ere pear aeen at wiih ‘ Hi a it ‘ SE ae RD & W 4990 1 2 I 3 it i { a ; ‘ on mm) rk 7 + Re i a ‘ in] 4 ° 1 . 1 a ¢ ‘ i 1 : u pe i } : / n 2 “5 A = AN - é iS ‘ 1 1 mo - . tg - ‘ , - a t ee nos 2 d = -) NE 7 1 aan = Ausf ; = i : 7 ’ 7 A = x - a :) . , ' . > - ty 7 7 + » ‘ } \ i os - ~ — THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE VOLUME 81 1987 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE VOLUME 81 (1987) ISSN 0262 6608 © Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society 1987 Hon. Editor: Caroline Malone Hon. Natural History Editor: Marion Browne Change of Title The journals issued to volume 69 as parts of The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine (Part A Natural History; Part B Archaeology and Local History) were from volumes 70 to 75 published under separate titles as The Wiltshire Natural History Magazine and The Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine. With volume 76 the magazine reverted to its combined form and title. We acknowledge with thanks a special grant from the Council for British Archaeology, towards the cost of publishing John Musty and David Algar’s paper ‘Excavations at the deserted Medieval village of Gomeldon, Near Salisbury’ in our last volume. Also, we gratefully acknowledge publication grants from English Heritage for archaeological papers in 1986. Contributions for the Magazine are always welcome, whether longer contributions to be printed as papers, or shorter items — equally valuable — to be printed as notes. There is no fixed maximum length, but space is always at a premium, so contributors should try to use no more words than they need. All contributions and proposals should be sent to the editor at, in the first instance, The Museum, 41 Long Street, Devizes, Wiltshire SN10 1NS. The editor is happy to advise and discuss with intending contributors at any stage during the preparation of their work. The style for footnotes, references and so on should be that found in this number. Produced for the Society by Alan Sutton Publishing Limited, Gloucester Set in Bembo by Alan Sutton Publishing Limited Printed by Dotesios (Printers) Ltd, Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY The Society was founded in 1853. Its activities include the promotion of archaeological and historical work within he County and the study of natural history; the issue of a Magazine, and other publications; excursions to places of irchaeological and historical interest; and the maintenance of a Museum, Library and Picture Gallery. OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY (1986-1987) TRUSTEES C.E. Blunt, OBE, FBA, FSA The Right Hon. The Lord Devlin, Pc, FBA i E.G.H. Kempson, MA B.H.C. Sykes, MA | Ex-Officio E.L. Bradby (Chairman, Library Committee — also elected | _member 1984) °.W. Hanford, BA, MRCS, LRCP (Chairman, Programme Committee) R.G. Hurn (Deputy Chairman, Finance & Executive Committee) J.F. Phillips (Chairman, Natural History Committee) Helen Rogers (Chairman, Amenity & Conservation Committee) E.R.A. Sewell (Chairman, Archaeological Research Committee — also elected member 1984) | R.CH. Blackledge, MA FSA (Chairman, Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum) | Joan Friend (Hon. Publicity Officer) | R.C. Hatchwell (Hon. Keeper of Prints & Drawings) Caroline Malone, MA PhD MIFA. (Hon. Editor, WAM) > R. Saunders, FSA, FMA (Curator, Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum) SECRETARY: M. Heath, MA SANDELL LIBRARIAN: Pamela Colman | HON. SOLICITOR: } P.F. Wyles, MA HON. ACCOUNTANT: W.L. Searight, CA HON. KEEPER OF PRINTS AND DRAWINGS: R.C. Hatchwell PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF COUNCIL H.F. Seymour, BA VICE-PRESIDENTS Professor S. Piggott, CBE, FBA, FSA C.E. Blunt, OBE, FBA, FSA Margaret Guido, FSA COUNCIL Nominated Linda Kinder (representing Wiltshire County Council) R.L. Pybus, MA, FLA (Director, Library & Museum Service, Wiltshire County Council) J.R. Cordon (representing Wiltshire County Council) Pat Rugg (representing Wiltshire County Council) K.H. Rogers, BA, FSA, (Wiltshire Record Society, also member ex officio as County Archivist) J.M.G. Kirkaldy, PhD. (representing Kennet District Council) Elected T.K. Maurice, OBE