The Iron Age Enclosures and Prehistoric Landscape of Sutton Common, South Yorkshire

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Societyhttp://journals.cambridge.org/PPR

Additional services for Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

The Iron Age Enclosures and Prehistoric Landscape of SuttonCommon, South Yorkshire.

M. Parker Pearson, R.E. Sydes, S. Boardman, B. Brayshay, P.C. Buckland, A. Chadwick, M. Charles, G. Crawley, C.Cumberpatch, M. Dearne, J.A. Edmond, D. Hale, J. Henderson, M. Lomas, C. Merrony, J. Moore, A. Myers, T. Roper,J.-L. Schwenninger, M. Taylor, N. Whitehouse and M.L. Wright

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society / Volume 63 / January 1997, pp 221 - 259DOI: 10.1017/S0079497X00002449, Published online: 18 February 2014

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0079497X00002449

How to cite this article:M. Parker Pearson, R.E. Sydes, S. Boardman, B. Brayshay, P.C. Buckland, A. Chadwick, M. Charles, G. Crawley, C.Cumberpatch, M. Dearne, J.A. Edmond, D. Hale, J. Henderson, M. Lomas, C. Merrony, J. Moore, A. Myers, T. Roper,J.-L. Schwenninger, M. Taylor, N. Whitehouse and M.L. Wright (1997). The Iron Age Enclosures and PrehistoricLandscape of Sutton Common, South Yorkshire. . Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 63, pp 221-259 doi:10.1017/S0079497X00002449

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/PPR, IP address: 129.234.252.67 on 23 Mar 2015

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 1997, pp. 221-259

The Iron Age Enclosures and Prehistoric Landscape ofSutton Common, South Yorkshire

By M. PARKER PEARSON1 and R.E. SYDES2

With contributions byS. BOARDMAN3, B. BRAYSHAY4, P.C. BUCKLAND1, A. CHADWICK1, M. CHARLES1, G. CRAWLEY5,

C. CUMBERPATCH6, M. DEARNE7, J.A. EDMOND5, D. HALE8, J. HENDERSON9, M. LOMAS5, C. MERRONY1,

J. MOORE1, A. MYERS10, T. ROPER1, J.-L. SCHWENNINGER11, M. TAYLOR12, N. WHITEHOUSE1

and M.L. WRIGHT1

The Early Iron Age enclosures and associated sites on Sutton Common on the western edge of the HumberheadLevels contain an exceptional variety of archaeological data of importance not only to the region but for thestudy of later prehistory in the British Isles. Few other later prehistoric British sites outside the East Anglianfens and the Somerset Levels have thus far produced the quantity and quality of organically preservedarchaeological materials that have been found, despite the small scale of the investigations to date. Theexcavations have provided an opportunity to integrate a variety of environmental analyses, of wood, pollen,beetles, waterlogged and carbonised plant remains, and of soil micromorphology, to address archaeologicalquestions about the character, use, and environment of this Early Iron Age marsh fort. The site is comprisedof a timber palisaded enclosure and a succeeding multivallate enclosure linked to a smaller enclosure by atimber alignment across a palaeochannel, with associated finds ranging in date from the Middle Bronze Age tothe Roman and medieval periods. Among the four adjacent archaeological sites is an Early Mesolithicoccupation site, also with organic preservation, and there is a Late Neolithic site beneath the large enclosure.Desiccation throughout the common is leading to the damage and loss of wooden and organic remains. It ishoped that the publication of these results, of investigations between 1987 and 1993, will lead to a fullerinvestigation taking place.

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND of the Magnesian limestone and the silts and clays ofARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING pre-glacial Lake Humber to the east (Gaunt 1994).

(P.C. Buckland, M. Parker Pearson, & R.E. Sydes) U P P e r P e r m i a n m a r l i s l o c a t e d a t a d e P t h o f 5 m 'overlain by Lake Humber clays. The extensive

Sutton Common, 10 km north of Doncaster, is a faulting of the bedrock in the Askern area probablynarrow strip of peatlands lying between the dipslope facilitated the access of groundwater and the solution

department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, 8Geoquest Associates, The Old Vicarage, Castleside, CountySheffield S10 2TN Durham DH8 9AP2Archaeological Officer, Bath & NE Somerset District ^Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham,Council, Bath NottinghamEnvironmental Archaeological Services Edinburgh, 10Archaeology Section, Planning Department, DerbyshireDepartment of Archaeology, 16-19 George Square, County Council, Council Offices, Matlock, DerbyshireUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ "Department of Geography, Royal Holloway and Bedford4Department of Geography, University of Manchester, College, Egham, SurreyManchester 12Flag Fen Excavations, Fourth Drove, Fengate,^Doncaster Museum, Chequer Road, Doncaster DN1 2AE Peterborough, Cambridgeshire69 Louth Road, Sheffield Sll 7AU79 Junction Road, Edmonton, London N9 7JS Received October 1995. Accepted October 1996

221

THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Sports Ground

CORINGTRANSECT

\ OUTLINE OFisA

\ ENCLOSURE

CONTOURS ARE EVERY 10 CENTIMETRESHEIGHTS QUOTED ARE METRES O.D.

Fig. 1Location of Sutton Common, with contours and the two coring sections shown

222

10. M. Parker Pearson & R.E. Syde. IRON AGE ENCLOSURES, SUTTON COMMON, S. YORKSHIRE

of evaporites, predominantly gypsum and anhydrite,leading to the irregular topography on which thearchaeological sites lie.

While much of the Common lies at about 3 m ASL(above sea level), there are five areas within the valleybottom which are over 4.5 m (Fig. 1). Four of themare associated with the remains of prehistoricsettlement. The largest and highest of these (4.5-5.6 mASL) is the pear-shaped piece of land on which islocated the large enclosure, Enclosure A. West of this,on the other side of a 70 m wide palaeochannel, is athin strip of high ground, up to 5 m ASL, on which islocated the triangular-shaped small enclosure,Enclosure B. North-west of this enclosure is anotherraised area where another site, SUT 1 (also known asAskern-5; Head etal. 1997, 233), is defined by a smallgroup of undiagnostic flint flakes (Sydes & Symonds1987, 63-4) and a relatively high magnetic suscepti-bility anomaly (ARCUS 1994, 54-9). The fourth site,SUT 2 (also known as Askern-7; Head et al. 1997,236-8), is a small but pronounced knoll to the northof SUT 1, where a flint assemblage, sub-surfacefeatures, and preserved wood (Parker Pearson &Merrony 1993) indicate the presence of an EarlyMesolithic occupation site beneath the ploughsoil. Onthe fifth raised area, another knoll to the north ofEnclosure A, there is another potential occupation site(SUT 3) but no finds have been made here (Sydes &Symonds 1987, 41). Flintwork of Late Neolithic datehas been recovered from the area of Enclosure A (alsoknown as Askern-6; Head et al. 1997, 233-6). Therewere further traces of woodworking in the side of thedrain west of SUT 2, where there were six pairs ofsmall stakes and a split log (SUT 4; Sydes & Symonds1987, 41). Finally, there is another probableprehistoric site (SUT 5) on the clays to the east of thepeat in Shirley Wood, east of Enclosure A. This is alarge circular mound, about 6 m in diameter, which isnow scheduled as a Neolithic burial mound (SouthYorkshire scheduled monument 13254).

The two enclosures were scheduled in 1937(scheduled monument 291). Enclosure B is 160 mnorth-south and over 80 m east-west. It consists of asingle low earth bank and ditch defining a sub-triangular circuit with two probable entrances. On itseastern side, the ditch is internal. The large enclosure,Enclosure A, is 295 m north-south and almost 150 meast-west. It is solely visible from the air both as asoilmark and cropmark and previously consisted of alarge internal bank c. 10 m across, interrupted by

seven gaps. The bank has external ditches and anouter bank on its north-east and east sides. On itswest side, the bank was constructed along the line ofthe old river channel and was revetted with up to tencourses of drystone walling (Whiting 1936, 62).

Previous investigationsThe enclosures were first described and mapped in1868 by the Rev. Scott F. Surtees who thought theywere Roman military camps. In 1908 Allcroftconsidered that they were the refuge of fugitives(1908, 246-7). Between 1910 and 1926, humanbones, flints, pottery, thatch, and worked wood werefound during unrecorded excavations by local groups.Between 1933 and 1935 Emeritus Professor Whitingexcavated a number of trenches within bothenclosures. He considered that the enclosures wereprehistoric, not Roman, and made a number ofunusual finds (1936): a plank-lined pit, a rounded oakslab with a longitudinal timber through its centre(which he thought might be a wheel), a timberalignment (with an associated human skull fragment)linking the two enclosures, a timber palisade beneaththe rampart of Enclosure A rampart, a drystonerevetment wall on the west side of Enclosure A'srampart, and a series of 34 'huts' on the ramparts andin the enclosure interiors. Some of these enigmaticcircular features had stone flagged floors, carbonisedwood, post-holes, and posts.

THE REASONS FOR THE PROJECT: DESICCATION ANDWETLAND MANAGEMENT

(M. Parker Pearson & R. E. Sydes)Sutton Common was enclosed around 1850 and itwas first subjected to drainage operations at this time(Whiting 1936, 57). Even so, the whole area wasdescribed in 1868 as a morass untouched by drain orplough (Surtees 1868) and in 1908 as wet andswampy (Allcroft 1908, 246-7). Whiting commentedin 1936 that wet weather soon rendered the lowerground waterlogged (Whiting 1936, 57). The arearemained as uncultivated wetland pasture and scrubuntil 1980 when the large enclosure and the south-east corner of the small enclosure were bulldozed.Since that date the whole area except for the smallenclosure has been regularly ploughed (Fig. 2). In1982 the Ministry of Agriculture initiated a drainagescheme whose deep dikes dropped local water levelson the Common by about 2 m. In conjunction with

223


-V.'

V

Fig. 2The enclosures seen from the north, soon after the large one was first ploughed

the impact of water extraction some distance away(Geomorphological Services Ltd 1990) this has led tothe drying out of most deposits except where they areperched in the enclosure ditches or are buried deep inthe palaeochannels. Even in the perched water table ofthe enclosure ditches there has been periodic dryingand wetting combined with a deterioration of woodcondition from excellent to poor in all but the lowest0.20-0.13 m of ditch fill by 1993. Additionally, thedeepening of drains on the Common has not onlylowered the water table but also modified nutrientinput to the fen which now derives its ground watersfrom more acidic sources in the Lake Humber clays.

In 1987 and 1988 a field assessment (Trenches A/Cand B in the small enclosure in 1987 and D and E in1988 in the large one) was carried out to assess theimpact of desiccation and continual ploughing on thearchaeological remains, and to attempt to date theconstruction and use of the site (Sydes & Symonds

BANKS/MOUNDS

DITCHES/DEPRESSIONS

EXCAVATED AREAS

N

A

Fig. 3The locations of the excavation trenches

224


1987; Adams et al. 1988). In 1992 and 1993 furtherassessments (reopening of Trench A/C and a newTrench F) were carried out to measure the deteri-oration since 1987 (Fig. 3; Sydes 1992; ParkerPearson 1994c; Parker Pearson & Merrony 1993;Parker Pearson & Sydes 1996).

Indications of deterioration

In 1987 cracks in the soil and mineral accretions onsome of the timbers suggested that the water table wasfluctuating and that these deposits were beginning todry out. In 1993 the wood survived in good conditiononly in a narrow layer at the bottom of the ditch.Above this layer, between 3.90 and 3.60 m ASL,timbers, twigs, and branches still survived but were invery poor condition; they had lost surface definitionand appeared to have collapsed cell structures. Somepieces were reduced to soil stains. Between 3.60 and3.47 m ASL, within layer 034, the surfaces of timberswere rarely cracked and axe facets were clearly visibleon some of them. Small pieces, less than 100 mmdiameter, were very brittle but the larger pieces werein good condition.

Observations during excavation have documentedprogressive desiccation since 1987. Organic survivalhas been better in waterlogged deposits not recentlyexposed to the air, though at least one episode ofdrying and rewetting has occurred in the deepestorganic deposits of the small enclosure. Good survivalof wood remains is confined to a 0.40 m band in theditch bottoms.

The physical condition of the wood

Comparison of wood samples taken in 1987 and in1993 from the same or similar contexts providesevidence of swift decay (Figs 4 &c 5). Rates of decaywere measured on a five point system by MaisieTaylor. Wood recovered in 1987 scored 5 or 4 (ie goodpreservation, the top of the scale); wood taken fromthe same context in 1993 scored only 2 or 1 (ie thebottom of the scale). This dramatic deterioration isdue to the introduction of aerobic conditions byopening the trench in 1987. A more representativepicture of the decay rate in the undisturbed enclosureditches is provided by a contrast with the wood fromthe newly opened Trench F in 1993. Here thecondition of the wood from the lowest layers (ie thebottom 0.40 m) was 4 or 3 (ie in the middle of thescale), with some of it extensively fissured.

Fig. 4The waterlogged wood uncovered in 1987 in Trench A/C,

seen from the west

Fig. 5The same waterlogged wood uncovered in 1992 in Trench

A/C, seen from the east

225


The spatial patterning of wood decay across the siteis likely to be extremely varied. Deposits within thelarge enclosure, such as the timber palisade and thepost-hole timbers, are on the highest ground and mostvulnerable to ploughing. Timbers forming the woodenalignment in the palaeochannel might seem to be wellpreserved at depths of about 2 m below ground levelbut timbers pulled up by ploughing in this locationhave dried out substantially. In contrast, there arelikely to be isolated pockets, particularly in thepalaeochannel but also perhaps in some of the ditchsections, where wood may continue to survive at arate of decay lower than that indicated by TrenchesA/C, B and F.

The fast rate of wood decay is cause for concern. In1993, organic deposits with wood in good conditionsurvived within a thin, delicately poised layer, 0.40 min thickness in the base of the ditch. Wood in poorcondition was found in the 0.60 m above this. Incontrast, the 1987 assessment of this ditch demon-strated good preservation in the bottom 0.70-0.60 mand poor preservation in the upper 0.20-0.30 m. Withinsix years the extent of good preservation had fallen from0.70 m to 0.40 m above the bottom of the ditch. If wecompare the quality of preservation with that at Etton,Cambridgeshire, after the first season that the pumpswere turned on in 1984, then it might not be long beforethe site is severely damaged or lost (French & Taylor1985). At Etton the information that the woodproduced was severely limited by 1986 and by 1988 thewood from the site produced little usable data.

Initial fears that insect remains were decaying in theupper levels of Trench F have been allayed. Preser-vation is generally moderate to good in the ditches ofthe small enclosure. However, insect remains were notpresent in three samples and in one of these (fromTrench C) the reason must be desiccation of thesample during storage since 1987. According to thepreservation index established by this project,preservation scores were 3 (moderate) or 3-4(moderate to good) for insect remains. Insect remainsare relatively fragmented now, so further insectsampling should not be delayed. The survival of boneis variable but pieces of human and cattle bones foundin the 1933-5 and 1987-93 excavations indicate thatit can survive.

Non-wood macrobotanical samples survived only inthe newly opened Trench F, due to desiccation in situor inadequate storage of samples from the 1987/88excavations. Small plant rootlets, apparently modern,

have penetrated into the lowest layers of the ditch.The presence of very fragmentary waterlogged plantremains in layer 034, at the base of the ditch, isindicative of decay. Whilst such decay may haveoccurred prior to burial, it is more likely due to recentchanges in the water level which have led to greateraeration of the deposits.

THE EXCAVATIONS 1987-1993

(P.C. Buckland, M.Parker Pearson, R.E. Sydes,& J. Moore)

The two enclosures were investigated by digging fivetrenches, two in the large enclosure (Trenches D andE) and three in the small enclosure (Trenches A/C, Band F) in order to assess the condition of waterloggeddeposits containing wooden and organic remains.Trenches A/C and B were excavated in 1987. TrenchesD and E were dug in 1988, and Trench F was dug in1993.

The large enclosure: excavations in 1988Trench D was selected to examine the density ofinternal features, the survival of the bank and its stonerevetment, and the overall extent of plough damage.Trench E was chosen for its potential to identifyorganic deposits in the two ditches associated with thenorthern side of the enclosure. It was also in this areathat Whiting had discovered an earlier line of stakesbeneath the central bank. Both trenches were handexcavated in order that the plough-sorted horizonscould be more easily examined for artefact densities.

In Trench D (Fig. 6) ploughmarks were extensiveand all prehistoric features were truncated. The bankof the rampart had been removed, along with most ofthe revetment's stonework. Of the stake-holes,shallow pit-like intrusions, and post-holes inside therampart, three post-holes contained remnant posts attheir bases. Two of these posts were probably squared(175 and 185). The only artefacts from features inTrench D were several flint flakes. In the trench'swestern part, three layers were preserved below theploughsoil. The uppermost (127 and 103) overlay abrown sandy silt (112). This sandy silt, in turn,overlay a metre-thick grey-brown loamy sand (145)at the extreme west of the trench. A total of 81worked flints was recovered from these deposits.

In Trench E (Fig. 7) there was similar ploughdamage across the flattened ramparts of the threebanks and ditches. South of the central ditch there was

226

10.

