" -Extracts fiom the Story of Wonhington and Henrietta Smith'T[e

Bedt'ordshire Archaeologist 2, I 15

l99l Hillforts of England andWales Prnces fusborough, Shire.

Evam, Sir J 1897 Thc Ancient storc ImpLements, weapons and omamenX of Great Bitain (7rld Ed)

[-ondon, l,ongmans, Green and Co.

Harnilton MA & Pollard CJ 1992 'Maiden Bower, Bedfordshirei intedm report on survey work, October

l99l' The Marchead Magazine 37,74-31

Home B 1996 lgill the real NeoJithic please standup?'latmal of the Manshead ArcfutcoLc,gical Society of

tturcabb 36 [August 1996],22-39

Kennett D 1971 'Bedfordshne Archaeology 1970-71' Bedfordshire Archrcolagical loumal6,8I-88

Manshead Archaeological Society 1959 'Maiden Bower (Part the Second) - Worthington G Smith'Tfu

Manshza.d Magazirc 3 (July 1959),23-25

1963 'Maiden Bowe r' The Mcnuhead Magazine ll (Aprl1 1963), I I -13

1967 'Maiden Bowe r' The Marchead Magazitu l7 (Jan 1967), 27-28, 30

1 969 'Maiden Bowe r' The Marshead Ma4azirc 19 (Spring I 969) , I I

(a

MAIDEN BOWER I7

Matthews cL 1962 ,Archaeological sites on the Tottemh oe Rtdge' The Manshea"d Magazine 8 (Lpn)

l962), I l9-134

1963 Ancient Durstable: a Prehistory ol the Durnd (l st Ed) The Manshead fuchaeological

Society ofDunstable

1976 Occupation Sites on a Chihem Ridge: excauations at Puddlehill and sites rcar Ilmstable,

Betlfordshire - Part 1: Neolithic, Bfonze Age and Early Iron Age Oxford, BAR [British Senes] 29

MeeA (ed) ).939 The Counties of Bedt'ord and Huntingdon London, Hodder and Stoughton

Mercer R I990 Caas ewayed Enclosures Princes fusborough, Shire

page W & Keate 1908 'Romano British Bedfordshire' jn 7fu Victorb Camty Hittory of Bedt'ordshire 2,1-16

Palmer R 1976'lntem.rpted Ditch Enclosures in Britain: the use of Aerial Photography lor Comparative

Stu&es' Proceedings of the Prehistoic Socteb, 42, 161 - 186

Prggott S l93l 'The NeoLithic Pottery ofthe British Isles' Archaeological Jwru 88'61-1159

1954 The Neolithic Cultures of tlte Bitish lsles Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Pollard CJ & M Hamlilton 1994 'Recent Fieldwork at Maiden Bower' Bedfordshire Archaeologt 2\, 10-18

Selkirk A 1972 Vaulud's Banl' Curent Arch'zeolog, 30 [January 1972], 173-6

Simco A 1984 Saru ey of Bedfordshire: The Rmnn Peiod Bedford, Bedfordshire County Council &

RCHME

Smith wG 1894 Man the PimeuaL Sauage: his hatms arul relics fran tfu hill'tops of Bedlordshire to

Bkrcbwall I nndor, Edward Stanford

1904a Dtatsnbb: its History awl Sutcanulirgs [The Homeland Library, III] London, The

Homeland Association

1904b 'Early Man' inThe Viaoria Cannty History ofBedfordshire l, 145-171

l9l 5 'Maiden Bower, Bedfordshire' Proce edings of the Socie}, ol Antiquaies of landon$Jll[2nd Series], 143-l6l

Thomas N 1956 'Material for the Study ofthe Prehistory ol Bedfordshire - l: The Neolithic and Bronze

A4e:'The Bedt'onlshire Archaeologst I [pan 2], 67-9t

Watkin WT I882'Roman Bedfordsbre' Archaeological loum,xl 39, 757'?90

Wedmore B 1920 The Eanhunrh-s of Bedfordshire Bedford, 'Bedfordshire Standard' Newspaper

Wilson D t 975 "Causewayed Camps' and 'lntemrpted Ditch Systems".4n tri4uity )(-D(, 178 186

'.a

a

a

MAIDEN BOWER I8