DL, 1981 R. Bradley, BA FSA, 1981 M.G. Rathbone, ALA, 1981 C.A. Shell, PhD, 1982 Diana Clarkson, 1983 P. Cray, PhD, 1983 E. Elliott, FBPS BSC, 1984 Susan Rooke, 1985 P. Morrissey, 1985 D. Lovibond, 1985 C.R. Chippindale, BA MIFA, 1986 Lt. Col. M. Cowan, 1986 J.L. Rowland, 1986 Pamela Slocombe, BA, 1986 OFFICERS CURATOR: P.H. Robinson, PhD, FSA ASSISTANT CURATOR: Alison J. Terry, BA CURATOR NATURAL SCIENCES: Sarah E. Nash, BSc HON. TREASURER: R.G. Hurn HON. ARCHITECT: H.D. Spencely, MBE, MA, ARIBA Contents The Owen Meyrick Collection by GILLIAN R. SWANTON Excavations at Box Roman Villa, 1967-8 Lee ne by H.R. HURSTYD.L. DARTNALL, C. FISHER, (with contributions by)F.K. ANNABLE, A.M. BORTHWICK, R.A. HODGES, R.M. JACOBI, H.W. PENGELLY, L.F. PITTS, LF. SMITH , V.A. TATTON-BROWN, A. VINCE Preliminary Report on Excavations of the Late Roman Villa at Castle Copse, Great Bedwyn, 1986 by ERIC HOSTETTER, THOMAS N. HOWE and JOHN F. KENFIELD The Winchester saints in the Calendar of the Wilton Psalter by WILLIAM SMITH The Early History and Architecture of Bewley Court, Lacock by B. and R. HARVEY (history) and P.M. SLOCOMBE (architecture) Wiltshire Apothecaries’ Tokens and Their Issuers by T.D. WHITTET Maddington Priory: a measured survey and report by RICHARD DEANE and KIRSTY RODWELL A Deadlock in 18th-Century Devizes by EDWARD BRADBY Insectivores in Wiltshire: Hedgehog by MARION BROWNE Notes The Wiltshire Archaeological Society at Silbury Hill in 1859 by C. STEPHEN BRIGGS Manor Farm, Bratton. ST 91255132 by L. LUCKETT The Bishopstrow Find of Roman Coins by PAUL ROBINSON Saxon Burials at Elston, Orcheston by PAUL ROBINSON Some Evidence for Livestock Traffic in Wiltshire during the Seventeenth Century by J.H. BETTEY The Inscription on the Finger-Ring from Hill Deverill (WAM 79, p. 238) by E.G.H. KEMPSON Robin Tanner Lecture: July 5, 1986 by ROBIN TANNER Wiltshire Archaeological Register for 1985 Reviews Roland Smith and Peter Cox. The Past in the Pipeline: Archaeology of the Esso Midline, 1985 (GILLIAN SWANTON) 144 Peter Saunders. Channels to the past: the Salisbury Drainage Collection (GILLIAN SWANTON) 144 P.J.A. Levine. The Amateur and the Professional, Antiquarians, Historians and Archaeologists in Victorian England, 1836-1886 (J.B. McVICAR) 145 19 52 57 63 74 80 ot 111 123 123 125 130 132 133 137.4 137 140 © 144 | Abstracts of feet of fines relating to Wiltshire, 1377-1509, ed. J.L. Kirby for W.R.S. (WILLIAM SMITH) 146 Seend Heritage by Edward Bradby, in collaboration with Jack Dunton and John Hutchinson; History of Highworth Part 2; Wroughton History Part 3 (LAWRENCE COUPLAND) 146 Barbara Croucher. The Village in the Valley — A History of Ramsbury (ANDREW SEWELL) 148 Rodney Legg (ed.). Stonehenge Antiquaries (CHRISTOPHER CHIPPINDALE) 150 Mary Delorme. Curious Wiltshire (IAN EDELMAN) 151 J.H. Bettey. Wessex from AD 1000 (DAVID A. HINTON) 152 The Register of Thomas Langton, bishop of Salisbury 1485-93, ed. D.P. Wright (WILLIAM SMITH) 152 M. Coatts and E. Lewis (eds.): Heywood Sumner: Artist and Archaeologist 1833-1940; B. Cunliffe (ed.): Heywood Sumner’s Wessex (NIGEL SPIVEY) 153 Kenneth H. Rogers. Warp and Weft. The Story of the Somerset & Wiltshire Woollen Industry (G.D. RAMSAY) 155 Michael Snell. The Clocks and Clockmakers of Salisbury (RICHARD GOOD) 156 Obituaries 158 Roy Pitman Francis Kenelm Mackenzie Carver Egbert C. Barnes Index 161 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE The magazine is issued free to members of the Society. For information about the availability of back numbers and of other publications issued by the Society, application should be made to the Society’s Secretary at The Museum, 41 Long Street, Devizes, Wiltshire, SN10 1NS. THE SOCIETY‘S MUSEUM AND LIBRARY, 41 LONG STREET, DEVIZES The Curator is Dr P. Robinson, the Librarian Mrs P. Colman. The Museum contains many objects of great local interest, and the Library a rich collection of books, articles, prints, drawings and notes about the history of Wiltshire. Old printed material and photographs of Wiltshire buildings or other objects of interest will be welcomed by the Librarian at the Museum. The repository for records, e.g. old deeds, maps, plans, etc., is the Wiltshire Record Office, County Hall, Trowbridge. THE WILTSHIRE RECORD SOCIETY This Society was founded, under a slightly different name, in 1937 to promote the publication of the documentary sources for the history of Wiltshire. It is now one of the leading societies of its kind in the kingdom and is required by its rules to publish one volume in respect of each year’s subscription. 