EXTENT OF

BANK

_ \

I PIT OR POSSIBLE PIT

M. Parker Pearson & R.E. Syde. IRON AGE ENCLOSURES, SUTTON COMMON, S. YORKSHIRE

a line of large oak stakes (Fig. 8; ident. J. Hillam),running east-west (043, 045, 047, 049, 051, 053,055, 057). These were large timbers which had beendebarked and roughly trimmed, terminating insharpened tips 0.17-0.45 m long. They variedbetween 0.35 m (051) and 0.15 m (047) in diameterand were driven into the ground between 1.15 m and0.55 m deep, on average c. 0.25 m apart (0.15 mminimum, 0.40 m maximum), to form a stout fence orstockade. This would have been impassable for adultsor for cattle to squeeze between. Stake 053 had beencut and subsequently snapped. This confirmsWhiting's observation that the stakes were cut downprior to the earthen rampart's construction (1936,

Fig. 6 65). This light palisade or stockade appears to havePlan of Trench D

IN

A

0

o o

mnnmiirnimi

metres.

West section

H i l l Ploughsoil

Fig. 7Plan and simplified section of Trench E

227


WEST EAST

Fig. 8Elevation of the preserved timbers of the palisade, viewed from the north

formed a curving alignment all along the north side ofthe large enclosure for a distance of perhaps 150 m(Whiting 1936, 65-6). On the north-west section ofthe defences, the stakes have no connection with therampart (Whiting 1936, 66), which they pre-date.Radiocarbon determinations of wood from stakes 051and 055 have produced dates of 2370±50 BP (GU-5524) and 2360±50 BP (GU-5525) respectively.

Beneath the line of the inner bank, there were fourpost-holes (062, 064, 066, 068) forming anapproximate rectangle, 1.30 m east-west and 2.10 mnorth-south. These flat-bottomed post-holes weresimilar in shape and all seemed to have been recut. Allcontained the remains of round post bases. The bestpreserved of these was that in post-hole 066. It was0.55 m high and was cut from a trunk 0.13 m indiameter, with the thinner end pointing upwards. Thisgroup of four posts may well be part of a singlestructure, either a 'four-poster' (it lay beneath one ofthe sub-circular features on top of the bank) or, morelikely, part of a timber-framed box rampart.

The inner ditch was 3.30 m wide, 0.75 m deep, andflat-bottomed. The unusual multi-coloured layers ofthe upper silts are probably the result of peat firesacross the moor in recent times. Lower down, therewas evidence for a recut containing just a few smallpieces of twigs and wood. The basal ditch layer (39)was a thin deposit of silt. On the north slope of theditch, buried under a silt layer (41), there was astaggered and pitched line of 30-40 mm diameter

decayed stakes which may have formed part of aflimsy wattle fence only 0.30 m above the ditchbottom. The bank in between the inner and centralditches was originally 4.15 m wide but now standsless than 0.10 m high. The central ditch was 2.82 mwide at the base of the ploughsoil and 0.65 m deepfrom ground level. It contained a similar sequence ofdeposits, including the same multi-coloured silt layers.Beyond the 3.05 m wide outer bank was a shallow, U-shaped gully, 0.37 m deep and c. 1.50 m wide. Itsouter edge could not be clearly defined, and it appearsto have been the source of material for the outermostbank. A shale bead, the only artefact recovered fromany of the ditch fills, was found immediately abovethe basal fill layer (77) of this gully.

The small enclosure: excavations in 1987 and 1993Within Trench A (Fig. 9), the east rampart (8.50 mwide and 0-.80 m high) overlay a sequence of gleyedburied soil, beneath a charcoal-rich clay beneath athick peat layer. Within the ditch there was a sequenceof upper peat (053) above a thin layer of brown siltysand above a second peat layer (055). Below this, anupper layer of organic mud (056) contained poorlypreserved roundwood, with one piece partially burnt.The lower organic mud (057) contained two layers oftimber. The upper consisted primarily of long, thinstraight branches, some with cut ends, intertwinedbranches, and pieces of burnt bark. There was also a

228


Fig. 9Plan of Trench A/C

cut log, 0.20 m diameter, with its end neatly squaredoff and a peg joint, with peg in situ, positioned0.44 m from the end. The 0.08 m diameter hole hadbeen roughly cut and pieces of a leather-like substancewere found packed around the peg. A large deposit ofcarbonised spelt seeds, 0.15 m thick, spread from thewestern lip of the ditch as far as the cut log. Thelowest layer of timber was more substantial, andcontained much larger branches including two morecut logs (Fig. 9). Against the eastern lip of the ditchwas a complex layer of long thin poles (up to 1.60 mlong and 0.03 m diameter), some broken, togetherwith interlaced twigs and sections of bark. Severalthin poles crossed over and under the longer timbers,forming a loosely interlaced framework, whilst otherswere laid close together.

Samples for radiocarbon dating were taken fromfour contexts associated with the ditch and bank inTrench A/C. In stratigraphic terms, the earliest (HAR-8916) was taken from the very top of the upper peatlayer directly beneath the bank material (on the sideopposite to the ditch). This sample of peat produced adetermination of 2240+90 BP (510-100 cal BC (alldates are quoted at the 95% confidence limit roundedout to the nearest ten years; Stuiver &c Reimer 1986;Mook 1986)). The second was from roundwood inthe first accumulation of organic deposits above the

ditch bottom (HAR-8915; 2260+70 BP; 410-170 calBC). Roundwood from the timber 'framework' (059)higher up in the ditch (HAR-8914) produced adetermination of 2320+70 BP (755-200 cal BC). Thelast date in the sequence came from the dump ofcarbonised spelt seeds in layer 057, above the'framework' and in the top 0.60-0.70 m of the ditchfill. This grain sample (HAR-8917) produced adetermination of 2340±70 BP (760-230 cal BC). Thesedeterminations are statistically significantly incon-sistent with the stratigraphic sequence. In particular,HAR-8917 is significantly too early even though thewheat sample has no taphonomic problems. With thisdetermination excluded and those from the palisade inTrench E added, additional analysis suggests that alldated occupation probably occurred after 550 cal BC(c. 80% confidence) and before 200 cal BC (c. 90%confidence; A. Bayliss pers. comm.).

In Trench B (Fig. 10), the bank was 5.80 m wide and0.80 m high and consisted of yellowish-brown siltyclay (009), similar to that in Trench A. Although anumber of turves were identified within it, there wasno evidence of any turf revetment or timber lacing.Possible intrusions into the bank were noted in thesections; these may have formed part of a revetmentor palisade. In the external ditch there was a sequenceof peat and organic layers containing bone, charcoal,

229


Fig. 10Plan of Trench B

wood, and leaf mould. The lowest deposits consistedof blue-grey organic clay silts and timbers formingpart of a clearly defined structure, an interlacedcollection of branches, reused worked wood, andupright stakes. One of the timbers (W33) was a small,easily portable ladder (Fig. 10). The other clearlyworked timber, surviving as a spongy material, was aplank retaining a roughly hewn hole, 0.08 m across,at one end. The depth of the ditch was 1.60 m belowground level.

In Trench F (Fig. 11), the rampart bank wascomposed of yellow sandy clay, with a line of turvesrunning along its west side above the ditch. They may,however, have been associated with one of the 34 sub-rectangular depressions originally noted on theenclosure ramparts (Whiting's 'huts'). This 'hut' was asub-rectangular feature, 4.1 m long north-south, 3.4 meast-west, and slightly domed. Its 0.60 m wide ditch(011) had a central slot 0.30 m wide and 0.30 m deep,but with no further evidence for posts or beams. Asingle sherd of pottery was found in its fill. Stake-holes, some of them for large timbers, may haveformed a fence line along the top of the bank, prob-ably of recent date given their distinctive black fill.

The sequence of ditch fills in Trench F is similar tothose recorded in Trenches A/C and B. Beneath theupper layers of topsoil, grey clay and peaty clay (004),there was a collection of small branches and pieces ofwood. Below these, within a sticky grey clay (034)there were seven pieces of trimmed, pointed, and fire-hardened timbers amongst a layer of wood. There wasat least another layer (088) beneath this. There was nosign of any recutting of the ditch nor of any cleaning-out deposits on either side.

On the west side of the ditch a 0.30 m highcounterscarp of yellow clay (033) lay beneath a thinsoil horizon. Beneath it was another buried soil (019,035), a band of grey clay which appears to have lostits A horizon. This is similar to the layer under theinternal bank in Trench B. The upper soil layer (002)contained small charcoal flecks and tiny pieces ofcalcined bone, and three stake-holes were cut fromthis level. Micromorphological analyses indicated thatthese buried soils had not been trampled or churnedup by animals or humans.

The palaeochannel between the enclosuresCoring across the 70 m wide channel between the twoenclosures (Fig. 12) proved a maximum channel depthof 4.80 m. With rising base level through the LateFlandrian (Buckland & Sadler 1985), it is probablethat the enclosures may have been actual islandswithin a shallow lake during periods when risingwater level exceeded the rate of sedimentaccumulation. Cores from Shirley Wood, to the east,indicate at least two phases of calcareous shell marldeposition, possibly linked to phases of forestdestruction on the limestone dipslope, leading toincreased run-off and consequent flooding.

The cored east-west profile across the channel givessome information on sediment stratigraphy, channeldimensions, and preservation of organic sediments. In1987, when the cores were taken, oxidisation hadpenetrated to at least 0.75 m below ground surface. Interms of organic survival, the most recent part of thesuccession survives locally only in Shirley Wood. Thechannel is deepest in the part adjacent to the largeenclosure, forming a shallow shelf 0.40-1.00 m deepthat extends about 25 m eastwards from the smallenclosure. Within the deep part of the channel, 45 mwide, Permian marl was located in only the deepestcore at 4.80 m, above which was a thin layer, 0.30 mthick, of Lake Humber silts. Between these silts andthe degraded peat at the surface was a succession oforganic silts, silts containing molluscs, sands, woodpeat, and humified peat. Subsequently, a furthertransect of boreholes has been made across SuttonCommon (Lillie 1997, 67-73).

The Early Mesolithic site: SUT 2North-west of the small enclosure and outside thesurvey area is a small and low knoll which would haveformed a small island or promontory of 0.77 ha where

230


m.

m.

~ — ' TOPSOILCLAYSAND m.

PEATWOOD

Fig. 11Plan of simplified section of Trench F with a detailed plan and section of the ditch deposits

231


Enclosure A

Enclosure B

KEY

DDegraded Peat HSilts with molluscs

EH Humified Peat Hsand

Swood Peat H'Lake Humber Silts

Horganic Silts Bllpper Permian Marl

Fig. 12Borehole transect through the palaeochannel between the enclosures

Approximate limit of Flint scatterI

m.I i I I I

I ' II MI I I

Ploughsoil

Sand

Organic inclusions

Charcoal

[^f] Woody inclusions

^ Humic layer

^ Burnt Peat?

UJJ Humified Peat

s.w.(approx.)

| H Organic Silt

O Clay

| Basal Sand Clay

-> SampledFig. 13

Borehole transect through the Mesolithic site SUT 2

232


the palaeochannel, originally flowing from the south,once divided into two courses, one to the north andone to the west. Since 1987 a small flint assemblagehas been collected from an area of less than 10 mdiameter on top of this knoll. It has been characterisedas Early Mesolithic in its technology (see below). In1993 a north-south line of 16 auger cores was takenat 2 m intervals across the knoll and northwardsdown into the peat (Fig. 13). In 1987 a previousprogramme of coring on this site recovered thechopped end of a branch.

The depth of the ploughsoil and the extent ofmixing of deposits indicates that the site is beingheavily damaged by ploughing. However, workedflints were recovered from the underlying strata,indicating that damage to the stratigraphic sequencehad not been complete. A horizon containing woodwas identified at 10 m along the line (from the north),although the wood was desiccated and in poorcondition. There were also bands of charcoal in closeassociation with the flint scatter. At 22 m southwards,the sequence of charcoal fragments, wood, and woodyinclusions is indicative of human activity rather thannatural processes. The first occurrence of theremaining peat was at 26 m but was only 0.27 m deepbefore reaching organic silt deposits. Within this layerof peat, a 50 mm layer of burnt peat was identified.This might be linked to the 1970's fire on thecommon. Well humified peat was encountered in theremaining cores to the north but the base of thepalaeochannel was too deep to be located.

The combination of surface finds, wooden andcharcoal deposits, peat coverage, and an unevenground surface which dips below the ploughsoil offersthe potential for recovering the full range of lithic,wooden, and environmental evidence (with theexception of bones and snails) to a depth of 0.30 mbelow the current ploughsoil from this EarlyMesolithic site. Other Early Mesolithic wetland sitesin the region include Star Carr (Clark 1954), Seamer

Carr (Schadla-Hall 1988), Deepcar (Radley &Mellars 1964), and Misterton Carr (Buckland &Dolby 1973) along with a handful of other, lesserknown sites (Wymer 1977; van de Noort & Davies1993, fig. 3.5). In an area where there is little evidenceof Early Mesolithic activity, SUT 2, as a presumablysmall and specialised hunting site, is important inpotentially providing a contrast with some of thelarger excavated sites.

ARTEFACTS

(P.C. Buckland, G. Crawley, C. Cumberpatch,M. Dearne, J.A. Edmond, J. Henderson, A. Myers,

M. Parker Pearson & M.L. Wright)

The wooden ladderThe log, of Populus sp. (poplar) or Salix sp. (willow; ident.J. Hillam), has a shaped end and four cut notches along oneface (Fig. 14). The log is now in five joining fragments, withan overall length of 2.12 m and a maximum diameter of0.07 m. The length of the point is 0.17 m. Each of the fournotches has been cut with one flat surface at right angles tothe log, presumably to act as a foothold. Close examinationof the flat surfaces of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th notches (fromthe pointed end) revealed a similar pattern of deteriorationwhich may be interpreted as the possible result of wear. Toolmarks made by a narrow, curved blade 14-15 mm widesurvive on the 'riser' of the 2nd and 4th notches. Fourpossible cut marks, 30—40 mm long and 1 mm wide, arevisible 0.30-0.40 m from the pointed end, and there are cutmarks at the top end of the log. The deteriorated remains ofwhat is probably facetting can be seen at the pointed end.

This is the only complete prehistoric notched log ladderfrom Britain. Fragments of others have been found in LateBronze Age contexts at Loft's Farm, Essex (Brown 1987),Flag Fen, Cambridgeshire (Maisie Taylor pers. comm.),Goose Acre Farm, Radley, Oxfordshire (Taylor forth-coming), and Stanwell, Heathrow Airport (C. de Rouffignacpers. comm.). Another notched ladder was found atKemerton, south Worcestershire (C. de Rouffignac pers.comm.). The Sutton Common ladder, from an Early IronAge context, would have been relatively light and mobile,perhaps used as an aid for climbing trees, climbing out of

cms. 50

Fig. 14The wooden ladder from Trench B

233


wells, ditches or pits, or as a means of climbing into lofts orraised buildings such as granaries. Notched log ladders areused in many parts of the world today. They seem to havebeen largely or wholly replaced in Britain by ladders withrungs in the Roman and Saxon periods.

Flint assemblage

Some 796 worked lithics were recovered from theenclosures and the area around them. Earlier Mesolithicactivity is indicated by the surface assemblage ofmicroburins, obliquely-blunted point microliths, cores, andflakes from SUT 2 and by a small assemblage from SUT 1.These assemblages are dominated by Wolds flint. LaterMesolithic pieces were found in Trench D of Enclosure A.The island on which Enclosure A sits was also a focus forLate Neolithic/Early Bronze Age activity, with findsincluding a transverse arrowhead, thumbnail scrapers, andtwo plano-convex knives. The dominant raw material forthis assemblage is translucent flint, whilst Wolds flint makesup only one-fifth of the assemblage. The low densities ofmulti-period flintwork recovered during excavation (1.5 persq m) indicate that the Enclosure A area was not the site ofintense lithic-related activity.

Quern fragmentsAll the quern fragments (Fig. 15) came from unstratifiedcontexts on the surface of the ploughsoil, six from EnclosureA and three from Enclosure B. Those from Enclosure Aprobably represent parts of four distinct quern stones. Asaddle quern base, in two fragments (over 230 mm long andat least 100 mm thick) derives from a coarse, poorly sorted,feldspathic millstone grit (Fig. 15.1), probably from theMillstone Grit series of the South Pennines (though the rockcan be found nearer in drift deposits). Another saddle quernbase, also in two fragments, is of sub-rectangular type, witha slightly convex, well-worn grinding surface (Fig. 15.2).The maximum remaining dimensions are 135 x 140 mm,and 65-75 mm thick. It has an even base which hasacquired a slight polish consistent with abrasive movementwhen in use. The sides of the stone show considerablesmoothing and polishing, probably an intentional feature toneaten the edges, although this might have arisen fromsecondary use for sharpening or polishing during the stone'slife as a quern. The feldspathic stone, with kaolinite and tinynodules of goethite/limonite, is probably a Millstone Grit orlower Coal Measures sandstone. A fragment of finemicaceous sandstone has a broken, very flat, worn grindingsurface, but no other features (Fig. 15.3). It derives from aquern at least 45 mm thick and probably has a provenancein the Coal Measures sandstones. Finally, another saddlequern base of feldspathic Millstone Grit and a pecked stonepebble were found within the large enclosure.

