Skip to main content
Read page text
page 20
The Stepleton enclosure at Hambledon under excavation. Subsequent work, therefore, has been outside the causewayed camp. Thus in 1977 they excavated the long barrow which lay between the causewayed camp and the innermost of the cross ditches. This had unfortunately been bulldozed so that nothing remained of the barrow, but the flanking ditches could be excavated and offered a great surprise, for though they began as the typical side ditches of a long barrow with a natural fill, at a later stage they had been recut and had the artificial fill typical of the causewayed camp ditches, with the presumed remains of ritual feasts. The 'Outworks' However, the main excavations have been on the various outworks. These began in 1976 with a section through the outwork on the eastern spur, the Shroton outworks, which proved to be wholly defensive in character. They then decided to investigate the outworks further, and chose a site on the southern, Stepleton, Spur, where a small enclosure appeared to abut the main outwork system. As there were no causeways visible on the air photos, this was thought to be Iron Age, but 148 a preliminary excavation revealed that this too was Neolithic and causewayed. One wonders how many other similar 2-acre enclosures have been assigned to the Iron Age when they ought really to be Neolithic. Three-quarters of the Stepleton enclosure has now been excavated between 1978/80 and the remainder is to be excavated in 1981. On 2 sides the enclosure was delimited by the treble ditches of the outworks, while on the West and North it was marked by a much smaller single causewayed ditch. The excavations gave a good opportunity to examine a long length of the outwork ditch, which though causewayed, was clearly defensive. The conclusive evidence for this was the rampart on its inner lip, where a double line of postholes marked what must have been a box rampart with the earth contained within a wooden framework. Hitherto, these box ramparts have been thought to be Bronze or Iron Age, but this one was clearly Neolithic. An entrance through the rampart was excavated just outside the enclosure, formed by a passage 4.5m wide and 4m long. Over the whole 100m length that has been excavated there were signs of burning and the excavator has suggested that this great multivallate fortified enclosure "met a violent end of positively Wagnerian proportions". But the most revealing results have come from an analysis of the finds which suggests that whereas the causewayed camp was ritual, the Stepleton enclosure was domestic. Thus the 30 or more skulls carefully placed along the ditch of the camp were largely absent in the enclosure. There were in fact 3 complete bodies and 4 skulls in the enclosure ditches, two of which were complete with lower jaws and upper vertebrae, and were probably therefore originally severed heads which appear to have been thrown into the ditch as if killed in fighting; whereas the skulls at the camp lacked their jaw bones and had been placed in as skulls. Ritual v domestic The small finds too are different. In the enclosure there was a general scatter of flint work of all types, but in the camp each pit contained a characteristic type of flint, so that pits tended to contain either scrapers or serrated blades and so on. The pottery from the 2 sites is basically similar, but some of the pits in the camp contained the Gabbroic pottery imported from Cornwall. The economy too showed subtle differences. Thus the botanical remains on both sites produced wheats, but the usual "weeds of cultivation" were only found at Stepleton, suggesting that Stepleton was a site where grain processing took place, but that only finished products were brought into Hambledon. Over 100 individual cows have so far been identified, the majority mature females, suggesting that they had been kept for milking. The Vale of the Stour is today one of the finest dairying areas in Europe, so it is tempting to wonder whether the classic anthropological connection between cattle keeping and a chieftain society is valid here. At Hambledon therefore three different aspects of the Neolithic have been identified: the causewayed camp is presumably 'ritual', the Stepleton enclosure appears to be domestic, while the massive outworks were defensive and formed an
page 21
attempt to defend the whole of the hilltop, 100 acres in extent. This is an area nearly twice as large as the Iron Age hillfort of Maiden Castle, so it looks as if Hambledon was one of the most important, if not the most important site in southern England in the early Neolithic. An interim report, Hambledon Hill: A Neolithic Landscape by Roger Mercer has been published by the Edinburgh University Press, price £2.50. This covers the first 5 years work, and interprets the causewayed enclosure as a 'gigantic necropolis, constructed for the exposure of the cadaveric remains of a large population'. He points out that in addition to the skulls placed on the bottom of the ditches, there was also a considerable amount of human skeletal debris located in the ditches at all levels. Thus a minimum of 70 individuals have been located in the 20% of the main enclosure ditch that has been excavated. 'It is tempting to suggest" he writes 'that the main causewayed enclosure at Hambledon was a vast reeking open cemetery, its silence broken only by the din of crows and ravens'. This is a fascinating idea, though for my own part I still prefer Stuart Piggott's interpretation in his West Kennett report, that the bones found in causewayed camps were abstracted from long barrows. I like to believe that the real answer is that the Neolithic peoples practiced ancestor worship, and were thus in the habit of carting their ancestors around with them. Thus all the bones at Hambledon could have been ancestors brought in and deliberately deposited. The skulls could have been deliberately placed to guard the camp, while I am fascinated by the excavator's suggestion that some of the disarticulated human bone placed on the ditch floor could have been placed in something like leather bags—perhaps the bags in which they were carried around? Clearly we must wait until a full bone report is available, but in the meantime, anyone who wishes to look into this should read Roger Mercer's own account. Lydney Park ONE of the most spectacular reinterpretations currently under way is that of the Roman Temple at Lydney Park in Gloucestershire. This was one of Mortimer Wheeler's famous excava­ tions in the late 1920s when he uncovered a magnificent Roman Temple and its surrounding Guest House, Baths and a 'Long Building', perhaps used as sleeping quarters for worshippers seeking prophetic dreams. This complex being built apparently in the 360s at a time when the Roman Empire was nominally Christian. Lydney, therefore, is always taken as the classic textbook example of the revival of paganism in the late Roman Empire. There is even a famous inscription on one side of the mosaics apparently re­ cording the gift of a magnificent pavement to the Temple by a Roman naval officer. However, there are problems. Eric Birley has been pointing out for some time that the naval officer concerned, a Praepositus, or Praefectus Reliquationis, belonged to the third century at the latest. John Casey of Durham University has also been looking at the coins from Lydney and points out that the overall picture of coinage from the site would fit better with a foundation date in the late third or early fourth century than with one in the second half of the fourth century. Last summer, therefore, he went to Lydney and carried out a very small scale excavation, consisting of four small holes to see whether some of the mosaics, under which Wheeler had found later fourth century coins, were in fact primary and whether there was any evidence for an earlier phase. To his delight in his biggest little hole, in the Long Building adjacent to the Temple, he found clear evidence that one of the mosaics was laid on top of an earlier opus signinum floor, while elsewhere in the building a mosaic had been laid over a worn flag-stone floor. A very worn coin of Marcus Aurelius was produced by the foundation trench of the Guest House and a sestertius of Hadrian, in similar condition, was found in the foundations of a road peripheral to the Temple. These coins would have been still circulating into the middle of the third century, or even slightly later, but would have been entirely out of place in the 360s. In fact no coins of the date originally proposed for the foundation of the Temple complex were found in primary contexts. He argues, therefore, that the late fourth century work described by Wheeler was not a construction from new but merely a refurbishment of a Temple complex begun in the late third or very early fourth century. He hopes to return next summer to carry out some further minor excavations and in particular to seek evidence for the date of the mosaic pavement containing the famous inscription, which, he believes, must belong to the earlier phase. 149