41 volumes have already appeared; the 41st was published in 1986; nine others are in preparation. An annual meeting is held each year with an address and discussion, usually at some place of historical interest in Wiltshire. The annual subscription is £10.00. New members are most urgently needed. Full particulars about membership may be obtained from Dr John Chandler, c/o the Wiltshire Record Office, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, Wilts., BA14 8JG. THE WILTSHIRE BUILDINGS RECORD The Wiltshire Buildings Record was inaugurated in May 1979 to study and record Wiltshire buildings of all types and periods. A central record, open to the public, is housed at the Public Library, Sheep Street, Devizes, and contains a collection of photographs, drawings and reports, and an index of information held elsewhere. To date, about 6,500 buildings have been wholly or partially recorded. The Society issues a newsletter and offers members opportunities for active fieldwork in their own area. The annual subscription is £5.00 for individual members, £8.00 for institutions, £7.50 for families, and £3.00 for pensioners and students on request. Membership forms are obtainable from The Secretary, c/o the Public Library, Sheep Street, Devizes, Wilts., SN10 1DL. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 7-18 The Owen Meyrick Collection BY GILLIAN R. SWANTON* Owen Meyrick’s collection of prehistoric material forms a substannial part of the Society’s prehistoric collection. It was presented to the Society in 1983, and forms an important set of archaeological data from sites in many parts of Wiltshire. Some 300 sites are recorded, and the present paper summarises the information that these provide. Owen Meyrick built up a large collection of pottery and other objects over many years of field-walking and excavation. The bulk of his work was centred on North Wiltshire, but his finds and site descriptions from all the areas he investigated are particularly valuable today, as much of his work was done before the second World War when many acres of chalk downland were still unploughed and sites were clearly visible. The material collected by Owen Meyrick has come to the Wiltshire Archaeological Society in a variety of ways. Some he gave to the Museum during his lifetime, and some went into the Marlborough College Natural History Society’s collections, which in turn have been deposited in Devizes Museum. The material remaining in his possession at the time of his death in 1983 was left to the Society, and it is of this collection that the following catalogue largely consists. Sadly, some material is missing, but the accompanying written records give descriptions of the material and findspots, so we are not entirely without information relating to these sites. The largest element of the collection is pottery, mainly of Bronze Age and Roman dates. The chalk downs produced much of the early pottery, and although the bulk dates from the Early Bronze Age onwards, there is a quantity of Beaker material, much of which was found in areas of later settlements and fields as well as around barrows. Many of the findspots are located on the then largely unploughed Marlborough Downs; here, in the main, sherds only had to survive the rigours of prehistoric agriculture, and they give some indication of activities prior to the well-known settlement of the area in Late Bronze Age times, settlement which itself probably destroyed any traces of Beaker dwellings and agricultural buildings. Son of a master at Marlborough College, it was probably the contact he had with the School’s active Natural History Society which encouraged Owen * North Farm, West Overton, Nr Marlborough, Wilts. SN8 1QE Meyrick to pursue his interest in prehistory. A severe stammer made spoken communication something of a trial, so walking the Downs and developing