Three quern fragments were found on the surface of theeast bank of Enclosure B, close to trench A/C. One was asaddle quern base 83 mm thick, with a well-worn, slightlyconvex grinding surface, of feldspathic Millstone Grit (Fig.15.4). Another was possibly part of a saddle quern, 85 mmthick and having a polished, flat to slightly convex, grindingsurface on one face and highly polished rounded and flat

facets on the opposite face (Fig. 15.5). These are suggestiveof secondary use as a whetstone. It is of feldspathicMillstone Grit similar to Fig. 15.2. Finally, a small fragmentof similar Millstone Grit probably derives from a quern,although no grinding surface is present. Other finds fromthe area of the site include a stone grinder (Fig. 16, 13) anda baked clay pellet (Fig. 16, 11).

The quern assemblage comprises predominantly, andprobably exclusively, saddle quern fragments, indicative of adate prior to the introduction of rotary querns in the Latepre-Roman Iron Age. The visible polish, suggestive ofsecondary use as whetstones or hones, probably occurredduring their period of use as querns since the grindingsurfaces are avoided. The raw materials for the quernsprobably originate in the feldspathic Millstone Grits of thesouth Pennines, with one example of micaceous sandstonemore probably from the nearer Coal Measures. However, allmight have been available as boulders from areas of glacialdrift recorded near Sutton Common.

MetalworkThe Sutton Common enclosures form the focus of aconcentration of six Bronze Age metal finds. A fragment ofdirk blade was found in the area of the two enclosures in1988. A flanged axe (Fig. 16, 1) was found almost akilometre to the south-west (SE 55 11) in 1993. Anotherfind, now lost, was the broken blade of a Wallington typepalstave of late Middle Bronze Age date, in the field behindthe recreation ground on the west side of the A19 (SE 555125 or SE 556 126). It had been deliberately cut in half inantiquity, with the blade portion being 80-100 mm long. Allof these items were found using metal detectors. Previousfinds are a palstave axe and a flanged axe from Norton(Magilton 1977, 61; Raistrick 1929, 359; South YorkshireSMR nos 557 & 558; SE 51 NW), and a spearhead fromNorton (van de Noort & Davies 1993, 142, no. 1030; SE545 133). These finds indicate a dense Middle Bronze Agepresence in the 10 sq. km around Sutton Common.

The small bronze dirk blade fragment (Fig. 16, 2), 35 mmlong, 10 mm wide and 3 mm thick, is from close to the tipof a dirk (less than 355 mm in length) with a flatfish midsection, characteristic of Burgess' Group IV (Burgess 1968a,3; Burgess & Gerloff 1981, 62-112). It can be ascribed tothe Wallington complex of northern and western Britain(Burgess 1968a; Burgess 1968b, 13), dated to the Penardperiod of the late Middle Bronze Age, centred on1200-1000 uncal. BC (Needham 1990). Individual parallelscan be found in rapiers or dirks from Ireland (Burgess 6cGerloff 1981, nos 551, 609, 651, 725, 743, 883, 927, &978), from Norfolk (872), Prudhoe (916), and the hoardsfrom Farnley (917, 967, 969), Corbridge (701), andWallington (860) (Burgess 1968a, fig. 2; Burgess 1968c, fig.14.1; Burgess & Gerloff 1981, numbers cited). Dirks andrapiers are relatively common finds in the region of EastYorkshire and North Lincolnshire but not in SouthYorkshire (Burgess & Gerloff 1981, pi. 117).

A bronze axe was found on arable land nearby atBurghwallis Common, Sutton (SE 55 11), a few hundredmetres south-west of the Sutton Common enclosures. It is

234


cm 10

Fig. 15Quern fragments

235


•Q-i

9 10

13

Fig. 16Finds from Sutton Common: 1. flanged axe, 2. dirk fragment, 3. pennanular brooch fragment, 4. Pcauldron rim,

5. rolled copper alloy sheet, 6. copper alloy ring, 7. ?iron brooch fragment, 8. blue glass bead, 9. amber bead,10. shale bead, 11. clay pellet, 12. stone 'net-sinker', 13. stone grinder

236


an early Middle Bronze Age cast flanged axe (length 125mm, width at butt 22 mm, width across blade 68 mm) ofArreton type (Britton 1963), having a widely splayed,crescent-shaped blade with a narrow, rounded butt. Thesides have been hammered to form three facets which runthe length of the flange. The axe is undecorated and it alsolacks a stop ridge although the cutting edge is defined by aslight bevel.

Other metal surface finds from the area of the enclosures,also found with a metal detector in 1980, were (Fig. 16,3-7) a fragment of a Roman copper alloy penannularbrooch (Fowler's type A3; 1960), a possible copper alloycauldron rim of the Roman period, a piece of rolled copperalloy sheet, a copper alloy ring, and a possible iron broochfragment which may be a Nauheim Derivative type of theearly Roman period.

Glass, amber, and shale beads

A globular, translucent cobalt blue glass bead (Fig. 16, 8; 10mm diam., 6 mm high and with a hole 4 mm wide) wasfound on the ground surface on the south-west side of thelarge enclosure. A molten lump of translucent cobalt blueglass, also a surface find from the area of the enclosures,probably derives from another bead. The intact beadprobably dates to the Early Iron Age. It can be closelyparalleled by La Tene II period finds from the Rudston andBurton Fleming cemeteries in East Yorkshire (Stead 1991,92), an area which has produced one of the mainconcentrations of glass beads in Britain (Henderson 1991,167). Although chemical analysis has not been carried out,this blue glass is typical of cobalt-rich, soda-lime-silicacompositions with low magnesia and potassium oxidelevels.

A globular amber bead (Fig. 16, 9; 8 mm diam., 4.5 mmhigh, 3.5 mm wide hole) was found on the ground surfacein the area of the enclosures. Amber beads are known froma number of Early Iron Age sites. One was found on theneck of a young woman in grave 6 at Kirkburn in EastYorkshire (Stead 1991, 93).

A small globular shale bead (Fig. 16, 10; 10 mm diam., 8mm high, 3.5 mm wide hole) was found at the interfacebetween the peat layer 018 and the fill layer 077 in the baseof the outer ditch of the large enclosure's ramparts. Thecontext in which it was found is likely to date to the EarlyIron Age. The bead is grey—brown and it has a laminatedappearance. It is likely to be made of shale or cannel coalbut could also be jet or lignite (Pollard et al. 1981, 140).

Late Bronze Age and Early-Middle Iron Age shale/jet/lignite/cannel coal artefacts are known from numeroussettlements and other sites throughout Britain. Most are inthe form of rings, bracelets, or pendants, such as those fromEldon's Seat in Dorset (Cunliffe &C Phillipson 1968, 225-6),Staple Howe (Brewster 1963, figs 66-8), Mam Tor(Coombes tk. Thompson 1979, 44), Grimthorpe (Stead1968, fig. 10: 1-3), Heathery Burn cave (Britton 1968, nos7-11; 1971), Burton Fleming (Stead 1991, 92), Castle Hill,Scarborough, and Thornham Hill (Challis 8c Harding 1975,24—5). Single beads, described as made of jet, are knownlocally from Early Iron Age contexts in the hillfort at Ball

Cross Farm, Bakewell (Stanley 1954, 91), and in graves 7cand 8c at Arras in East Yorkshire (Stead 1965, 117). Twoshale beads, almost double the size of the Sutton Commonexample, were found in grave 47 at Burton Fleming (Stead1991, 92). There are many possible sources for shale beadson and around the coal measures of the locality.

Pottery

A single small sherd of pottery was recovered from the fill(010) of the gully (northern side) of the sub-rectangularfeature on top of the bank in Trench F. The sherd was toosoft and friable to be washed. No distinctive inclusionscould be determined, and it seems to have been fired at alow temperature. Two other sherds found in Trench Ddisintegrated soon after recovery.

The condition and character of this pottery suggests that,were such sherds to be exposed to weathering, their lifeexpectancy would be measured in months rather than inyears (cf. Swain 1988). The Iron Age in South Yorkshire haslong been notorious for its apparently aceramic character, asituation also found in neighbouring West Yorkshire (Barklepers. comm.). The recovery of these few sherds from SuttonCommon prompts a number of questions concerning thisapparent absence of what is normally the commonest ofarchaeological finds. The first of these is methodological.Given the condition of the sherds it seems highly likely thatrecovery techniques are insufficiently delicate to recover thekind of material used in southern Yorkshire. Samplingstrategies on later prehistoric sites in the region may alsocontribute to this picture; if the survival of pottery is likelyto be poor, then it is inherently less likely that it will berecovered from the narrow trenches across ditches andboundaries which have characterised recent practice in thecounty (eg. Merrony 1993, fig. 47).

A single sherd of pottery was found in layer 109 in TrenchD. Its crushed quartzite temper is probably indicative of aLate Iron Age or Early Roman date. Within the smallenclosure, finds of Roman pottery were made in Trench B inlayers 009 and 010. These were disturbed contexts withinthe enclosure rampart. The sherds included rim sherds of a'pie dish' or lipped bowl of probable 2nd-3rd century date,and grey wares from the Cantley or Blaxton kilns (Annable1960; Buckland & Dolby 1980).

Surface finds in the area of the enclosures included a sherdof a 3rd—4th century Midland reeded hammerhead mor-tarium made at Mancetter-Hartshill. Medieval pottery inthis unstratified assemblage included sherds from Cowicktype vessels of Humber Basin ware and a baluster jug fromthe Fursby kilns. They are likely to date to the 15th century.

WATERLOGGED WOOD

(M. Taylor)Well over half the wood was alder, much of it immature,some of it certainly from coppiced stems. Waterlogged,immature wood tends to deteriorate fast when it dries out.The cell walls of sapwood are largely made up of cellulose,which can slowly dissolve during waterlogging, leaving the

237


wood very vulnerable and liable to extreme distortion whendrying out starts. Alder seems to be particularly vulnerablein this way. Some of the long straight stems of alder fromSutton Common almost certainly come from coppicedstools, and even amongst the material from 1987 thedistinctive longitudinal splitting and cracking caused bydrying out could be detected. Wood from the 1987 season(SC87/252 W37, for example) also showed evidence ofwoodworking which suggested that the wood had beencompletely waterlogged until recently. Trimmed side shootsand general 'shaping-up' are revealed in clear surface detail.This type of information is the first to disappear as the wooddries out.

Of the species identifications completed, 75% are alder;20% willow/poplar; 4% hazel, and 1% oak. This limitedspecies diversity suggests that the wood and timber wasmostly derived from the alder carr that surrounded the site(cf. Brayshay &c Hale this report).

There is considerable evidence for woodworking tech-nology in the material examined from Trenches A/C and Fin the small enclosure There are a number of pieces withtrimmed ends and other, more extensive trimmings ofroundwood to remove side branches and bark. This,combined with the number of long, straight stems, andoccasional coppiced heels, suggests that a more extensivestudy of the woodland management strategies that evolvedin this particular wet woodland would be productive.Statistical analyses of coppicing and other woodworkingdebris, as used on the Neolithic site at Etton (Taylor in Pryorforthcoming), could be used to good effect on the materialfrom Sutton Common and would provide a comparativeassemblage from the Early Iron Age.

The range of woodworking and woodland managementevidence that Sutton Common is likely to produce would beparticularly valuable because there is so little informationfrom sites of this date. There has been very little work inEarly Iron Age woodland studies in England. One possiblereason for the lack of sites and data from this period is thegenerally high water table that prevailed at that time. Inmost instances the modern water table is significantly lowerthan it was in prehistory. This applies, for example, to thenearest contemporary wetlands in the east of England, theFens, where the Iron Age sites have largely dried up andblown away. In Somerset the later Iron Age site at Mearehas suffered extensively due to the lowered water table. 'Thecondition of organic matter was moderate-to-good in1932—1956, but rather poor in 1966, and very poor in1982...' (Coles 1987). The Late Iron Age site atGlastonbury, which has not been ploughed, is believed to bein better condition (Coles &C Minnet 1995).

POLLEN ANALYSIS

(B. Brayshay & D.Hale)The aim of this study was to record by means of pollenanalysis six consecutive spits of sediment beneath the bankand eight consecutive spits within the ditch of the eastrampart of the small enclosure (Fig. 17). Stratigraphicrelationships and radiocarbon determinations allow a

tentative linking of the two pollen sequences between thetop of the column beneath the bank and the base of thecolumn within the ditch. The samples were processed usingstandard procedures (Bates et al. 1978; Benninghof 1962;Faegri & Iversen 1975; Hunt 1985).

The basal sample from beneath the bank was taken fromwhat is believed to be a buried soil horizon (026). Thisgleyed clay silt contained hardly any pollen, two-thirds ofwhich was unidentifiable. Pollen was well preserved in thethin layer of silty peat (024) above, in itself suggesting wetconditions. There is a considerable proportion of Alnus sp.(alder) while sedge and several aquatic species are alsorepresented. Very wet local conditions continue up theprofile (025) with a huge increase in alder pollen, mostevident in the absolute pollen figures. Corylus sp. (hazel)pollen also increases dramatically, probably growing asunderscrub in the damp alderwood around the bog. Thedecrease in sedge pollen is perhaps due to the effects of thealder/hazel canopy on the ground hydrology. Theappearance of Tilia sp. (lime) at this level, being the mostthermophilous of British trees, suggests a climate similar tothe present day. Above this level (021, 022) there is adecrease in arboreal pollen most notable in the Alnusspectrum though values still remain high. There is anincrease in herb pollen, both in wet and dry-preferencespecies, and an increase in fern presence. After this shortperiod of a more open vegetation, tree pollen rises,especially alder, to its former levels at the expense of mostherbs except the grasses.

Within the ditch in Trench F a number of importantchanges were noted in the pollen assemblages from differentparts of the column (Fig. 17). The basal sequences (088 and034) contained pollen spectra dominated by arboreal taxa,principally Alnus glutinosa and Corylus avellana in contrastto the upper spectra which are characterised by Gramineae,Cyperaceae, and herbaceous taxa. These data suggest thatconsiderable changes occurred in the composition ofvegetation in the locality of the small enclosure during theperiod in which sediments were accumulating in the ditch. Anumber of distinct plant communities are represented in thepollen spectra, notably woodland, grassland, and wetland.

The flora represented by the pollen surviving both underthe bank and in the ditch of Enclosure B is typical of analder carr. The pollen assemblages from each of the differentdeposits are relatively similar, all suggesting wet conditionswith some standing water. Prior to the earthwork'sconstruction there was a gradual increase in arboreal pollen,principally of Alnus glutinosa and Corylus avellana. Theearthwork was presumably constructed within thisrelatively wooded landscape which became more open asdeposits accumulated in the rampart ditch.

BEETLE REMAINS

(T. Roper & N. Whitehouse)A sequence of four samples from the ditch deposits ofTrench F, Enclosure B, was taken during the 1993excavations for palaeoentomological analysis. The lowestsample (18) was a basal layer of clay with organic material

238


5l

15

35

45

15

a.LUQ 25

35-

20

s

20 40

\

50

/

\

Fig. 17Pollen diagrams for the pre-earthwork sequence in Trench A/C (bottom) and the ditch sequence in Trench F (top)

239


25

20-

15

ioH

5

000

(D oCO fl]

5-(Q

CDWe

t

D

aw

6r-

da

s?

SAMPLE 18 •SAMPLE 13 | SAMPLE SAMPLE 5

Fig. 18Relative proportions of the habitat groups of beetles in each sample from Trench F

(034). This lay above a thin, light grey clay layer (091)which was probably the lowest deposit in the ditch. Theremaining three samples (3, 7, and 5) were from differentlevels within a thick layer of peat containing clay andorganic detritus (004). The coleopterous assemblagesuggests a surrounding landscape which was primarilypastoral, with relatively high proportions of dung beetlespresent, particularly in the lower part of the sequence (Fig.18). It provides no evidence of human occupation of the site.

Samples were processed using the paraffin flotationmethod devised by Coope and Osborne (1968) anddescribed by Buckland and Coope (1991). The beetles weredivided into habitat groups, largely based on the schemedevised by Robinson (1981) with a few additionalcategories (Table 1):

1. Aquatic: species which can spent most of their adult lifeunder water.

2. Pasture/dung: Aphodius spp.3. Meadowland: predominantly Apion spp. and Sitona

spp., but also other species most commonly found ingrassland that is not heavily grazed.

4. Wood and trees: saproxylic beetles and thosephytophagous, fungus feeding and predatory speciesstrictly associated with trees (except Anobiumpunctatum).

5. Marsh/aquatic plants: phytophagous species which feedon marsh or aquatic plants.

6. Disturbed ground: a few species associated exclusivelyor primarily with nettles or other weeds of disturbedground.

7. Dung/foul: species found commonly in dung but also inother foul rotting organic material.

8. Decaying vegetation: species found in decaying organicmatter but generally in less foul conditions than thoseabove.

9. General wetland: fairly eurytopic species found in avariety of wet biotopes.

10. Lathridiidae: all members of this mould-eating family.11. Synanthropic: grain pests and other beetles commonly

found in buildings.12. Especially structural timbers: Anobium punctatum.13. On roots in grassland: Phyllopertha horticola and

Elateridae whose larvae live in roots in grassland.14. Eurytopic: species found in a range of habitats.15. Unclassified: individuals whose identifications were not

close enough to enable them to be categorised or whichdid not fit into any of the above groups.