Page Text

View plaintext

attempt to defend the whole of the hilltop, 100 acres in extent. This is an area nearly twice as large as the Iron Age hillfort of Maiden Castle, so it looks as if Hambledon was one of the most important, if not the most important site in southern England in the early Neolithic.

An interim report, Hambledon Hill: A Neolithic Landscape by Roger Mercer has been published by the Edinburgh University Press, price £2.50. This covers the first 5 years work, and interprets the causewayed enclosure as a 'gigantic necropolis, constructed for the exposure of the cadaveric remains of a large population'. He points out that in addition to the skulls placed on the bottom of the ditches, there was also a considerable amount of human skeletal debris located in the ditches at all levels. Thus a minimum of 70 individuals have been located in the 20% of the main enclosure ditch that has been excavated. 'It is tempting to suggest" he writes 'that the main causewayed enclosure at Hambledon was a vast reeking open cemetery, its silence broken only by the din of crows and ravens'.

This is a fascinating idea, though for my own part I still prefer Stuart Piggott's interpretation in his West Kennett report, that the bones found in causewayed camps were abstracted from long barrows. I like to believe that the real answer is that the Neolithic peoples practiced ancestor worship, and were thus in the habit of carting their ancestors around with them. Thus all the bones at Hambledon could have been ancestors brought in and deliberately deposited. The skulls could have been deliberately placed to guard the camp, while I am fascinated by the excavator's suggestion that some of the disarticulated human bone placed on the ditch floor could have been placed in something like leather bags—perhaps the bags in which they were carried around? Clearly we must wait until a full bone report is available, but in the meantime, anyone who wishes to look into this should read Roger Mercer's own account.

Lydney Park

ONE of the most spectacular reinterpretations currently under way is that of the Roman Temple at Lydney Park in Gloucestershire. This was one of Mortimer Wheeler's famous excava­ tions in the late 1920s when he uncovered a magnificent Roman Temple and its surrounding Guest House, Baths and a 'Long Building', perhaps used as sleeping quarters for worshippers seeking prophetic dreams. This complex being built apparently in the 360s at a time when the Roman Empire was nominally Christian. Lydney, therefore, is always taken as the classic textbook example of the revival of paganism in the late Roman Empire. There is even a famous inscription on one side of the mosaics apparently re­ cording the gift of a magnificent pavement to the Temple by a Roman naval officer.

However, there are problems. Eric Birley has been pointing out for some time that the naval officer concerned, a Praepositus, or Praefectus Reliquationis, belonged to the third century at the latest. John Casey of Durham University has also been looking at the coins from Lydney and points out that the overall picture of coinage from the site would fit better with a foundation date in the late third or early fourth century than with one in the second half of the fourth century. Last summer, therefore, he went to Lydney and carried out a very small scale excavation, consisting of four small holes to see whether some of the mosaics, under which Wheeler had found later fourth century coins, were in fact primary and whether there was any evidence for an earlier phase.

To his delight in his biggest little hole, in the Long Building adjacent to the Temple, he found clear evidence that one of the mosaics was laid on top of an earlier opus signinum floor, while elsewhere in the building a mosaic had been laid over a worn flag-stone floor. A very worn coin of Marcus Aurelius was produced by the foundation trench of the Guest House and a sestertius of Hadrian, in similar condition, was found in the foundations of a road peripheral to the Temple. These coins would have been still circulating into the middle of the third century, or even slightly later, but would have been entirely out of place in the 360s. In fact no coins of the date originally proposed for the foundation of the Temple complex were found in primary contexts.

He argues, therefore, that the late fourth century work described by Wheeler was not a construction from new but merely a refurbishment of a Temple complex begun in the late third or very early fourth century. He hopes to return next summer to carry out some further minor excavations and in particular to seek evidence for the date of the mosaic pavement containing the famous inscription, which, he believes, must belong to the earlier phase.

149

read next page

My Bookmarks

Buy this Book
Skip to main content