his acute senses of observation and awareness suited him well. He became quick to detect subtle changes in the landscape — the line of a former ditch, the faint profile of a ploughed-out barrow — and recorded his dis- coveries on 6” O.S. maps. He possessed a natural flair for archaeology, but the lack of university courses in the subject when he was young precluded him from realising his potential in an academic sense. One of Owen Meyrick’s greatest gifts was his ability to share his knowledge. Many people of all ages consulted him over the years, to be greeted with kindness, assistance and generous hospitality. The following catalogue of nearly three hundred sites bears witness to Owen Meyrick’s interest in, and dedication to, the archaeology of the local landscape, and we are fortunate that his meticulous recording allows us a glimpse of what he was able to observe. THE CATALOGUE The catalogue is set out in Owen Meyrick’s original order, with the abbreviated parish name alongside. A list of parishes, with their individual sites, will be found below. In some instances material from several sites has become combined at some time; where possible this has been identified and appropriated accordingly, but as the artifacts were not marked when they entered the Museum many have had to remain as combined site material. Many sites on Owen Meyrick’s maps can be seen to cover large areas; these sites, often linking with others, have been given a Grid Reference as near the ‘centre’ as possible, i.e. “cen. SU cases, despite the maps and written descriptions in the accompanying site register (usually very detailed), it is In some 8 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE not possible to be absolutely certain of the exact location of a site; indeed, Meyrick himself was on occasion unsure whether the barrows he had identified were already allocated reference numbers: in all such instances, every effort has been made to pinpoint the site as accurately as possible, and the text indicates when there is room for uncertainty. Only material which has passed into the Museum is listed in this catalogue. For sites from which material is missing, Owen Meyrick’s identification of the objects appears in his site register. In cases where material has already been accessed into the Society’s collections, the accession number appears in the artifact column, e.g. DM/2/56/227. Parish Aldbourne PARISH INDEX Abbreviation Site Numbers Ald. 65, 66A, 94, 130, 158, 161, 167, 190, 204, 238, 239, 248, 249, 263, 264, 267, 268, 276, 277. All Cannings All C 56, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 273, 274. Alton Alt. 121, 139, 196. Alton Barnes Alt.B 20, 74 Alton Priors Alt.P 122: Avebury Ave 26, 39, 47, 55, 83, 89, 90, 91, 119,,120;, 131,251. Baydon Bay. 254, 255. Bedwyn Bed. 288. Beechingstoke B’st. 219: Berwick Basset B.B. 38, 45, 189. Bishops Cannings B.C. 22, 24, 24A, 180. Bishopstone Bish. 112, 260. Broad Hinton B.H. 218. Bromham Bro 216. Bulford Bul. 262. Cherhill Ch: 21, 163, 176. Chiseldon Chis. 175, 18,°1525:2145°231),. - Collingbourne Ducis = C.D. 230, 258. Collingbourne Kingston C.K. 140, 141, 160, 172, 173. Compton Bassett CB: 168. Easterton E’ton. 78. East Kennett ] BE WIS, 1055.16 51175° 123: Easton Eas. 5158051275 1285.137;.197%, 206. Enford Enf. 48, 144. Everleigh Eve. 43, 46, 70, 230. Figheldean Figh. 266. Fittleton Fit. 218: Fosbury Fos 113, 118, 194. Froxfield Fr, 280, 281, 282. Fyfield Fyf. 13, 108, 227, 253. Grafton Graf. 97, 98, 149, 150, 151;.192. Great Bedwyn G.B 177, 198, 199, 283, 284. Hinton Parva Hep 257. Huish H: 49, Liddington Lidd. 96, 162, 245, 252. Little Bedwyn L.B: 63, 228, 229. Manningford Bohune M.Boh 203. Manningford Bruce M. Br 201, 202, 233, 234, 235. Marden Mar 78A, 219. Parish Marlborough Mildenhall Milston Milton Lilbourne North Tidworth Oaksey Ogbourne St Andrew Ogbourne St George Pewsey Preshute Ramsbury Roundway Rowde Rushall Savernake Shalbourne Stanton St Bernard Tidcombe Upavon Wanborough West Overton Wilcot Winterbourne Monkton Winterbourne Stoke Woodford Wroughton Abbreviation Site Numbers M. 212, 156. Mild. 41, 42, 65, 72, 95, 124, 169, 174, 183, 191, 208, 209, 259, 261, 265, 275. Mil. 270. M.L. 5051625,711'5.85.186;, 