Aquatic and ditch-associated faunaA high proportion of the beetles is derived fromcommunities living in the ditch itself. The assemblages areheavily dominated by species which spend much of theiradult lives under water: Dytiscidae, Hydraenidae, Elmidae,and many of the Hydrophilidae. In all but one of the

240


TABLE 1: LIST OF COLEOPTERA RECOVERED

Sample No.Context

CARABIDAEClivina collaris (Hbst.)lfossor (L.)Trechus secalis (Payk.)T. rubens (F.)T. quadristriatus Schdobtusus Er.Bembidion lampros (Hbst.)B. /gilvipes Strm.B. assimile Gyll.B. guttula (F.)Bembidion cf. guttula (F.)Harpalus spp.Pterostichus diligens (Strm.)P. vernalis (Panz.)P. nigrita (Vayk.)lrhaeticus HeerP. minor (Gyll.)AgottMm sp.Dromius sp.Carabidae indet.HALIPLIDAEHaliplus sp.DYTISCIDAECoelambus sp.Hygrotus inaequalis (F.)Hydroporus sp.Hydroporus spp.IGraptodytes sp.Oreodytes sp.Agabus bipustulatus (L.)Agabus sp.Ilybius cf. ater (Deg.)Ilybius sp.llybiuslAgabus sp.Rhantus grapii (Gyll.)Colymbetes fuscus (L.)Dytiscidae indetGYRINIDAEGyrinus aeratus Steph.G. caspius Mene.Gyrinus spp.HYDRAENIDAEHydraena riparia Kug.H. pulchella Germ.H. testacea Curt.H. gracilis Germ.Ochthebius minimus (F.)Ochthebius cf. minimus (F.)Ochthebius sp.Limnebius truncatellus (Thun.)Limnebius cf. truncatellus (Thun.)L. papposus Muls.Limnebius cf. papposus Muls.L. a/wta Bed.Limnebius spp.HYDROPHILIDAEHelophorus fbrevipalpis Bed.Helophorus sp.Coelostoma orbiculare (F.)Cercyon ustulatus (Preys.)

IS034

----1----1------3

2

11-2-1--------

-1-

1---36__-3351

562-

13004

-

--------—-1--—-

-

--2-1-------1-

---

37-3

1128

_2-6-4_

--_-

7004

—11--1--1-—-11-12

2

1--7---1-11-12

--5

2-1-

64742_-

10-

338

2-_-

5004

2--1--122211--2--

-

-

-5--1-1--11-

1-1

1---

56197

2217-

161

--31

HabitatGroup

9999

149999

15999999

15

1

11111111111111

111

1111111111111

1118

Sample No.Context

C. terminatus (Marsh.)C. convexiusculus Steph.Cercyon spp.Megasternum obscurum (Marsh.)Cryptopleurum minutum (F.)Hydrobius fuscipes (L.)A«acae«fl sp.Lacobius bipunctatus (F.)Lacobius sp.Heleochares sp.Enochrus sp.HeleochareslEnochrus sp.Cymbiodyta marginella (F.)Chaetarthria seminulum (Hbst.)Hydrophilus piceus (L.)Hydrophilidae indetHISTERIDAEAcritus nigricornis (Hoff.)Paralister carbonarius (Hoff.)SILPHIDAESilpha obscura L.Silpha sp.SCYDMAENIDAEScydmaenidae indet.CLAMBIDAEClambus farmadillo (Deg.)PTILIDAEPtenidium ?pusillum (Gyll.)STAPHYLINIDAEMicropeplus staphylinoides MarshMegarthrus depressus (Payk.)M. denticollis (Beck.)Megarthrus sp.Proteinus sp.Phyllodrepa sp.Olophrum piceum (Gyll.)0 . fuscum (Grav.)Acidota cruentata (Mann.)Anotylus rugosus (F.)A. nitidulus (Grav.)Anotylus sp.Platystethus alutaceus Thom.Platystethus cf. capita HeerPlatystethus nitens (Sahl.)Stenus spp.Euaesthetus ruficapillus BoisEuaesthetus sp.Rugilus orbiculatus (Payk.)Lathrobium quadratum (Payk.)Lathrobium sp.Ochthephilum fracticorne (Payk.)Gyrohypnus punctulatus (Payk.)Xantholinus linearis (01.)Xantholinus spp.Othius sp.GJ//«S sericeus (Holme)Philonthus sp.Staphylinus erythropterus L.

IS034

_--1-1121--8--13

--

--

-

-

-

----------111----_—---1----1-

13004

111212----3-----

-1

--

-

-

-

11--1--1--_---121_—----111-_-

7004

_-21-6--3--

101--5

--

-1

-

1

-

-----3--11---1-2-------—2-1_-

5004

62--4---11-41-1

1-

1-

1

-

1

--111-1--2-_---

11-11111-2_--_1

HabitatGroup

78

15771911111891

15

87

1415

8

9

7

878888C

Ts

99777997

159989987

14158

157

14

241


Sample No.Context

Tachinus elongatus Gyll.Tachinus sp.Aleocharinae ge. indet.Staphylinidae indet.PSELAPHIDAETychus niger (Payk.)Rybaxis laminata (Mots.)Brachygluta sp.Pselaphidae indet.MELYRIDAEMalachius bipustulatus (L.)ELATERIDAEDalopius marginatus (L.)Agrypnus murinus (L.)Elater spp.Athous haemorrhoidalis (F.)Athous tvittatus (F.)Athous sp.Elateridae indet.THROSCIDAETrixagus dermestoid.es (Bonv.)SCIRTIDAECyphon punctipennis SharpCyphon spp.DRYOPIDAEDryops spp.ELMIDAELimnius volckmari (Panz.)NITIDULIDAEBrachypterus urticae (F.)Brachypterus sp.Nitidulidae indet.CRYPTOPHAGIDAEAtomaria spp.PHALACRIDAEPhalacrus fimetarius (F.)P. caricis Strrn.Olibrus millefolii (Payk.)LATHRIDIIDAELathridius minutus grp.Corticaria sp.Cortinicara gibbosa (Hbst.)Corticarina sp.Corticarinae indet.Lathridiidae indet.CERYLONIDAECerylon histeroides (F.)COCCINELLIDAESubcoccinella 24-punctata (L.)Stethorus puntillum WeiseCoccinellidae indet.SPHINDIDAEAspidiphorus orbiculatus (Gyll.)ANOBIIDAEGrynobius planus (F.)Anobium punctatum (Deg.)Anobium sp.

18034

_

-1-

----

1

----—--

-

-2

-

_

---

-

---

2-41_1

-

--2

-

1--

13004

114-

-1--

-

11-3---

1

-4

2

_

-1-

2

---

1---_—

-

---

-

---

7004

_

-33

--11

-

--3--11

-

-10

1

2

-13

-

-1-

---1_1

-

111

-

131

5004

_

-4-

11--

-

1--11-6

-

21

4

_

2-2

1

114

-1--3-

1

--_

1

32-

HabitatGroup

77

1415

999

15

4

4131313131313

4

99

9

1

66

15

8

399

101010101010

4

34

15

4

4124

Sample No.Context

Anodiidae indet.SCARABAEIDAEAphodius cf. contaminatus (Hbst.)Aphodius sphacelatus (Panz.)Aphodius spp.Phyllopertha horticola (L.)CERAMBYCIDAEPogonocherus hispidulus (Pill.)CHRYSOMELIDAEDonacia versicolorea (Brahm)D. marginata HoppeDonacia sp.Plateumaris discolor(Panz.)lsericea (L.)P. braccata (Scop.)P. affinis (Kunze)Plateumaris sp.Donacia/Plateumaris sp.Prasocuris phellandrii (L.)Hippuriphila modeeri (L.)Chalcoides sp.Chaetocnema concinna (Marsh.)C. subcoerulea (Kuts.)Chaetocnema sp.Psylliodes picina (Marsh.)P. dulcamarae (Koch)Chrysomelidae indet.SCOLYTIDAEHylesinus fcrenatus (F.)Scolytidae indet.ATTELABIDAERhynchites sp.APIONIDAEApion (Oxystoma) tpomonae (F.)Apion spp.CURCULIONIDAEBarynotus obscurus (F.)Sitona spp.Bagotfi'spp.Tanysphyrus lemnae (Payk.)Dorytomus sp.Leiosoma deflexum (Panz.)Alophus triguttatus (F.)Rhinoncus sp.Ceutorhynchus sp.Tychius sp.Gymnetron sp.Rhynchaenus alni (L.)Rhynchaenus cf. d/m (L.)R. tfagi (L.)R. rasa (Hbst.)Rhynchaenus sp.Ramphus pulicarius (Hbst.)Curculionidae indet.

TOTAL

IS034

_

611-

-

_1-

---------1---1

1-

-

-1

-------_------_--1

13004

1

332If

-

_--

-----1-12---1-

--

-

113

1--712----------1-

100

7004

_

-38

rags

-

_--

1-2_--1---1--1

-1

1

-2

-211--1---1421--11

156

5004

_

2514

1

1-3

-3-43---1--1--

-1

-

-11

-5571--111-21-11-3

344

HabitatGroup

4

222

13

4

555

55555554

145533

15

44

4

33

153554

1456365444444

15

474

Taxonomy follows Lucht (1987)

242


samples, they represented more than 50% of the totalnumber of individuals — a higher proportion than in anyother Iron Age enclosure ditches studied (cf. Robinson1979; 1991; 1993; Osborne 1979; Chowne et al. 1986;Dinnin 1992). This was due largely to the presence of largenumbers of a single species, Ochthebius minimus. Thissmall hydraenid is found in all types of water, often shallowand amongst vegetation or on muddy banks (Friday 1988;Hansen 1987). Although the majority of the aquatic speciesin all samples occur in still or slow-moving water, severalindicate well-oxygenated, flowing water. The single elmidspecies present, Limnius volckmari is found under stones inrunning water. Likewise, Hydraena gracilis, Limnebiustruncatellus, and Oreodytes spp. also live in running waterand it is unlikely that any of these four species would havefound the stagnant water of the enclosure ditch to be asuitable habitat.

In the lowest sample (18) of the sequence (034), thedytiscids, the open-water beetles, together with the gyrinids,which require open, vegetation-free areas of water,constituted 11% of the aquatic fauna — considerably morethan in the other samples — while the phytophagouschrysomelids, which feed on aquatic and marsh plants, werepresent in relatively low numbers. The overwhelmingdominance of the aquatic fauna of the remaining threesamples by Ochthebius minimus precludes any meaningfulanalysis of hydrological changes.

There is a wide variety of terrestrial species which wouldhave been associated with or living in or around the wateryenvironment of the enclosure ditch. These include beetleswhich feed on pond weed, such as Donacia versicolored andTanysphyrus lemnae, and a number of species of Cur-culionidae, Chrysomelidae, and Phalacridae which are foundon reeds and other plants in standing water. A number of therove beetles, such as Platystethus capito, P. alutaceus, andEuaesthethus spp. are commonly found on muddy banks andamongst wet bankside vegetation — a habitat shared withspecies of Cyphon and Dryops and the tiny pselaphids. Deadand decaying bankside plants would have provided a suitablehabitat for a host of beetles which live amongst wet anddecaying vegetation, such as the non-aquatic hydrophilidsand some of the staphylinids. This group grades graduallyinto those which favour more foul conditions and which areoften found in dung. Many of the Carabidae may also havelived along the edge of the ditch — Bembidion assimile, B.guttula, and B. gilvipes all are commonly found in vegetationon the margins of fresh water, as are Trechus secalis and T.rubens. Some Pterosticus and Agonum species are, likewise,associated with moist biotopes.

Grassland and the open landscapeThis habitat category is characterised by a range ofColeoptera which are found in pasture and meadowland,including phytophagous herb-feeding weevils and specieswhich feed on roots in grassland as well as beetles associatedwith dung, such as species of Aphodius, compost/manure-feeding rove beetles and Hydrophilidae.

The assemblage from the lowest sample (18) in the ditch,in the clay layer 034 above the primary silts, suggests that

the landscape around Trench F was fairly open at this time.Dung beetles comprise 18% of the overall terrestrial faunain this sample. This compares with 12% at TattershallThorpe, Lincolnshire (Chowne et al. 1986) and 14% atMingies Ditch, Oxfordshire (Robinson 1993). The actualnumbers of dung beetles represented in the sample, however,are low and an interpretation of the percentage figures isdifficult. Herbivores were certainly present in the vicinity,perhaps grazing or being kept some distance from the ditch.Among the dung beetles was Aphodius contaminatus, abeetle found in all kinds of dung, but very often in horsedroppings (Landin 1961), and A. sphacelatus, again foundin all types of dung, in particular cow, sheep, and horsedroppings (ibid.). Several other Aphodius species were alsopresent. There is a continuum between dung and rottingplant remains, both of which may be utilised by certainStaphylinidae and Hydrophilidae; animal dung anddecomposing plant material are listed as food for speciessuch as Anotylus nitidulus, Gyrohypnus punctulatus,Philonthus sp., and Megasternum obscurum (Skidmore1991). These species, together with the Aphodius species,may reflect a relatively significant herbivore presence.However, this less stenophagous group is not restricted todung and may have been feeding off rotting vegetation andmud in the ditch bottom.

There are low values for meadowland and grasslandcategories in this sample; meadowland comprises only 2%of the terrestrial fauna, represented by Apion sp. This genustends to live in a variety of plants, commonly includingnettles, broom, Polygonaceae, and clovers (Morris 1990).There is a notable absence of species often seen ascharacteristic of grasslands, such as the chafer Phylloperthahorticola whose larvae feed upon the roots of grasses,cereals, and clover (Raw 1957) and species of Elateridaewhich feed on roots in grasslands in their larval form. Otherarchaeological sites have yielded a prodigious fossil recordof P. horticola, in particular Hackthorn, South Yorkshire(Dinnin 1992), Tattershall Thorpe (Chowne et al. 1986),and Mingies Ditch (Robinson 1993).

The following sample (sample 13 from the base of thepeat layer 004) is characterised by a sharp increase in thecontribution of the meadowland element of the assemblage,from 2% to 18%. The representation of grassland speciesalso increases, whereas the foul/dung elements remainconstant at 10% and the pasture/dung element drops off to10%. There is a large number of Apionidae, of a variety ofdifferent species, including one of the sub-genus Oxytsoma,probably A. pomonae, which lives on various vetches andpeas (Hoffmann 1954), plants commonly found in hedges,cornfields, and grassy places. The chrysomelid Psylloidesdulcamarae is also found in grassland. Although thesespecies are suggestive of long grass found in meadowland, asuitable habitat could have been provided by the dampenvirons of the ditch; these species are not commonly foundin heavily grazed grassland. The dung feeders are still inevidence but since these taxa are strong fliers they are stilllikely to be represented in assemblages which accumulatedsome distance from their habitat. That there is, perhaps, agrowth or regeneration of grassland in the immediatevicinity of the ditch is supported by an increase in the

243


presence of root feeders, such as the click beetles, Agrypnusmurinus and Athous haemorrhoidalis, which feed on rootsand are common pests in grassland (Harde 1984) and thegarden chafer Phyllopertha horticola. The presence of thecompost/manure-feeding predatory rove beetles (egMegarthrus depressus, Platystethus nitens, Tachinuselongatus, Tachinus sp.), members of the Hydrophilidae (egCercyon terminatus, Cercyon sp., Megasternum obscurum,Cryptopleurum minutum), and the histerid Paralistercarbonarius, found in dung (Skidmore 1991), carrion, androtting vegetation (Halstead 1963), attests that there wasrotting organic material in the ditch.

In sample 7 (in the middle of the peat layer 004) there isa decrease in the species associated with meadowland from18% to 6%. This is accompanied by a change in thecomposition of this group which was, in the previoussample, dominated by Apionidae and here is represented byjust two individuals. Taxa which feed on roots in grasslandand the pasture/dung category remain more or less the sameas in the previous sample, the latter reflecting the continuedpresence of grazing herbivores in the general area of theenclosure. The extremely low values represented by thedung/foul category (2%) suggests that conditions in theditch at this level were less foul than in the lower sediments.

In the uppermost sample (sample 5 from the top of 004)the proportion of the dung-feeder genus Aphodius is greatlyreduced in comparison with the earlier samples, suggestinga minimal presence of animals in the area; this is alsoreflected in the values of the foul/dung category of theassemblage. In contrast, species often associated withmeadowland increased, largely represented by members ofthe genera Apion and Sitona, usually found on clovers,vetches, and legumes. Robinson (1993) suggests that theabundance of many weevils from these genera seems to bepositively correlated with the presence of meadowlandalthough they may have originated from moist ground nearthe ditch. Also present was Phalacrus fimetarius found onsmutted plants of Brachypodium pinnatum (Thompson1958) and Chaetocnema concinna which tends to feed onPolygonum aviculare and other species of Polygonaceae(Mohr 1966). Additional grassland species are present insmall numbers, such as Athous haemorrhoidalis, A.fvittatus, and other Elateridae. Phyllopertha horticola wasrecovered in somewhat higher quantities than the previoussamples, possibly suggesting a regeneration of grassland atthe site over a period of time.