21'1'. Nth. T A Oak. TAI O.S.A DS OM Oes 18335.94, 225075 685, 69, 75,92), 935102, 125, 126, 132, 133,142, 145, 146, 153, 154, 156, 175, 185, 186, 193, 200, 205, 220, 221), 222,-236: O.S.G 1, 10, 11, 12, 44, 65, 66, 76, 147, 148, 155, 269, 278. Pew 30, 87, 88. Pres. 9, 14, 25, 30, 40A, 53, 54, 57, 60, 61, 129, 135, 143, 165, 187, 224, 242, 243, 271, 272, 289, 290. Ram 164, 210. R. 159, 216. Row 216. Rush. 80. Sav. 8, 35, 36, 37, 58, 59,64, 1332 19o7SU 166; “18151825 207, 215, 286, 287. Sh. 285, 288. S.St.B. 23, 82, 106, 109, 110, 111, 123, 179. Tid. 113, 118, 194. Up. 79, 244. Wan 240, 241, 249, 250, 252. W.O 107, 134, 170, 184, 195, 223, 237, 279 Wil. 232, W.M 3, 4, 27, 28, 29, 31, 40, 77, 84, 136, 188, 225, 226. W.St. 178. Wood. 246, 247. W. 15, 16, 92. ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE CATALOGUE b&t B-r barbed and tanged (arrowhead) Bead-rim Century area centred on collection decorated Devizes Museum Deveral — Rimbury Early Bronze Age Early Iron Age fragment(s) Grass-tempered Iron Age imitation Samian including Late Bronze Age Lower Greensand Late Iron Age Middle Bronze Age Marlborough College Collection Medieval Middle Iron Age THE OWEN MEYRICK COLLECTION 9 mort mortarium perf. perforated N.F. New Forest Sam Samian O.M. Owen Meyrick Sav. Savernake Oxf. Oxford Sax. Saxon Oxf.cc Oxford colour coat SIME UPARISH N.GiUR. SIDE TYPE ARTIFACTS REFERENCES NO. 1 O.S.G. cen. SU 175744 48 MBA & LBA sherds P.P.S. 1942, 48-61. 35. RB sherds (incl. Sav; Sam; im Sam.) 1 perforated chalk pendant M.C.N.H.S. 1911. 1 ceramic/fired clay frag. 10 Beaker sherds P.P.S. 1942, 48-61 150 (approx.) MBA & LBA sherds 1 sherd LBA fine burnished bowl M.C.N.H.S. RB sherds bones bone points pieces burnt bone worked flint (incl. scraper) slag MBA/LBA sherds RB sherds (incl. B-r; im Sam.) oven frag. ule frag. nails 12th/13th C. sherd LBA sherds RB sherds (incl. B-r; Sav: N.F.) ceramic frag. MBA + LBA sherds (incl. shell- tempered) RB sherds (incl. Sav.) brick frag. Beaker sherds MBA sherds RB sherds (incl. Sam; Sav; Oxf.c.c.) pieces burnt bone hone stone tanged iron blade carbonised barley grains + poss DM/11/55/217 S Beaker sherds 92 (approx.) MBA & LBA sherds MBA (Calkin IIb) 107 RB sherds (incl. B-r; Sav; Sam -“VGN”-; im Sam) hone stones RB ring or brooch setting iron link 1 post-med. knife issing issing 2 O.S.A. cen. SU 150740 Earthworks — 3 W.M. cen. SU 125747 Enclosure 4+ 188 W.M. cen. SU 129753 Enclosure +77 etc.) Ne loa CO Be BO BN WD DK W LO KBHWNEAUEBWHEOCMHUDNVEWNHE BWNE 5 (YSTA. cen. SU 140724 Enclosure = Nomen 6 O.S.A. cen. SU 155733 near ditch Ww _ NAUSEWNHHEWH Ww _— eS BO 7+52 +1260.S.A. cen. SU 150736 Banks & ditches BRWNEL — Ww 8 Sav. SU 188678 Settlement @) Pres. probably c. SU 143743 10 O.S.G. cen. SU 216756 Enclosure ZZamoriau MBA/LBA sherd RB sherds GT sherd (Sax) LBA sherds W.A.M. 1966, 31. ?MBA sherds MIA saucepan pot sherd RB sherds (incl. B-r; Sam; im Sam) GT (Sax) sherds undated sherds Lignite frags., lathe-turned flint 2>Mesolithic flint scraper iron frags. ‘ll O.S.G. cen. SU 216755 Earthworks —_ Soe ARs tappsibo tl Ke NmD RK RK NK NN KENNER OD —-cx 10 OTE. PARISH NO. 12 13 14 21 22 23 24 24A 25 29 33 O.S.G. Fyf. Pres. Ch. B.C. S.St.B. B.C. B.C. Pres. O.S.A. N.G.R. cen. SU 217754 cen. SU 140713 cen. SU 144715 SU 146766 near SU 145763 cen. SU 164773 cen. SU 161765 probably cen. SU 106651 SU 110645 SU 06746963 SU 05746586 cen. SU 100638 40 yds. E of SU 06646802 c. SU 067679 cen. SU 147747 cen. SU 124712 probably cen. SU 125718 cen. SU 118727 SU 11977269 cen. SU 131742 cen. 125724 cen. SU 172575 cen. SU 162739 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE STE TYPE possible ‘banjo’ enclosure Earthworks Earthworks near barrows W1 & W2 Earthwork Earthwork Earthwork “Eald Burgh” around barrow Ch. 6 around barrow B.C. 56 near barrow B.C. 26 Field System barrow W.M. 16 Banks ARTIFACTS -1 1 coarse domestic beaker sherd Missing — piece ?>hammer-stone -1 2 LBA/MIA sherds (very shelly) .2 51 RB sherds (incl. Sav; mort; B-r; N.F.) iron awl iron nails & | nail head iron objects piece interior of horn LBA sherds RB sherds pieces low-fired clay piece bun-shaped loom-weight RB (B-r) RB sherds (rims) LBA sherds E/MIA sherd RB sherds (incl. B-r; Sam; N.F.) tule frags. frags. ironwork NO ~ WN OR BNNRK NN UORK NN issing issing SZURwneerawuneauaw 1 Beaker sherd 1 2EBA sherd 6 MBA (D-R) 3 RB sherds 7 Beaker sherds 1 EBA sherd 1 unidentified sherd 1 RB sherd 2 burnt shale frags. issing — bone and teeth 1 EBA sherd 2 RB sherds Burnt bone — ?