ArableColeoptera are not good indicators of arable agriculture(Robinson 1991), as most species commonly associated withcultivated ground are also found in other habitats. None ofthe taxa present in these assemblages would be out of placein one of the other types of habitat shown to be present inthe area at this time. None of the Carabidae which are oftenfound on bare and disturbed soil were present.

Woodland and scrubSome of the tree and scrub-feeding beetles from SuttonCommon are host specific and, therefore, provide a useful

indication of the tree taxa present in the area. The relativeabundance of different species of beetle, however, does notreflect the importance of their respective hosts in thesurrounding landscape as some tree taxa support anabundant insect fauna whilst others have few associatedinsects (Hunter 1977; Harding & Rose 1986).

In the lowest sample (18) the majority of the tree-associated Coleoptera appear to be attracted to dead anddecaying wood. Malachius bipustulatus is a species found indecayed wood attacked by cerambycids, anobids, andscolytids (Palm 1959), and is a predator upon their larvae(Alexander 1994). Grynobius planus is an anobid found indecayed and dead stumps, trunks, and branches of alldeciduous trees although its distribution today is sporadic,particularly in the south. Another possible prey of theMelyridae is the scolytid Hylesinus crenatus, associatedchiefly with dying ash and oak (Alexander 1994). It iswidely distributed in England and Wales (Munro 1926). Thelimited evidence from these species points to dead or rottingwood somewhere near or within the context of the ditch andto a variety of tree taxa growing in the general vicinity.

The following sample (13) contains Dalopius marginatus,which feeds on larvae in dead wood (Alexander 1994),Trixagus dermestoides, found in woodland clearings(Horion 1953), and an unidentified species belonging to theanobid family, whose members feed upon dead wood. Alsopresent are feeders of poplars and willows, Chalcoides sp.,Dorytomus sp., and Ramphus pulicarius (Morris 1993).

A dramatic increase in the wood/trees component of thefossil insect assemblage can be seen in sample 7 (from themiddle of layer 004). This may represent a smallencroachment of scrub into the area of the enclosure. Alarge proportion of this element, however, is composed ofleaf miners, principally Rhynchaenus alni, R. fagi andRamphus pulicarius, which, during infestation, can bepresent in very high numbers (Chrystal 1937); this maysuggest that the woodland element of this sample is over-represented. If an infested tree was located close to the ditch,a high number of these beetles would fall into the deposit.Other species present in this sample, Grynobius planus,Anobium punctatum and Anobium sp., are likely to reflectthe presence of rotting wood within or near the ditch, anddo not necessarily suggest any encroachment of woodlandonto the site. The furniture beetle, A. punctatum, is a nativemember of the British woodland fauna, but it lives in drydead wood and can proliferate among structural timbers.Values of between 1% and 3% have been recorded fornatural woodland assemblages (Robinson 1991) and, sincethe Sutton Common figures fall well within this range, theyprobably represent elements of the general fauna, eitherfrom outside the ditch or from infested timber within theditch.

The growth of trees close to the ditch in the enclosurecould represent a phase of abandonment of this site, apossible interpretation which may be supported by otherhabitat categories, notably the pasture/dung andmeadowland groups. The leaf miners give an indication ofsome of the trees which may have been living close to thesite, such as: oak, (Rhynchaenus fagi), although this speciesbreeds on beech as well as oak (Morris 1993); elm,

244


represented by R. alni; lime by Stethorus punctillum, acoccinellid which feeds on plant mites, especially on trees,and shows a close association with the mite Tetranychus sp.,found on the underside of lime leaves (Robinson 1991); andwillow as attested by Ramphus publicarius.

In the uppermost sample a wider range of species waspresent, including Cerylon histeroides, found under the barkof deciduous and coniferous trees, usually in primarywoodland areas (Garland 1983). Horion (1962) lists itshosts as beech, oak, hazel, lime, birch, ash, and variousconifers. Grynobius planus and Anobium punctatum areagain represented, along with Dorytomus sp., found inwillow, Rhynchaenus alni found in elm, and R. rusci, foundin birch. A single individual of the cerambycid Pogono-cberus hispidulus was present in this sample, a speciescommonly found in hazel, oak, apple, and hornbeam (Palm1959). It is possibly associated with mature timber, althoughit has also been recovered in dead hedges, old posts andwattle fencing (Kaufmann 1948).

Compost

Of the terrestrial fauna in the earliest sample (18), 18%belong to the family of Lathridiidae. These are beetles whichfeed on mould on rather dry decaying plant material andmay be expected to constitute up to 2.5% of an assemblagefrom a semi-natural deposit (Robinson 1991), less than 3%from prehistoric sites, and over 9% on Roman period sitesin the Upper Thames (Robinson 1981), where they seem tobe related to concentrations of old thatch or animal litter(Robinson 1991). Although sample 18 contains a very highpercentage of beetles of this family, the number ofindividuals represented is still low and they are likely,therefore, to be part of the 'natural' fauna. The Lathridiidaeform part of a suite of Coleoptera which may be used toindicate the presence of 'sweet compost' (sensu Kenward1982); the other taxa usually found with this group, theCryptophagidae, for example, are absent from this sample.

Landscape setting

Had animals been kept within the enclosure, allowing dungto fall into the ditch, dung beetles would have beenincorporated into the deposits in far greater numbers. Theabsence of traces of herbivore or human activity in the soilmicromorphological sample from the buried soil (002)within the enclosure further supports this interpretation.The composition of the beetle assemblage does, however,indicate a herbivore presence in the area and is suggestive of-pasture being the dominant form of land-use.

Woodland seems to have been present locally throughoutthe sequence, as supported by the presence of a smallwoodland assemblage. This appears to have been moresubstantial than at other Iron Age sites, such as MingiesDitch and Farmoor, Oxfordshire, where woodland elementswere very low. This observation tallies with the analyses ofwood, pollen, and macrobotanical remains even though thesub-fossil sample is small. Whilst the presence of coppicedand worked timbers from the enclosure ditches suggests themanagement of nearby woodland, there is no such evidencefrom the sub-fossil evidence. The presence of only one

individual of Cerylon histeroides, associated with primarywoodland, is an indication that if primary woodland wasstill present in any form in the vicinity, it is likely to havebeen sadly depleted.

WATERLOGGED MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS

(S. Boardman)Three samples were taken from waterlogged layers withinthe small enclosure ditch cut by Trench F (sample 8 from thelower part of layer 004, samples 22 and 24 from layer 034).The samples were treated, processed, and recorded accordingto standard practice (Tutin et al. 1964; Clapham et al. 1989;Stace 1991). The results are presented in Table 2.

Trench F, Sample 22, Layer 034

This sample produced a fairly narrow range of identifiableplant material. Ranunculus scleratus L. (celery-leavedcrowfoot) and Glyceria fluitans (L.) R. Br. (floating sweet-grass), together with sedges such as Carex cf. elata (tuftedsedge) probably represent plants growing in the muddyditch bottom. R. scleratus and G. fluitans both suggeststagnant or slow-flowing water in the ditches. It is likelythat the culm/leaf material represents a mixture of grasses,sedges, and possibly rushes (Juncus spp.), together withother plant detritus (dicotyledon stems and leaf fragments).

Trench F, Sample 24, Layer 034

Identifiable material represents largely the rush, grass, andsedge families. Standing or slow-flowing water in the ditchis indicated here also by Oenanthe aquatica (L.) Poiret (fine-leaved water dropwort), a species which is intolerant of acidconditions. These plants can attain great size in nearly dryfen ditches. Ranunculus lingua L. (great spearwort) alsocharacterises reed-swamp zones where silt is able toaccumulate, and some Fotentilla species, such as P. palustris(L.) Scop, (marsh cinquefoil), are also common in very wetconditions. The latter species, however, suggests more acidicsoils than are indicated by the other species above.

Sample 24 produced a greater number of plants which areassociated with disturbed conditions including Polygonumsp. (knotgrass) and Bilderdykia convolvulvus L. (blackbindweed). Both represent common field weeds. The Rumex(dock) species, Ranunculus repens L. (creeping buttercup),R. flammula L. (lesser spearwort), and Potentilla anserina L.(silverweed) also suggest nearby marshy and dampgrassland including possible grazed areas. Damp openwoodland or scrub is also suggested by the few seeds ofRubus fruiticosus agg. (blackberry/bramble). Rushesdominated the seed assemblage of samples 22 and 24. Thesewere broadly grouped as either Juncus effusus (soft rush)type (incorporating / . squarossus, J. compressus, J.bufonius, J. filiformis, J. capitatus, J. conglomeratus, and / .glaucus) or Juncus articulatus (sharp flowered rush) type(including / . pygmaeus, J. acutiformis, and / . bulbosus).Rushes are found in a wide variety of habitats, includingwoodland, heath, moor, and especially in marshy and wet

245


TABLE 2: THE WATERLOGGED MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS FROM TRENCH F

Latin Name

Chara sp.Moss indet.Bryophyte indet.Salix sp.cf. Salix sp.cf. Salix sp.Quercus cf. robor/petraeaAlnus glutinosa (L.) GaertnerA. glutinosacf. A. glutinosaBetulaceae undiff.Polygonum aviculare agg.Polygonum sp.Bilderdykia convolvulus (L.) DumortRumex sp.Ranunculus repens L.R. scleratus L.R. flamtnula L.R. lingua L.Ranunculus subgenus RanunculusRanunculus subgenus BatrachiumRubus ideaus L.Rubus cf. ideausR. fruiticosus agg.Rubus sp.Potentilla anserina L.P. erecta (L.) RauschelPotentilla sp.Vio/a sp.Oenanthe aquatica (L.) PoiretO. aquatica/crocata

Umbelliferae undiff.Lycopus europaeus L.7ns pseudocorus L.Juncus effusus type/. articulatus typeJuncus sp.Luzula sp.Poa annua typeP. trivialis/pratensisPoa/AgrostisGlyceria fluitans (L.) R.Br.Glyceria sp.cf. Glyceria sp.cf. Deschampsia sp.Agrost/s sp.Gramineae undiff. (medium)Gramineae undiff. (small)Carex cf. flaccaCarex cf. elataGzrex cf. nigraCare* sp. (biconvex)

Common Name

stonewortmossmoss/liverwortwillowwillowwillowcommon/sessile oakalderalderalderbirch familyknotgrassknotgrassblack bindweeddockcreeping buttercupcelery-leaved crowfootlesser spearwortgreat spearwortbuttercupwater crowfootsraspberryraspberrybrambleraspberry/bramblesilverweedtormentiltormentilvioletfine-leaved water dropwortfine-leaved/hemlock

water dropwortumbel familygypsy-wortyellow flag/flag irissoft rush typesharp flowered rush typerushwoodrushannual meadow grassrough/smooth meadow grasspoa/bent grassfloating sweet-grasssweet-grasssweet-grasshair grassbent grassgrass familygrass familycarnation-grasstufted sedgecommon sedgesedge

ContextSample

Plant Part

oosporeleafy stemfruiting bodybudbudbudleaffruitleafleafimmature catkin bractfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitfruitseedfruit

fruitfruitfruitseedseedseedseedseedcaryopsiscaryopsiscaryopsiscaryopsiscaryopsiscaryopsiscaryopsiscaryopsiscaryopsiscaryopsisfruitfruitfruitfruit

03422

_

8F6-__--------2-1.5----__----

F—8

----

-425-13-138-4.52

11

03424

96F2___-----132-1-40.5--_

3-1-5_

40

1-_-++

---

3-F--38-1--7

0048

8F1244FIF37

>50F?1---3-4--2

2737

427-381-

4242+F

* *

A-

14455--134

14-

128

16

246


Latin Name Common Name Plant Part

Context 034Sample 22

03424

004

Carex sp. (trigonous)Cyperaceae undiff.MonocotyledonMonocotyledonIndeterminateIndeterminateIndeterminateIndeterminateCenococcum geopbylum Fr.

Quantifiable componentsSample volume (ml)

sedgesedge family

fruitculmstem/leafrhizomeseed/fruitleafbudscalerootletssclerotia

72F

1000F50F

430F

-500F

# *

65100

3--_3

250F-

1000F+

59.5300

6---

3232F

8F-

* * *

2851000

F=fragment(s) - not included in sample totals

Abundance scores: +<10 *10-50 **50-100 *">100 (also not included in sample totals)

grassland. Many Rumex (dock), Agrostis (bent grass), andPoa (meadow grass) species are also common in dampgrassland, especially where this is disturbed, for example byanimal grazing. Some Agrostis species and Poa annua L.(annual meadow grass) are also found as weeds of arablefields.

Trench F, Sample 8, Layer 004The sample was much richer in plant material and isdominated by arboreal, wet-loving terrestrial and aquaticelements. Abundant roundwood fragments may reflectintroduced woodland material (above). Identifications ofthe leaf fragments were limited by their size and the lack ofdiagnostic elements on many specimens. Alnus glutinosa(L.) Gaertn. (alder) was clearly identified by a number ofleaf ends. Gross morphology suggests that much of thematerial derives from this species. Several tentativelyidentified willow leaf fragments appear to represent thebroader-leaved species such as Salix caprea L. (goatwillow/great sallow), rather than some of the more commonfen carr species such as S. fragilis L. (crack willow) and S.alba L. (white willow). However, the latter species may alsobe present since the majority of the fragments areunidentified. A single rounded lobe fragment was alsotentatively identified as either Quercus robor L. (commonoak) or Q. petraea (Matt, liebl) (sessile oak).

The continuation of very wet conditions in and aroundthe enclosure ditches is indicated by Ranunculus subgenusBatrachium (water crowfoot), Oenanthe aquatica (L.)Poiret, Lycopus europaeus L. (gypsy-wort), Iris pseudocorusL. (yellow flag/flag iris), Glyceria fluitans (L.) R. Br., Carexcf. elata (tufted sedge), and Carex cf. nigra (common sedge).However, whilst these plants indicate shallow water and arich ditch-side flora, deeper clearer water is indicated by the

Chara spp. (stone-worts), represented by several oospores inthis sample. Stone-worts are generally shade intolerant, soare unable to withstand competition from vegetation at thewater's edge. They generally prefer base rich conditions,growing best in a pH of between 6 and 9 (Moore 1986).Other wet-loving species in sample 8 which have apreference for basic conditions include Ranunculus scleratusL., Oenanthe aquatica (L.) Poiret, Iris pseudocorus L.,Carex cf. elata, and Carex cf. flacca.

Damp woodland, grassland or heath are indicated bynumerous fruits of Rubus ideaus L. (raspberry), plus fruitsand seeds of Rubus fruticosus agg. (bramble), Ranunculussubgenus Ranunculus (buttercups), Potentilla spp.(cinquefoil/tormentil), Viola spp. (violet), Luzula sp.(woodrush),and Carex spp. (sedges). There were fewerspecies in this sample which indicate disturbance of thesurrounding area by humans or their animals.

The local environmentThe earliest samples examined (034), although relativelypoor in species, indicate damp, open conditions. Thepresence of a few species which are today associated withpastures or meadows suggests that the surrounding areamay have been grazed. Slow-flowing or stagnant water waspresent in the ditches. Unidentified tree/shrub leaves and thefew fruits of Rubus species (raspberry/bramble) in sample24 indicate the presence of woodland or scrub nearby.

The inception of peat growth associated with layer 004appears to have coincided with much wetter conditionslocally. Sample 8 represents the base of layer 004 and thisincluded the only true aquatic from the site, Chara sp.(stone-wort). A much wider range of semi-aquatic and wet-loving terrestrial species was also present. Many of thesetoday characterise fairly nutrient-rich fenland habitats.

247


Useful plants

Cultivated species were not recovered so these are confinedto the edible wild fruits (Rubus spp.), wood, and brushwoodfor fuel, buildings, and furnishings (above), and otherspecies for bedding and animal fodder. Whilst no clearevidence was found for the latter, grazing of the surroundingarea contemporary with layer 034 seems likely. Regularlocal disturbance may also have included the growth ofcrops although the range of possible weeds of cultivationwas limited. None of the Rubus fruits, or any of the otherfruits and seeds, were in a macerated state, as has beenobserved for plant material which is believed to have passedthrough the human gut (eg. Dickson 1989).

CHARRED PLANT REMAINS

(S. Boardman & M. Charles)A series of soil samples was taken from the majority ofcontexts excavated between 1987 and 1993. Theparticularly rich deposit in layer 068 of Trench A/C in thesmall enclosure was processed by simple, standard manualflotation followed by wet sieving. Other samples weretreated slightly differently by soaking in warm water and,where necessary, by adding sodium hexametaphosphate todegrade the clay matrix. In addition to the samples fromTrench A/C 068, the preliminary analysis of 39 samplesfrom both enclosures produced seven samples relatively richin charred plant remains. All of these were from Trench Din the large enclosure.

The spelt deposit in the small enclosure ditch

The state of preservation of the charred plant material from068 was excellent and even some partially charred materialsurvived. The sample was dominated by spelt wheat(Triticum spelta). Emmer (T. dicoccum), and traces of hulledbarley were also found. The presence of twisted (as well asstraight) barley grains indicate the presence of six rowspecies (Hordeum vulgare) (Table 3). The numbers of intactspikelets (ie with the glumes still surrounding the grain) andthe equal proportions of loose grains and glume basesstrongly suggest that this dense deposit was in the form ofwhole spikelets when it became charred. This may haveoccurred accidentally during storage or during parchingprior to dehusking (ie separation of glumes and grains).

A large number of awns (including awn tips) were presentin the sample from 068, possibly indicating an unthreshed (orat least unwinnowed) crop. Very few straw nodes were found,suggesting that the wheat ears were harvested separately tothe straw (ie the crop was cut high) and charred before or justafter threshing. Alternatively, straw nodes do not preservewell in charring (Boardman & Jones 1990) but the presenceof charred fern fronds and the excellent condition of paleas,lemmas, and awns makes this unlikely.

By far the most commonly represented weed in the 068sample was Brotnus secalinus/mollis (rye brome), a commonweed of winter wheats in north-west Europe (Clapham et al.1962) from the Iron Age onwards. Other weed seedsincluded Polygonum convolvulus (bindweed), Anisantha

TABLE 3: CHARRED PLANT REMAINS FROM TRENCH A/C IN THESMALL ENCLOSURE

Context

Triticum spelta - grains- glume bases- whole spikelets

T. dicoccum- grains- glume bases- whole spikelets

T. spelta/dicoccum- grains- glume bases- whole spikelets

Triticum (undiff.) grains

Hordeum vulgare (hulled) grains twistedHordeum sp. (hulled) grains

Straw nodes

Bromus secalinus/mollisPolygonum convolvulusAnisantha sterilisGaleopsis tetrahitVicia tetrasperma/hirsutaChenopodium cf. albumGramineaeCaryophyllaceaeFern fronds (fragments)Indet.

068c

16091422242

48145

4117

1

89

22

3

50620

4

224199

068d

820642

97

854

3312

47

1

1

29629

11

3

44

sterilis (barren brome), Chenopodium cf. album (fat-hen),Galeopsis tetrahit (hemp nettle), and Vicia tetraspermalhirsufa (tare). P. convolvulus is a climbing plant and B.secalinus/mollis, A. sterilis, C. album, and G. tetrahit seed atabout the same height as cereal ears. They could, therefore,be harvested along with the wheat ears even if these wereharvested separately from the straw.

The grain from the large enclosure

Seven samples from Trench D in the large enclosure wererelatively rich in charred plant remains. Six of these camefrom post-holes and post-pipes (D123, D170, D172). Theremaining sample was the fill of a pit (D139). The majorcategories of charred seeds recovered were as follows:

wheats — mainly spelt (Triticum spelta) grain and a verysmall amount of spelt chaff, with some free threshing wheatin the form of bread wheat (T! cf. aestivum) grain;

barley — mainly hulled (Hordeum sativum) grain, includingsome twisted grains indicating the presence of the six-rowvariety (H. vulgare). A few grains were tentatively identifiedas naked. No barley chaff was identified;

248


weed seeds — a small amount, predominantly brome grass(several Bromus sp.), black bindweed (Polygonumconvolvulus) and fat-hen (Chenopodium cf. album).

Given the small number of samples examined it is difficultto establish with any certainty whether the crops weregrown as monocrops or mixed ones. The samples can bedivided according to composition into three groups:1. those dominated by barley grain (70-75%) with a small

spelt wheat grain (16-19%) component, little chaff(<2%) and c. 10% weed seeds;

2. barley:spelt wheat mixture with almost equal amountsof the grain of the two species, little chaff (<1 %) and fewweed seeds (<6%);

3. wheat dominated samples (65-70%), with a mix of speltwheat and bread wheat grains, some barley (<26%),little chaff <5%).

The apparent patterns observed may simply be extremes of amixed wheat:barley crop. The composition of all the samplesprocessed, except D139, was typical of cleaned grain, withlittle or no chaff and a low frequency of weed seeds (<10%).It has been demonstrated that chaff survives charring less wellthan grain (Boardman £c Jones 1990) but the good conditionof the grain recovered does not suggest that the temperatureat which they had been exposed was high enough to cause

differential preservation in this case. The weed seeds presentare typically large (>2mm) as would be expected in sieve-cleaned grain, that is, weed seeds of a similar size to the cropseeds. Glume bases of spelt wheat are more likely to be foundin cleaned grain than that of barley as they are separated offfrom the grain at a later stage of processing.

The commonest weed species found in the samples,Bromus, Chenopodium, and Polygonum sp. as identified,are all able to thrive in a range of soil conditions andtherefore tell us little about the growing conditions of thecrop fields.

The composition of the deposits from each post-hole (thefills of the post-hole and post-pipe) resemble each other andare conspicuously different from the material derived fromthe other post-holes (Table 4). The samples are all dominatedby cereal grains, though the frequency of the different typesvaries from feature to feature (as described above), with littleor no chaff or weed seeds. This relationship suggests that ineach case the charred plant remains present in the soil thatfilled the postholes and the postpipes had the same origin.Possible explanations for this are:

1. soil, including charred plant remains, was used to packthe post-hole around (and up) the post: this materialsubsequently filled the post-pipe when the post wasremoved. This would be more likely to occur if the postwas in place for a relatively short period of time;

TABLE 4: RELATIVE FREQUENCIES OF NINE CATEGORIES OF CARBONISED PLANT REMAINS FROM THE LARGE ENCLOSURE

Post-hole no.Context type

D123D121 D122PPf

PercentageD170 D172 I

D169 D179 D171 D190 139PPf phf PPf phf pit

GrainTriticum cf. monococcum/dicoccumTriticum speltaTriticum cf. aestivumHordeum sativum (hulled)H. sativum (cf. naked)

ChaffGlume wheat (glume bases)

Weed seeds

2131

741

6103

70

341045

4

331050

6

491317

2362721

5

*= recorded on the Hubbard scales of preservation and distortion (l=unchanged, 5=changed)med=medium hvy=heavy ppf=post-pipe fill phf=post-hole fill

279

302

Bromus sp.Polygonum sp.Chenopodium cf. albumother weeds

Potentially id. cereal (no. grain)Potentially id. weeds (no. seeds)* Grain preservation* Grains distortionsoil encrustingorange staining

7111

9412

31

lightlight

6-31

20453

lightlight

3-3-

31242

medmed

2---

33241

hvymed

3123

60-32

medmed

2--7

24-41

medmed

472

16

82552

medhvy

249


2. the contents of the post-hole packing and the post-pipehave been mixed at some point;

3. the soil used to fill in the post-hole and post-pipe holewas brought from the same sources each time.

The post-holes were located in a relatively narrow trenchand it was not possible therefore to recognise whether theywere associated with any structures. The remains recoveredcould have came from three separate buildings or differentparts of the same building.

ConclusionsThe sample from pit 139 in Trench D of the large enclosurediffered from the post-hole samples most noticeably in therelatively high frequency of weed seeds, nearly 30%compared with the average of less than 10% for the others.It also has the most even mixture of wheat and barley grains(more or less 1:1), whereas the post-hole samples typicallyhave one of the cereal types dominating. The composition ofthe pit sample, with more or less equal amounts of wheatand barley grain, may mean that more than one type of cropresidue has been deposited in the pit and the high frequencyof weed seeds suggests that at least some part of the materialmay have been a by-product of crop-processing. The burntdeposit in the ditch of the small enclosure was composedlargely of spelt wheat, with some emmer and barley, andappears to have been harvested without the straw andsubsequently charred immediately before or after threshing.This burning may have occurred during processing but acatastrophic fire cannot be ruled out. The weed species in allsamples from the enclosures are neutral in their habitatpreferences.

SOIL MICROMORPHOLOGY

(J.-L. Schwenninger)Two thin sections were prepared from layers 002 and 019,apparent buried soils in Trench F, according to the methoddescribed by Lee and Kemp (1992) and are describedaccording to the terminology of Bullock et al. (1985). Thepurpose of the micromorphological investigation was toconfirm the presence of buried soils and to detectanthropogenic activity related to the construction, use, andabandonment of the small enclosure.

Micromorphological analysis supports the view that layer002 is a weakly developed buried soil which formed shortlyafter the construction of the rampart on freshly disturbedsediment associated with the excavation of the nearby ditchor on sandy silts deposited during flooding. The presence ofnumerous charcoal fragments and some bone (includingfragments of burnt bone recovered during excavation) issuggestive of human activity. The shape and size of thefragments seem to indicate that they have been incorporatedinto the soil subsequent to the accumulation of the parentmaterial as opposed to transport by water together with thesandy silts. The general paucity of detrital organic matterand anthropogenic debris that is typically associated withhuman occupation sites, suggests that the site was not usedfor human habitation nor was it affected by intensive

settlement activity, thereby providing support for the idea ofa cattle enclosure or annexe. There is, however, noindication of disturbance in the form of herbivore tramplingor churning-up of the soil matrix nor of the accumulation oflarge quantities of excremental organic matter. Thisevidence and the fact that the buried soil appears to be onlyweakly developed may indicate that the site was only in usefor a short period of time. Mottling associated with theredistribution of iron and manganese compounds duringgleying reflect relatively random concentrations related tolocalised zones of aeration within the soil and fluctuationsof the water table. The diffuse nature of their boundariesindicates their in situ formation although tiny fragmentsscattered across the groundmass reflect subsequentfragmentation by infiltrating roots and bioturbation, andfeeding disruption by soil organisms.

Layer 019 is very similar in nature to the overlying layer002 in terms of its parent material but contains less well-developed mottles, less charcoal, and no bone. There is noevidence to suggest any anthropogenic activity although itmust be mentioned that the sample available for study wasmuch reduced due to a large part being missing from thecentral portion of the thin section.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

(M. Parker Pearson)

Most of the questions addressed in the research design(Parker Pearson 1994a; 1994b) could be answered.Results of the analyses of pollen, insects, wood, andcarbonised and waterlogged plant remains give someidea of ecological diversity in the vicinity of the smallenclosure soon after its construction, in the early ormid 1st millennium BC. Distinct plant communities ofwoodland, grassland, and wetland are represented inthe pollen spectra. Alder carr seems to have beenwidespread and its composition is reflected in the lowspecies diversity of the worked wood (75% alder,20% willow/poplar, 4% hazel, and 1% oak). Thepresence of alder and willow are confirmed by leavesand fruits in the enclosure ditch. Evidence forgrassland and wetland is clear in the pollen samplesand the macrobotanical samples. The latter haveproduced seeds or fruits of grasses, sedges, rushes,knotgrass, cinquefoil, raspberry, and bramble. Somecereal pollen was detected. This may have derivedfrom crop processing on site and/or indicatescultivation in the vicinity.

There is a wide diversity of insects. Not surprisingly,most of them derive from wet and damp habitats, andfrom decaying and rotten wood. In the primary ditchsilts a significant group are those associated withdung, usually associated with large herbivores,

250


presumably stock. Their density is low, however,suggesting that any use of the enclosure for keepingstock was probably short-lived or sporadic. The soilmicromorphology of the buried soil inside the smallenclosure similarly indicates that there was littlehuman or herbivore activity here. Perhaps thisrampart is better understood as a forward barrier forthe large enclosure, with the smaller earthworks ofEnclosure B acting as an occasional gathering orcorraling area. In this interpretation, Enclosure B isessentially an annexe to the main enclosure, whichwould have been approached by land from the westby passing into Enclosure B, moving through theentrance at its east side, crossing over the timberalignment and entering the west gate of Enclosure A.

Palynological, wood, and macrobotanical analysesof samples from the enclosure ditch have producedresults which can be compared and contrasted. Thepollen sequence from the ditch indicates a dominanceof alder carr. This compares well with a nearbyundated pollen sequence (Ward 1988) and with thepollen from under the bank (Hale in Sydes &Symonds 1987), though the former cannot be closelydated at any point. The bank and ditch sequencesindicate an increase in alder pollen up to theconstruction of the small enclosure, followed by asteady decrease in alder and concomitant rise in pollenof herbs and grasses.

There is the possibility that the pollen from the ditchsequence relates only to the species growing in the

immediate vicinity or tipped in with the workedwood. Comparison with waterlogged macrobotanicalremains suggests that this is unlikely. Fruits of alderand leaves of willow were identified but only in theuppermost ditch levels. Roundwood was similarlylargely restricted to upper layers in the ditch. Incontrast, the few seeds and fruits from the lowestlayers of the ditch were mainly grass, sedge, and rushspecies. Comparison of stratigraphic inter-relationships allows us to conclude that the pollensequence from the ditch is reliable for interpreting thewider area around the enclosures and not the micro-conditions within the ditch. The construction of theearthworks seems to have taken place when the alderwoodland was at its greatest extent, with the areabecoming increasingly clear of trees after constructionand initial use.

The relative proportions of species from the wooddeposited in the ditch are very similar to thosedetected from the palynological analyses. Alder is byfar the most common, followed by willow/poplar, andsome hazel and oak. This suggests that the timber wasmostly derived from the alder carr around the site andthat there was no preferential selection of lesscommon tree species. The wood was coppiced,trimmed to remove side branches and bark, trimmedat the ends, and occasionally worked into artefactssuch as the ladder and Whiting's 'wheel'.

Further comparisons between environmentalsamples from Trench F (Table 5) reveal some

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES IN THE DITCH IN TRENCH F

Layer

004

Upper ditch fill

034

Lower ditch fill

Pollen

Opengrassland.Decline inwoodland.

Woodedwith wetlandand limitedgrassland

Beetles

Wetterconditions.Decrease indung and foul.Meadow andgrassland.

Dung androttingvegetation.

Wood

Coppicedalder carr(alder, willow/poplar, hazel,oak. HUMANACTIVITY.

Plants

Wetterconditions.Alder, willowand oak leaves.Deeper,clearer water.

Damp and openconditions.Stagnant/slow-flowing water.Woodland orscrub nearby.

Carbonisedplant remains

Deposition ofburnt spelt inTrench A/C.HUMANACTIVITY.

251


interesting contrasts and congruences between theplant material, pollen, and insect remains from layer034 in the bottom of the ditch. Whereas the pollensample indicates a wooded environment with wetlandand limited grassland, the insect assemblage providesa very different picture. Apart from aquatic species,the main groupings are pasture/dung, dung/foul,mould-eaters, wetlands, and wood and trees.Although they may indicate a certain proportion ofwoodland in the environs of the ditch, this area mayhave been relatively open and probably grazed. Thewaterlogged plant remains from the two samples inthis lowest layer of the ditch provide a picture similarto that of the insect assemblage. Whilst some plantremains indicate that the ditch contained stagnant orslow-flowing water, others are associated with dampopen conditions with woodland or scrub growingnearby. Bent grass and meadow grass are especiallycommon in damp grassland disturbed by animalgrazing. In summary, the different samples from layer034 derive from a restricted area of open ground,probably grazed by animals though not intensively,within a largely wooded landscape of alder carr. It wasfrom these woodlands that coppiced timbers had beencollected and dumped at this level in the ditch.

The combined results from layer 004, the peatwhich accumulated above the basal ditch deposits, arealso of interest. A few pieces of small, unmodifiedroundwood lay in the lower part of layer 004.Otherwise there was no further dumping of wood intothe ditch; indeed, these may have entered the ditch fillsby means other than human agency. This absence ofsubstantial wood deposits in the upper ditch fillstallies with the decline in arboreal pollen in theselevels. However, the absence of the former hasundoubtedly more to do with the level and nature ofhuman activity. The only evidence for a humanpresence at this time is the deposit of burnt spelttipped into another section of the ditch; this wasdeposited in a peat layer at a similar level in the ditchto layer 004. The increase in pollen indicative of opengrassland is, to some extent, matched by the insectand plant evidence. The three insect assemblages fromlayer 004, when contrasted with that from 034, showa decrease in mould-eaters, in dung/foul, and inpasture/foul. In contrast there are increases inmeadow, marsh, wetlands, and decaying vegetation.There are also very slight increases, which may wellnot be significant, in grassland, wood and trees, andstructural timber. The plant remains also indicate

wetter local conditions, with deeper and clearer water.Leaf fragments derive from alder, willow and oak,which are components of the alder carr. Dampwoodland, grassland or heath are indicated by thepresence of fruits or seeds of bramble, raspberry,buttercup, cinquefoil, woodrush, and sedges. By thisstage most of the alder carr woodland had shrunk ordisappeared and been replaced by open, dampgrassland. Conditions in the ditch were wetter andthere was only sporadic human activity in the vicinity.

The following phases of activity have beenidentified:

Phase 1: Late Neolithic occupation on the island laterto be enclosed by the large enclosure.

Phase 2: Middle Bronze Age activity, demonstrated bythe presence of a dirk blade, dated typologically toaround the 12th-llth centuries uncal BC.

Phase 3: Early Iron Age construction of a timberalignment across the palaeochannel, perhapscoinciding with construction of the timber palisadewhich preceded the large enclosure.

Phase 4: Early Iron Age construction of the smallenclosure's earthworks and probably those of thelarge enclosure. A shale bead was deposited in thebasal fill of a ditch of the large enclosure (Trench E).Stray finds of glass beads may also be associated withthis phase.