>human 1 Neolithic sherd 2 Beaker sherds — coarse domestic 3 RB sherds 14 MBA sherds 1 Flint 2 pieces bone F 2 pieces burnt bone Missing -1 12 Beaker sherds .2 40 MBA sherds .3 96 RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r; Sam; im Sam; N.F.; local wares) .4— 1 piece Roman brick .5 2 flints (incl. broken rough-out) Missing -1 2 Neolithic sherds Missing — 2 sherds .1 1 EBA/MBA sherd .2 1 LBA sherd .3 105 RB sherds (incl. B-r; im Sam; Sav; N.F.) -1 7 Beaker sherds .2. 8 EBA sherds LBA sherd BRWHEWNHHEWNHHEZWURBWNHEBWNHHY be = 1 3 RB sherds At 5 RB sherds (incl. B-r) -1 32 LBA/EIA sherds 2 80 RB sherds (incl. B-r; Sav; im Sam; local wares) .3 2 flint scrapers 41 burnt flint hammer-stone 1 1 Beaker sherd 2 10 MBA sherds REFERENCES W.A.M. Dec. 1932, 101. W.A.M. June 1940, W7: F.R.S. 1937, 249. W.A.M. June 1923, 247. W.A.M. June, 1926, 280. THE OWEN MEYRICK COLLECTION SITE PARISH NO. 34 O.S.A. 35 Sav. 36 Sav. 37 Sav. 38 B.B. 39 Ave. 40 W.M. 40A Pres. 41 Mild. 42 Mild. 43+46 Eve. 44 O.S.G. 45 B.B. 46 Eve. 47 Ave. 48 Enf. 49 H 50 M.L 51 Eas. 52 O.S.A. 53 Pres. S4 Pres. 55 Ave. 56 All C 57 Pres. 58 Sav 59 Sav. 60 Pres 61 Pres 62 M.I 63 L.B N.G.R. SU 158748 cen. SU 215675 SU 216668 SU 215663 Cen. SU 119729 cen. SU 125717 cen. SU 126723 SU 146717 SU 201718 c. SU 207714 SU 189562 cen. SU 213744 cen. SU 122732 SU 186562 c. SU 118698 SU 193520 cen. SU 144645 SU 199579 cen. SU 206583 cen. SU 148733 cen. SU 186707 cen. SU 183706 c. SU 099670 cen. SU 104666 c. SU 185706 c. SU 215674 SU 217666 SU 174684 SU 138721 cen. SU 180643 probably c. SU 258679 SITE TYPE Field System Earthworks probably barrows Sav. 2 & 3 Mound Enclosure Earthworks Banks around Barrows Eve. 14 and Enclosure Plateau around barrows Ave. 31 & 32 Settlement Earthworks Barrows M.L. 2-4 near settlement Lynchets Enclosure ARTIFACTS .3 6 RB sherds 4 1 flint scraper -1 1 Beaker sherd (domestic) .2 100 (approx.) MBA sherds .3 2 RB sherds -4 1 human digit bone .5 1 burnt bone -6 1 smooth sarsen 71 “foreign” stone .8 1 flint .1 1 EBA/MBA sherd .2_ 1 MBA/LBA sherd .3. | LBA/EIA sherd -4 18 RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r) .1 69 RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r) .2. 1 flint (burnt) .3 1 stone Missing Missing Missing Missing .1 101 Med. sherds .2 1 flint flake .3 1 hone stone 6 pieces metalwork 1 animal shoe (iron) 2 MBA/LBA sherds 1 LBA sherd 91 RB sherds (incl. Sav; N.F.; im Sam; mort) .3 1 stone rubber Missing Missing .1 8 Beaker sherds .2._ 1 LBA sherd .3 14 LBA/EIA sherds -4— 1 RB sherd 1 large lump baked clay Material mixed with that from site 128. Figures above based on O.M.’s original notes. Missing 5S MBA sherds 43 RB sherds 1 unidentified sherd 1 flint 1 Neolithic sherd 4 Beaker sherds 22 MBA+LBA sherds 44 RB sherds (incl. Sav; N.F.; B-r; local wares) See site 7 a) 1 RB sherd Missing Missing -1 2 RB sherds ?Missing — IA sherds Missing .1 2coarse R.B. pottery — very damaged Missing — potboilers Missing .l 2 RB sherds -| 16 MBA/LBA sherds .2 97 LiA/early RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r) Missing — 2 ?Med sherds potboilers nN NENERWNHE 1] REFERENCES P.P.S. 1942, 51-2. W.A.M. June 1950, 328-331 M.C.N.H.S. 1932 12 SITE. PARTSH NO. 64 65 66 66A 67+68 +75 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Sav. Mild./Ald./ O.S.G. O.S.G. Ald. O.S.A. N.G.R. c. SU 215656 cen. SU 223733 cen. SU 186745 SU 244738 cen. SU 177748 probably c. SU 186742 probably c. SU 186548 probably c. SU 198580 cen. SU 677221 SU 223649 cen. SU 112661 cen. SU 166760 cen. SU 135759 c. SU 078538 cen. SU 113523 cen. SU 110518 cen. SU 214581 cen. SU 101643 SU 101684 SU 12027266 SU 19995787 SU 20075789 cen. SU 168633 cen. SU 175638 SU 11506866 probably SU 11676880 c. SU 116688 SU 149763 SU 159744 SU 162745 cen. SU 263789 probably SU 215721 SU 209797 SU 29376000 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE SITE TYPE Ditch Lynchets Earthwork alongside Roman Road Roman pottery kiln site