Phase 5: Growth of peat in the enclosure ditches. Theburnt spelt deposit (deriving from either parching or acatastrophic fire) was deposited in the ditch of thesmall enclosure (Trench A/C) and is dated to somepoint within the 1st millennium BC.

Phase 6: Limited use in the Roman period, asindicated by a few chance finds of pottery andmetalwork. It is likely that peat was still continuing toform in the ditches at this time. Later activity, in themedieval period, is attested by a handful of sherds.

So far, the environmental evidence relates almostexclusively to Phases 4 and 5. It suggests that the areahad been relatively clear of trees and was regeneratingto woodland for some time prior to earthworkconstruction. After construction of the earthwork,woodland species appear to have declined. The small

252


enclosure may have briefly held stock and wasprobably not used for human activities of anyintensity. Deposits of peat, worked timbers, leaves,alder fruits, and burnt grain accumulated in variousparts of the ditch during the Early Iron Age. Thevicinity of the site seems to have become less woodedalthough some localised scrub may have invaded thesite, either as a result of abandonment or due to lessintensive use.

The large enclosure: crop processing and otheractivitiesNone of the assemblages of carbonised grain were asdramatic as the burnt spelt crop from the ditch of thesmall enclosure. Nevertheless, there are importantconclusions which may be drawn. The quantities ofcarbonised grain, along with previous casual finds ofsaddle quern fragments, indicate that barley andwheat cultivation were important components of theEarly Iron Age economy at Sutton Common. Therarity of carbonised or waterlogged grains from theinterior-facing ditch of the small enclosure hints thatthe dense burnt spelt deposit within it might be a 'one-off deposition in an area not normally utilised forcrop processing or storage.

The post-holes and pit sampled within the largeenclosure have not been dated, though the char-acteristics of the crop assemblages suggest an IronAge, rather than Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date. Thewheats are mainly spelt with some bread wheat andthe barley is mainly hulled, including six-row, withsome naked barley. The crop residues appear to derivefrom a mixed wheat and barley crop and seem to havebeen sieve-cleaned of weed seeds and separated fromthe chaff. In contrast, the burnt spelt deposit hadprobably been stored as whole spikelets.

One curious feature was the similar composition ofcharred plant remains in the packing and post-pipe ofeach post-hole, although each post-hole producedvery different proportions. This is particularlyunusual given the results of experiments whichsuggest that post-pipes fill much later in theconstruction sequence than previously thought(Reynolds 1994). If the post-hole contents were notmixed during excavation then either soil was broughtfrom the same place at construction and then atabandonment, or the packing filled the post-pipewhen the post was removed. The latter might occur ifthe posts stood for only a short period of time.

THE LATE BRONZE AGE AND EARLY IRON AGE INNORTHERN ENGLAND

(M. Parker Pearson)

The Sutton Common enclosures include a number ofcommon features but in unique combination:preserved timbers; an Early Iron Age timber palisade;Early Iron Age multivallate dump or box rampartsand a stone revetment wall; associated Middle BronzeAge metalwork; and a probable timber alignment.Not only is Sutton Common a rare survival from theEarly Iron Age but it is also exceptional in its state oforganic preservation. Wooden structures of the BritishEarly Iron Age are poorly known (Nayling 1988). Theregion around Sutton Common has produced a largeproportion of these: three logboats and a wheel fromthe River Trent at Holme Pierrepoint, Nottingham-shire (MacCormick 1968), the Hasholme boat fromHumberside, isolated pieces from WashingboroughFen, and the Fiskerton timber alignment. The woodenfigures from Roos Carr in Humberside have now beendated to 2460±70 BP (OxA-1718), calibrated to810-390 cal BC (Coles 1990, 326; A. Bayliss pers.comm.).

Whilst Late Bronze Age metalwork is foundpredominantly around the Scunthorpe and Broughareas (Davey 1971,106; 1973, 54; May 1976, fig. 63)and to the north along the River Calder (Elgee 1930,fig. 55), the small concentration of metalwork aroundSutton Common (Fig. 19) is largely Middle BronzeAge in date. The dirk fragment, human skull fragment(found by Whiting), and the timber alignment atSutton Common raise the possibility of a MiddleBronze Age and Early Iron Age depositional structureakin to those at Flag Fen (Pryor 1992), Fiskerton,Lincolnshire (whose timbers date to 505-339 BC;Hillam 1991; N. Field pers. comm.), Caldecote Lake,Gwent (Parry &c McGrail 1991), and probablyClifton-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire (Phillips 1941).

Enclosures of the 1st millennium BC are supposedlyrare in the region comprising Lincolnshire, Nott-inghamshire, East Yorkshire, the North Pennines, andSouth Yorkshire (Cunliffe 1991, 278; Challis &Harding 1975, figs 86-90) in contrast to areas furtherwest (Preston 1954; Coombs & Thompson 1979, fig.31). However, multiple-ditched, sub-rectangularenclosures have been photographed as cropmarks atSouth Kirkby and at Little Smeaton 5 miles (8 km) tothe north (Manby 1988a; 1988b). Similar, irregularlyshaped marsh-forts are also known in the vicinity at

253


. ' • ' • • • • > .

. '•• '. 'A• • ' ! • . • • • " >

' • • • / • ' • • ' • ' *

. ' • • . ' • • ' ' • - • • ' • > .

SUTTONCOMMON

*^ik• SITE• BRONZE

^ : : % HIGH....:•; GROUND

N

k0 kms

Fig. 19Middle Bronze Age-Iron Age finds in the Sutton Common area

Moorhouse Farm, Tickhill (Riley 1980, 35, pi. 15),and in Crow Wood, near Styrrup, Nottinghamshire(Badcock & Symonds 1994). These sites sit astride anecotone between the limestone hills to the west andthe clay lowlands to the east (Fig. 19) and may haveformed a social and political barrier or interfacebetween them. It seems likely that the light soils of thelimestone were under arable cultivation or were atleast extensively cleared at this time. In contrast, themany pollen sequences from the levels to the eastindicate that there was limited forest clearance in theclay lowlands with no indication of cultivation therein the earlier 1st millennium BC (Smith 1985). ThatSutton Common may have sat on a broadpolitical/cultural boundary is further supported by theregional distributions of Late Bronze Age metalwork,with Wallington styles of metalwork to the north andWilburton styles to the south (Burgess 1968b, 13).The presumed frontiers of the Parisii, Corieltauvi andBrigantes also intersect here in the Late Iron Age andRomano-British periods (Todd 1973; Dent 1982;Cunliffe 1991, 175-8, 189-94; Branigan 1980, 1).There is thus the probability that this was a long-termfrontier zone throughout the 1st millennium BC.

The first phase of the Sutton Common enclosureseems to have been, as with other cases, a timberpalisade. This was considerably later than the periodof enclosure within the 13th-10th centuries cal BCrecognised in southern England (Needham &c Ambers1994). In northern England, enclosures date to theLate Bronze Age at Mam Tor (Coombs & Thompson1979, 16) and Grimthorpe (Challis & Harding 1975,33), and to the Early Iron Age at Staple Howe(Brewster 1963), Almondbury (Varley 1976),Tattershall Thorpe, Lincolnshire (Chowne et al.1986), and Castle Hill, Scarborough (Smith 1928).Other enclosures of the early 1st millennium are EstonNab, Breedon-on-the-Hill, and Skelmore Heads(Challis & Harding 1975, 101-105). The SuttonCommon palisade is composed of driven, presumablypile-driven stakes, comparable to the driven timberson Late Bronze Age sites at Flag Fen (Pryor 1992) andRunnymede, Surrey (Needham 1991, 83-91).

Other open or enclosed settlements are known inother parts of the region (Raistrick 1938; May 1976,109-16, 133-41; Wheeler 1979; Heslop 1987;Wrathmell & Nicholson 1990). In the Vale ofPickering the relationship between enclosed sites suchas Staple Howe and Devil's Hill and the open sitesnearby has been considered as one of status difference

254


(Powlesland 1988, 106). No such open sites areknown from the Sutton Common area though thelimestone uplands to the west are covered in undatedenclosures and field systems. The defensibility of theSutton Common enclosures is questionable. Thetimbers of the palisade were too widely spaced toprevent determined attackers from squeezing through.Equally, the shallow ditches of the earthen rampartwere not a strong deterrent, even with watersurrounding the area. The elaboration of the westentrance is suggestive of a strong emphasis on thecontrol of access into the main enclosure. Essentially,the small enclosure appears to have been simply thefirst section of the means of entry; an annexe ratherthan a separate enclosure in its own right. Its easternbank and ditch, which faces west rather than east, isbest understood as an entrance feature for the mainenclosure. Passing through this, people would thenhave crossed the timber alignment towards theentrance within the impressive stone-walled rampartof the main enclosure's west side. Access into thisimposing enclosure, within an area of fairly denseforest, would have been susceptible to careful control.Whether this was solely for martial purposes isdebateable; people seem to have been living in thelarge enclosure but it may also have had importantceremonial and high status significance.

Acknowledgements: we would like to thank all those whohelped with the fieldwork:

1987: Jim Symonds, Sarah Whiteley, Colin Merrony,Eddie Moth, Mags Peace, Mandy Crouch and Ian Stead.1988: Max Adams, Sue Boulter,Colin Merrony, Frank Jolly,Eddie Moth, Julie Pennington-Dobbs, Ewan Salt, Ian Steadand Sarah Whiteley.

1993: Colin Merrony, Adrian Chadwick, Dom Latham,Simon Atkinson, Claire Coleman, Bill Bevan, Ross Dean,Chris Picard, Nicky Gilding, Guy Hopkinson, Bob Hatton,Rebecca Casa, Max Satchell, Nancy Simmonite, Liz Rouse,Sarah Lindsey, Mark Brennand, John Percival, JohnRoberts, Lawrence Springhall, Lindy Casson, Hilary Valler,Doug Balaam, Tom Shiels, Mel Giles, Keith Scherewode,Nick Loader and Pete Emberton.

The illustrations were drawn by Adrian Chadwick (Figs11 & 15), Mark Lomas (Figs 14 & 16) and Colin Merrony(Figs 1, 3, 6-14, 16, 17, 19) and the photographs are all bythe late Derrick Riley (Fig. 2) and Bob Sydes (Figs 4 & 5).We have benefitted from the advice of Jennifer Hillam,Cathy Groves, Helen Cox, Tony O'Connor, Gill Crawley,Helen Cox, Pete Marshall, Jenny Moore, John Little, MelFrancis, Sarah Whiteley, Dennis Ashurst, the late DerrickRiley, Alex Bayliss, Paul Buckland, Pat Wagner, RuthPelling, David Gilbertson, Paul Halstead, Glynis Jones,Brian Dix, Jon Sadler, Mike Corfield, Maisie Taylor, John

Ette, Robert Van de Noort, John Coles, Tim Schadla-Hall,Sebastian Payne, Allan Hall, Clare de Rouffignac, AndrewDavid, Alex Bayliss, Mark Dinnin, Malcolm Lillie, AndrewDavison, Andrew Jones, Harry Kenward, Peter Skidmore,Chris Grimbley, Ruth Morgan, Toby Fox, Terry Manby, andmany more. Finally, we thank Julie Gardiner and twoanonymous referees for their comments on the draftmanuscript. The most helpful comments, however, wereprovided by Colin Merrony.

Permissions to work at Sutton Common were given bythe tenant, Chris Lodge. The work was funded by EnglishHeritage, South Yorkshire Archaeological Services, andSheffield University. Additional support in conservation andstorage was provided by Doncaster Museum where thearchive is kept. A fully detailed report is lodged with theSouth Yorkshire Sites and Monuments Record.

BIBLIOGRAPHYAdams, M., Merrony, C. & Sydes, R.E. 1988. Excavations

at Sutton Common, South Yorkshire 1988. SouthYorkshire Archaeology Unit.

Allcroft. A.H. 1908. Earthworks of England. London:Macmillan.

Alexander, K.N.A. 1994. An Annotated Checklist of BritishLignicolous and Saproxylic Invertebrates. Cirencester:National Trust Estates Advisors' Office.

Annable, F.K. 1960. The Romano-British Pottery at CantleyHousing Estate, Doncaster: Kilns 1-8. Doncaster:Doncaster Museum Publication 24.

ARCUS 1994. Sutton Common Environmental Analysis:full report. Archaeological Research Consultancy at theUniversity of Sheffield Report 181.

Badcock, A. & Symonds, J. 1994. Archaeological fieldevaluation of land at Styrrup Hall Farm, Styrrup,Nottinghamshire. Archaeological Research Consultancyat the University of Sheffield Report 119.

Bates, C.D.P., Coxon, P. 8c Gibbard, P.L. 1978. A newmethod for the preparation of clay rich samples forpalynological investigation. New Phytologist 81, 459-63.

Benninghof, W.S. 1962. Calculation of pollen and sporedensity in sediments by addition of exotic pollen inknown quantities. Pollen et Spores 4, 332-3.

Boardman, S. & Jones, G. 1990. Experiments on the effectsof charring on cereal plant components. Journal ofArchaeological Science 17, 1-11.

Branigan, K. (ed.). 1980. Rome and the Brigantes: theimpact of Rome on northern England. Sheffield:Department of Prehistory 8c Archaeology, University ofSheffield.

Brewster, T.C.M. 1963. The Excavation of Staple Howe.Malton: East Riding Archaeological Research Committee.

Britton, D. 1963. Traditions of metal working in the LaterNeolithic and Early Bronze Age of Britain: part 1.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 29, 258-352.

Britton, D. 1968. Late Bronze Age Finds in the HeatheryBurn Cave, Co. Durham. London: InventariaArchaeologica. Great Britain, 9th set: G.B. 55:

255


Britton, D. 1971. The Heathery Burn cave revisited. In G. deG. Sieveking (ed.), Prehistoric and Roman Studies, 20-38.London: British Museum.

Brown, N. 1987. A Late Bronze Age enclosure at Loft'sFarm, Essex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54,249-302.

Buckland, P.C. & Coope, G. R. 1991. A Bibliography andLiterature Review of Quaternary Entomology. Sheffield:Collis Publications.

Buckland, P.C. & Dolby, M.J. 1973. Mesolithic and latermaterial from Misterton Carr, Notts.: an interim report.Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire77, 5-33.

Buckland, P.C. & Dolby, M.J. 1980. A Roman Pottery KilnSite at Blaxton Quarry, near Doncaster. Doncaster:Archaeology of Doncaster 4/1.

Buckland, P.C. &c Sadler, J. 1985. Late Flandrian alluviationin the Humberhead Levels. East Midlands Geographer 8,239-51.

Bullock, P., Federoff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G., Tursina,T. & Babel, U. 1985. Handbook for Soil Thin SectionDescription. Wolverhampton: Waine ResearchPublications.

Burgess, C. 1968a. Bronze Age dirks and rapiers asillustrated by examples from Durham andNorthumberland. Transactions of the Architectural &Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland1, 3-26.

Burgess, C. 1968b. The Later Bronze Age in the British Islesand North-western France. Archaeological Journal 125,1-45.

Burgess, C. 1968c. Bronze Age Metalwork in NorthernEngland c. 1000 to 700 BC. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel.

Burgess, C. & Gerloff, S. 1981. The Dirks and Rapiers ofGreat Britain and Ireland. Munich: C.H. Beck'scheVerlagsbuchhandlung, Prahistorische Bronzefunde Ab. IV,7 Band.

Challis, AJ. & Harding, D.W. 1975. Later Prehistory fromthe Trent to the Tyne. Oxford: British ArchaeologicalReport 20.

Chowne, P., Girling, M. & Greig, J. 1986. Excavations at anIron Age defended enclosure at Tattershall Thorpe,Lincolnshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52,159-88.

Clapham, A.R., Tutin, T.G. & Moore, D.M. 1989. Flora ofthe British Isles. Cambridge: University Press.

Clapham, A.R., Tutin, T.G. & Warburg, C.F. 1962. Flora ofthe British Isles. Cambridge: University Press.

Clark, J.G.D. 1954. Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge:University Press.

Coles, B. 1990. Anthropomorphic wooden figures fromBritain and Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society56, 315-33.

Coles, J.M. 1987. Meare Village East. Taunton: SomersetLevels Papers 13.

Coles, J.M. & Minnit, S. 1995. 'Industrious and FairlyCivilised': The Glastonbury Lake Village. Taunton:Somerset Levels Project 8c Somerset County CouncilMuseums Service.

Coombs, D.G. 8c Thompson, F.H. 1979. Excavation of thehill fort of Mam Tor, Derbyshire 1965-69. DerbyshireArchaeological Journal 99, 7-51.

Coope G. R. &C Osborne P. J. 1968. Report on thecoleopterous fauna of the Roman well at Barnsley Park,Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Bristol &Gloustershire Archaeological Society 86, 84-7.

Crystal, R.N. 1937. Insects of the British Woodlands.London: Frederick Warne.

Cunliffe, B.W. 1971. Excavations at Fishbourne,1961-1969. London: Report of the Research Committeeof the Society of Antiquaries 27.

Cunliffe, B.W. 1991. Iron Age Communities in Britain: anaccount of England, Scotland and Wales from the seventhcentury BC until the Roman Conquest. London:Routledge (3rd edition).

Cunliffe, B.W. 8c Phillipson, D.W. 1968. Excavations atEldon's Seat, Encombe, Dorset. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 34, 191-237.