Ditches large rectangular earthwork Settlement Barrow W.M. 14 Barrow M.L. 3 Barrow M.L. 5 near promontory camp near promontory camp Barrow Ave. 27 Barrow Ave. 29 Hillfort Barrow Ditch Hillfort Barrow Graf. 3 ARTIFACTS 4 RB sherds (incl. Sav) 213 LBA sherds 24 RB sherds (Sav; & local wares) 1 low-fired clay 2 flint scrapers 5 LBA sherds 21 RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r) 1 RB sherd (?intrusive) 38 Med. sherds 3 LBA sherds 21 RB sherds 1 ?hearth frag. : 1 nail see 67 Missing BRWNENHENEBRWNHEHY Missing Missing .1 72 RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r) DM/2/56/227 -1 1 Beaker sherd .2 6 MBA sherds .3 49 RB sherds (incl. Oxf; N.F.; Sav; Sam; local wares) .4— 1 small iron chisel 1 piece ironwork see 67 Missing see 4 Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing possibly amongst DM/2195-2237 Missing .1 8 EBA sherds 2 1 bone (ulna of pig) 1 1 ?domestic Beaker sherd 1 3 Beaker sherds .2 4 EBA sherds -1 2 RB sherds (from large vessels) + possible DM/2294-2355 .1 12 LBA sherds .2 121 RB sherds (incl. Oxf; local, but predominantly Sav) flint scraper EBA/MBA sherd MBA/LBA sherds Greenstone axe chip Beaker sherd ; indeterminate sherd frag. ol LBA sherd possibly DM/2170-2193 -1 1 burnt bone .2 Flint hammerstone LBA & RB sherds. Marked 1984.100.161. — confused with material from site 161. Missing NEwWNEW ee Oe _ .1 40 LBA sherds (incl. haematite-coated & decorated ware) 2 1 ?LIA/early RB sherd .1 2 MBA/LBA sherds REFERENCES W.A.M. 41, 425. W.A.M. 45, 202. THE OWEN MEYRICK COLLECTION SITE PARISH N.G.R. NO. 98 Graf. cen. SU 293598 99 All C. cen. SU 093664 100 All C. SU 09376619 101 All C SU 09166599 102 O.S.A SU 159728 103 All C cen. SU 104664 104 All C probably near SU 104665 105 All C probably near SU 104665 106 S.St.B c. SU 111660 107 W.O possibly in area SU 130709 108 Fyf. probably c. SU 143703 109 S cen. SU 103648 110 S.St SU 114648 111 S.St.B. SU 113647 112 Bish. cen. SU 247796 113 Tid. & Fos. SU 318565 114 E.K. cen. SU 119655 115 E.K. cen. SU 116660 116 E.K. c. SU 115659 117 E.K. cen. SU 113653 118 Tid. & Fos. SU 294576 119 Ave SU 12297109 120 Ave N. of SU 12297109 121 Alt. cen. SU 122637 122 Alt. P. c. SU 127642 123 E.K./S.St.B SU 11116605 124 Mild. c. SU 220731 SITE TYPE Earthworks & barrows over a large area Barrow All C. 2 Barrow All C. 3 Bowl Barrow possible barrow site Ditches large enclosure (?Med) Bowl barrow ?saucer barrow ‘Camp’ ?Bowl barrow Ditch Barrow Ave. 43 Barrow Causewayed Camp/East plateau enclosure Earthwork Barrow S.St.B. 4 ARTIFACTS .1 123 LBA pot & low-fired clay .2 10 RB sherds (incl. im Sam; Sam) -3 5 flint (incl. fabricator & 2 scrapers) .1 6 Beaker sherds .2 108 MBA/LBA sherds 3 96 (approx.) RB sherds (incl. Sam; Sav; im Sam) 4 2 oyster shells 5 Tile (RB) 1 2 Neolithic sherds (?bowl) 2 2 MBA sherds .3 1 MBA/EIA sherd 4 2 pieces burnt bone 1 1 Human femur frag. .2 2 Bones Missing — 2 MBA sherds il 1 Beaker sherd 2 2 coarse domestic beaker sherds 1 77 early 1st century A.D. sherds (incl. Sav; B-r; Oxf.c.c) .2 1 piece of horn interior 3 1 stone frag. Missing Missing Missing Missing possibly amongst DM/2240-2292 Missing -1 2 Beaker sherds .2 7 EBA sherds .3 1 2RB sherd 4-1 = unidentified sherd Missing Missing -1 8 LBA sherds .2. 3 burnt flint .l 3 Neolithic sherds .2. 4 LBA sherds .3 61 RB sherds (incl. B-r; im Sam) 4 volcanic ash .1 1 LBA sherd (sandy fabric) None Missing -1 9 RB sherds .2 1 tile/brick frag. .3 1 whetstone frag. -1 3 Neolithic sherds .2 11 ?collared urn sherds (grog- tempered) impressed ?biconical urn sherd burnt bones bones flint LBA sherds HaAnEW Se Nw t 2 Beaker sherds RB sherds (incl. B-r; barbotine; Sav; brick/tile) 1 human tooth nN wv 1 probable food vessel sherd 1 LBA sherd (jar) | bone 1 MBA (or LBA) sherd 1 RB sherds NeEwWNHH+ Zw 13 REFERENCES 14 SITE PARISH NO. 