Davey, P.J. 1971. The distribution of later Bronze Agemetalwork from Lincolnshire. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 37, 96-111.

Davey, P.J. 1973. Bronze Age metalwork from Lincolnshire.Archaeologia 104, 51-127.

Dent, J.S. 1982. Cemeteries and settlement patterns of theIron Age on the Yorkshire Wolds. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 48, 437-57.

Dickson, C. 1989. The Roman army diet in Britain andGermany. Archaobotanik. Dissertationes Botanicae 133,135-54.

Dinnin, M. 1991. The sub-fossil occurrence of the GreaterSilver Water-beetle Hydrophilus piceus (L.) (Col:Hydrophiliidae) at Shirley Pool, South Yorkshire.Naturalist (Hull) 116, 57-9

Dinnin, M. 1992. Islands within islands: the development ofthe British entomofauna during the Holocene and theimplications for nature conservation. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, University of Sheffield.

Elgee, F. 1930. Early Man in North-East Yorkshire.Gloucester: Bellows.

Faegri, K. &c Iversen, J. 1975. Textbook of Pollen Analysis.Oxford: Blackwell (3rd edition).

Fowler, E. 1960. The origins and development of thepenannular brooch in Europe. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 26, 149-77.

French, C. &c Taylor, M. 1985. Desiccation and destruction:the immediate effects of de-watering at Etton,Cambridgeshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 4,139-55.

Friday, L.E. 1988. A Key to the Adults of British WaterBeetles. London: Royal Entomological Society FieldStudies 7.

Garland, S.P. 1983. Beetles as primary woodland indicators.Sorby Record 21, 3-38.

Gaunt, G.D. 1994. Geology of the Country Around Goole,Doncaster, and the Isle of Axholme. Memoir for One-inchSheets 79 and 88 (England and Wales). British GeologicalSurvey. London: HMSO.

256


Geomorphological Services Ltd. 1990. Hydrologicalappraisal of Sutton Common, Askern, South Yorkshire.Unpublished report for English Heritage.

Halstead, D.G.H. 1963. Coleoptera: Histeridae.Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects IX,10. London: Royal Entomological Society.

Hansen, M. 1987. The Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera) ofFennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna EntomologicaScandinavica 18. Leiden: Scandinavian Science Press.

Harde, K. 1984. A Field Guide in Colour to Beetles.London: Octopus.

Harding, P.T. &c Rose, F. 1986. Pasture Woodlands inLowland Britain. Edinburgh: Institute of TerrestrialEcology, Natural Environment Research Council.

Head, R., Chapman, H., Fenwick, H., Van de Noort, R. &Lillie, M. 1997. The archaeological survey of the RiversAire, Went, former Turnbridge Dike (Don North Branch)and the Hampole Beck. In R. van der Noort and S. Ellis(eds), Wetland Heritage of the Humberhead Levels: anArchaeological Survey, 229-64. London: EnglishHeritage.

Henderson, J. 1991. The chemical analysis of glass beadsfrom Burton Fleming and Rudston. In I. Stead, Iron AgeCemeteries in East Yorkshire, 167-9. London: EnglishHeritage.

Heslop, D.H. 1987. The Excavation of an Iron AgeSettlement at Thorpe Thewles, Cleveland, 1980-1982.London: Council for British Archaeology ResearchReport 65.

Hillam, J. 1991. Dendrochronology in England: the datingof a wooden causeway from Lincolnshire and a logboatfrom Humberside. In D. Vuaillat (ed.), Le Berry et leLimousin a I'Age du Fer. Artisanat du Bois et des MatieresOrganiques, 137-41. Limousin: Gueret Association pourla Recherche Archeologique en Limousin, Actes du XIHeColloque de l'AFEAF, Gueret, Mai 1989.

Hoffmann, A. 1954. Coleopteres Curculionides. Faune deFrance. Paris.

Horion, A. 1953. Faunistik der Mitteleuropdischen Kdfer 3.Munich.

Horion, A. 1962. Faunistik der Mitteleuropdischen Kdfer.Bodensee: Uberlingen.

Hunt, CO. 1985. Recent advances in pollen extractiontechniques: a brief review. In N. Fieller, D. Gilbertson &N. Ralph (eds), Palaeobiological Investigations, ResearchDesign, Methods and Data Analysis, 181-8. Oxford:British Archaeological Report S266.

Hunter, F.A. 1977. Ecology of pinewood beetles. In R.G.H.Bunce & J.N.R. Jeffers (eds), Native Pinewoods ofScotland, 42-55. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. NaturalEnvironment Research Council.

Kaufmann, R.R.U. 1948. Notes on the distribution of theBritish Longicorn Coleoptera. Entomologist's MonthlyMagazine 84, 66-85.

Kenward, H. 1982. Insect communities and deathassemblages, past and present. In A.R. Hall Sc H.Kenward (eds), Environmental Archaeology in the UrbanContext, 71-8. London: Council for British ArchaeologyResearch Report 43.

Landin, B. O. 1961. Ecological studies on dung-beetles.Entomologica Supplementae 19.

Lee, J. & Kemp, R.A. 1992. Thin sections of unconsolidatedsediments and soils: a recipe. Technical Report N-2.Centre for Environmental Analysis and Management,Department of Geography, Royal Holloway College,University of London.

Lillie, M. 1997. The palaeoenvironmental survey of theRivers Aire, Went, former Turnbridge Dike (Don northbranch), and the Hampole Beck. In R. van der Noort &CS. Ellis (eds), Wetland Heritage of the HumberheadLevels: an Archaeological Survey, 47-78. London:English Heritage.

Lucht, W.H. 1987. Die Kdfer Mitteleuropas, Katalog.Krefeld: Goeke & Evers.

MacCormick, A.G. 1968. Three dug-out canoes and awheel from Holme Pierrepoint, Nottinghamshire.Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire72, 14-31.

Manby, T.G. 1988a Double ditched enclosure: SouthKirkby, West Yorkshire. In D.N. Riley (ed.), Yorkshire'sPast from the Air, 24-5. Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress.

Manby, T.G. 1988b. Multiple ditched enclosure: LittleSmeaton, West Yorkshire. In D.N. Riley (ed.), Yorkshire'sPast from the Air, 26-7. Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress.

May, J. 1976. Prehistoric Lincolnshire. Lincoln: History ofLincolnshire Committee.

Merrony, C. 1993. The archaeological assessment inadvance of the Dearne towns link road (stage 4)development at Goldthorpe. In C. Cumberpatch and S.Whiteley (eds), Archaeology in South Yorkshire1992-1993. Sheffield: South Yorkshire ArchaeologyService.

Mohr, K.-H. 1966. Familie Chrysomelidae. In H. Freude,K.W. Harde, & G.A. Lohse (eds), Die Kdfer Mitteleuropas9. Krefeld: Goeke &c Evers.

Mook, W.G. 1986. Business meeting: recommendations/resolutions adopted by the twelfth InternationalRadiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon 28, 799.

Moore, J.A. 1986. Charophytes of Great Britain andIreland. London: BSBI Handbook 3.

Morris, M.G. 1990. Orthocerous weevils. ColeopteraCurculionoidea (Nemonychidae, Anthribidae, Urodont-idae, Attelabidae and Apionidae). Handbooks for theIdentification of British Insects. V, 16. London: RoyalEntomological Society.

Morris, M.G. 1993. A review of the British species ofRhynchaeninae (Col., Curculionidae). EntomologistsMonthly Magazine 129, 177-97.

Munro, J.W. 1926. British bark beetles. ForestryCommission Bulletin 8.

Nayling, N.T. 1988. The Archaeological Wood Survey: areview of the potential and problems of waterloggedstructural wood. London: English Heritage.

Needham, S. 1990. The Penard-Wilburton succession: newmetalwork finds from Croxton (Norfolk) and Thirsk(Yorkshire). Antiquaries Journal 70, 253-70.

257


Needham, S. 1991. Excavation and Salvage at RunnymedeBridge 1978: the Late Bronze Age Waterfront Site.London: British Museum/English Heritage.

Needham, S. & Ambers, J. 1994. Redating Rams Hill andreconsidering Bronze Age enclosure. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 60, 225-43.

Noort, R. van de & Davies, P. 1993. Wetland Heritage: anArchaeological Assessment of the Humber Wetland. Hull:Humber Wetlands Project.

Osborne, P.J. 1969. An insect fauna of Late Bronze Age datefrom Wilsford, Wiltshire. Journal of Animal Ecology 38,555-66.

Osborne, P.J. 1979. Insect remains. In C. Smith, Fisherwick:the Reconstruction of an Iron Age Landscape, 85-7.Oxford: British Archaeological Report 61.

Palm, T. 1959. Die Holz und Rindenkafer der sud- undmittelschwedischen Laubbaume. Opuscula Entomolog-ica. Supplement 16.

Parker Pearson, M. 1994a. Sutton Common Assessment andAnalysis of Environmental Samples 1987-93: a proposalfor research in 1993/4. Unpublished report, Departmentof Archaeology &c Prehistory, University of Sheffield.

Parker Pearson, M. 1994b. Overview and integration ofenvironmental archaeological evidence. In ARCUS 1994,Sutton Common environmental analysis: full report, 1-8.Archaeological Research Consultancy at the University ofSheffield Report 181.

Parker Pearson, M. 1994c Sutton Common: furtherinvestigations of the Iron Age enclosures. In C.Cumberpatch & S. Whiteley (eds), Archaeology in SouthYorkshire 1993-94, 71-4. Sheffield: South YorkshireArchaeological Services.

Parker Pearson, M. & Merrony, C. 1993. Sutton CommonDesiccation Assessment 1993: interim report.Unpublished report, University of Sheffield, SouthYorkshire Archaeological Services, & Doncaster Museum.

Parker Pearson, M. & Sydes, R. 1996. Sutton Common: aSouth Yorkshire wetland. In M. Cox and V. Straker (eds),Wetlands: Nature Conservation and Archaeology,103-13. London: HMSO.

Parry, S. & McGrail, S. 1991. A prehistoric plank boatfragment and a hard from Caldicot Castle Lake, Gwent,Wales. International journal of Nautical Archaeology 20,321-4.

Phillips, C.W. 1941. Some recent finds from the Trent nearNottingham. Antiquaries journal 21, 133-43.

Pollard, A.M., Bussell G.D. & Baird, D.C. 1981. Theanalytical investigation of early Bronze Age jet and jet-likematerial from the Devizes Museum. Archaeometry 23,139-67.

Powlesland, D. 1988. Staple Howe in its landscape. In T.Manby (ed.), Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire: essays inhonour of TCM Brewster FSA, 101-7. Sheffield:Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, University ofSheffield.

Preston, EL. 1954. The hill forts of the Peak. DerbyshireArchaeological Journal 27, 1-31.

Pryor, F. 1992. Flag Fen: Prehistoric Fenland Centre.London: Batsford/English Heritage.

Pryor, F. forthcoming. Excavations at Etton, near Maxey,Cambridgeshire, 1982-87. London: English Heritage.

Radley, J. & Mellars, P. 1964. A Mesolithic structure atDeepcar, Yorkshire, and the affinities of its associated flintindustries. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30,1-24.

Raistrick, A. 1929. The Bronze Age in West Yorkshire.Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 29, 354-65.

Raistrick, A. 1938. Iron-Age settlements in West Yorkshire.Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34, 115-50.

Raw, F. 1957. The ecology of the garden chafer,Phyllopertha horticola (L.) with preliminary observationson control measures. Bulletin of Entomological Research48, 605-45.

Reynolds, P. 1994. Butser ancient farm. In A.P. Fitzpatrickand E. L. Morris (eds), The Iron Age in Wessex: recentwork, 11-14. Salisbury: Trust for WessexArchaeology/AFEAF.

Riley, D.N. 1980. Early Landscapes from the Air: Studies ofCrop Marks in South Yorkshire and NorthNottinghamshire. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology& Prehistory: University of Sheffield.

Robinson, M. 1979. Plants and invertebrates: inter-pretation. In G. Lambrick & M. Robinson (eds), Iron Ageand Roman Riverside Settlements, 106-23. London:Council for British Archaeology Research Report 32.

Robinson, M. 1981. Appendix I: the use of ecologicalgroupings of Coleoptera for comparing sites. In M. Jones& G. Dimbleby (eds), The Environment of Man: the IronAge to the Anglo-Saxon period, 279-81. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Report 87.

Robinson, M. 1991. The Neolithic and Late Bronze Ageinsect assemblages. In S. Needham, Excavation andSalvage at Runnymede Bridge 1978: the Late Bronze AgeWaterfront Site, 277-326. London: British Museum/English Heritage.

Robinson, M. 1993. The scientific evidence. In T.G. Allen &M.A. Robinson (eds), The Prehistoric Landscape and IronAge Enclosed Settlement at Mingies Ditch, Hardwick-with-Yelford, Oxon, 101-41. Oxford: Oxford Archae-ological Unit.

Schadla-Hall, R.T. 1988. The early post-glacial in easternYorkshire. In T. Manby (ed.), Archaeology in EasternYorkshire: essays in honour of TCM Brewster FSA,25-34. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology &Prehistory, University of Sheffield.

Skidmore, P. 1991. Insects of the British Cow-DungCommunity. Field Studies Council.

Skidmore, P., Limbert, M. & Eversham, B.C. 1985. TheInsects of Thorne Moors. Sorby Record 23.

Smith, B.M. 1985. A Palaeoecological Study of RaisedMires in the Humberhead Levels. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, University of Wales.

Smith, R.A. 1928. Pre-Roman remains at Scarborough.Archaeologia 77, 179-200.

Stace, C. 1991. New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge:University Press.

Stanley, J. 1954. An Iron Age fort at Ball Cross Farm,Bakewell. Derbyshire Archaeological Society Journal 27,85-99.

258


Stead, I.M. 1965. The La Tene Cultures of EasternYorkshire. York: Yorkshire Philosophical Society.

Stead, I.M. 1968. An Iron Age hill-fort at Grimthorpe,Yorkshire, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society34, 148-90.

Stead, I.M. 1991. Iron Age Cemeteries in East Yorkshire.London: English Heritage.

Stead, I.M. & Rigby, V. 1986. Baldock. London: BritanniaMonograph 7.

Stuiver, M. & Pearson, G.W. 1986. High-precisioncalibration of the radiocarbon timescale, AD 1950 to 500BC. Radiocarbon 28, 805-38.

Stuiver, M. & Reimer, PJ. 1986. A computer programme forradiocarbon age calibration. Radiocarbon 28, 1022-1030.

Surtees, S. F. 1868. Footprints of Roman Occupation in theSouthern Parts of North Humber Land. Leeds: Baines.

Swain, H. 1988. Pottery survival in the field. ScottishArchaeological Review 5, 87-9.

Sydes, R.E. 1992. Report on the re-excavation of TrenchA/C, Sutton Common, South Yorkshire. Unpublishedreport, Department of Archaeology & Prehistory,University of Sheffield.

Sydes, R. & Symonds, J. 1987. Sutton Common 1987excavation report. South Yorkshire Archaeology Unit,Sheffield.

Taylor, M. forthcoming. The worked wood. In G. Lambrick,Excavations at Goose Acre Farm, Radley. Oxoniensia.

Therkorn, L.L., Brandt, R.W., Pals, J.P., & Taylor, M. 1984.Early Iron Age Farmstead: Site Q of the AssendelverPolders Project. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50,351-73.

Thompson, R.T. 1958. Coleoptera: Phalacridae.Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects V,5(b). London: Royal Entomological Society.

Todd, M. 1973. The Coritani. London: Duckworth.Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burgess, N.A., Valentine,

D.H., Walters, S.M. & Webb, D.A. 1964. Flora Europea.Cambridge: University Press.

Varley, W.J. 1948. The hill-forts of the Welsh Marches.Archaeological Journal 105, 41-66.

Varley, W.J. 1976. A summary of the excavations at CastleHill, Almondbury 1939-1972. In D.W. Harding (ed.),Hillforts: Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain andIreland, 119-31. London: Academic Press.

Ward, C.S. 1988. The vegetational history of Shirley Wood,South Yorkshire. Unpublished BA dissertation, Universityof Sheffield.

Wheeler, H. 1979. Excavation at Willington, Derbyshire,1970-1972. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 99,58-220.

Whitehead, P.F. 1992. Ontbophagus fracticornis (Preyssler)and O. natans (F.) (Col., Scarabaeidae) as fossils inWorcestershire with comments on the genus.Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 128, 31-2.

Whiting, C.E. 1936. Excavations on Sutton Common, 1933,1934 and 1935. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 33,57-80.

Wrathmell, S. & Nicholson, A. 1990. Dalton Parlours: IronAge Settlement and Roman Villa. Wakefield: WestYorkshire Archaeology Service, Yorkshire Archaeology 3.

Wymer, JJ. (ed.) 1977. Gazetteer of Mesolithic sites inEngland and Wales. London: Council for BritishArchaeology Research Report 20.

This paper is published with the aid of a grant from English Heritage

259

The Iron Age Enclosures and Prehistoric Landscape of Sutton Common, South Yorkshire

Documents

Transcript of The Iron Age Enclosures and Prehistoric Landscape of Sutton Common, South Yorkshire