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 O.S.A. O.S.A. Eas. Eas. Pres. N.G.R. cen. SU 148732 links with 7 +52 SU 209592 SU 212594 SU 170704 cen. SU 235771 SU 12317112 SU 16317299 SU 16207317 SU 12607104 SU 14557490 SU 11947274 cen. SU 215577 cen. SU 518581 cen. SU 118636 SU 217565 cen. SU 217562 SU 140760 cen. SU 137747 SU 16715338 cen. SU 157754 SU 159736 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE REFERENCES SITE TYPE Bank & enclosure Settlement Earthwork Villa Settlement Barrow Ave. 42 Barrow O.S.A. 7 Barrow O.S.A. 9 Barrow W.O. 9 Barrow Pres. 14 Barrow W.M. 17 Earthwork Banks Barrow Enf. 2 Enclosure ARTIFACTS -1 4 LBA + MBA sherds .2 84 RB sherds (incl. B-r; Sam) see 7 Missing .1 120 (approx.) LBA/EIA sherds .2 2 potboilers 3 3 iron knife - ; eee or Site 47 Material mixed with that from site 47; fig- ures above based on O.M.’s original notes. 1 LBA sherd .2 185 (approx) RB sherds (incl. Sam; im Sam; Sav) 3 Painted wall plaster 4 Tesserae 5 6 —_ Tile Ironwork (incl. ox-shoe frags; nails; boot nails) 7 oyster shells 8 daub (with vegetation impressions) 19 Volcanic ash/lava .10 stone (incl. Pennant sst.) 11 11 Med. sherds 1 6 LBA sherds 2 7 RB sherds (incl. Sav) 3.1 = burnt flint/pot-boiler Missing Missing — bones (2human) -1 2 Beaker sherds 2 1 LBA sherd -1 14 early MBA sherds from 2 or prob- ably 3 urns 1 late MBA sherd (shell-tempered) 1 MBA sherd 1 Beaker sherd 2 MBA sherds 25 RB sherds (incl. Sav; local wares) 1 Beaker sherd 3 MBA+LBA sherds 1 flint issing — RB material 5 RB sherds 5 LBA sherds S RB sherds 2 RB sherds issing — IA material 7 RB sherds (incl. 1 painted) 17 Beaker sherds 123 MBA/LBA sherds RB sherds ball ?>baked marl pieces carved chalk flint (incl. 4 scrapers) b & t arrowhead (broken) sarsen flake large tooth prehistoric sherd (date uncertain) 6 iSSi Beaker sherd LBA sherds daub hammerstone stone rubber (Tabular blue sarsen, Stone survey 274) 5 flint (incl. 1 burnt & 2 scrapers) bone point (ox) 10 pieces bone (incl. 1 burnt) —_ oe} URWNHE ZH CHMVUANEWHEHEZEnNYHHZwnewneenw me OO ODOR RB BE EH DN EK OO oN A _ M.C.N.H.S. 96, 20-22. (vol. for 1947-55) . THE OWEN MEYRICK COLLECTION SITE PARISH N.G.R. SITE TYPE NO. 147 O.S.G. SU 202762 Field System (148 O.S.G. SU 208761 149 Graf. c. SU 264579 Bank 150 Graf. cen. SU 292618 Hill-top enclosure 151 Graf. cen. SU 263587 ‘152 Chis. SU 192768 Settlement 153 O.S.A SU 151737 ?Barrow 154 0.S.A cen. SU 174755 155 0.S.G cen. SU 168764 156 O.S.A c. SU 176756 )157 Sav copse — SU 218637 field — SU 214637 158 Ald. SU 211776 159 R probably c. SU 027647 160 Coll. K SU 208578 161 Ald. SU 213779 Enclosure 162 Lidd cen. SU 213784 163 Ch. SU 049693 Hillfort 164 Ram SU 30057392 Barrow Ram. 2 or 3 165 Pres c. SU 185683 166 Sav cen. SU 197684 167 Ald. SU 233752 168 C.B. SU 039709 169 Mild cen. SU 203715 Settlement 170 W.O SU 11926849 Barrow W.O. 8 171 Nth. T SU 216505 Hillfort 172 Coll. K cen. SU 218523 Settlement 173 Coll. K SU 214522 Ditch 174 Mild SU 203717 175 O.S.A SU 15097313 Barrow O.S.A. 20 176 Ch. cen. SU 066697 177 G.B SU 275646 “Ring” 15 ARTIFACTS REFERENCES 9 5 teeth (ox & sheep) .10 80 (approx.) LBA sherds, probably from one pot, found shattered under paving during excavation 1946-7. .11 6 bones (ox) from excavation .12 4 teeth, (incl. 1 horse) from excavation -1 3 RB sherds 2. 1 GT (Sax) sherd Also see site 148 .1 1 ?LBA sherd .2 1 probable GT (Sax) sherd Also see site 147 .1 12 MBA+LBA sherds .2. 7 RB sherds 3 2 flint .1 2 2EBA/MBA sherds .2 4 LBA sherds .3. 7 RB sherds (incl. Sav) 41 fired clay/brick -1 11 RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r) 2208 lestone .1 49 sherds (incl. Sam) 2 2 tile .3 3 brick/fired clay 4 1 blue glass .5 1 oyster shell 6 1 nail .7 1 Med. sherd .14LBA sherds possibly DM/11/55/219 from around this site .1 23 RB sherds .2 1 flint scraper -1 1 EBA sherd .2 5S LBA sherds .3. 8 RB sherds -1 1 LBA sherd None -1 6 RB sherds Missing -1 2 LBA sherds See list for site 94 — material from both sites marked 161. Missing “ak 1 LBA sherd -2. 2 RB sherds (incl. N.F.) -1 1 LBA sherd Al 1 LBA sherd 2 2 fired clay -1 1 LBA sherd -2. 5 RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r; Sam) .l 1 piece LGS ferruginous stone .1 3 RB sherds Some possibly missing Saxon finds - W.A.M. Dec. 1949, DM/71-74 Possibly also M.C.Coll. — DM/ — 220-222. 110.1981.D.7. Missing -l 11 IA sherds Missing -l 2 LBA sherds sl 1 Neolithic sherd 7) iron frag. Possibly DM/284, or missing Missing a 1 Neolithic sherd <2 LBA group (incl. urns, jars, bowls) 16 SITE PARISH NO. 178 179 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 N.G.R. probably SU 073423 SU 077649 possibly SU 081674 SU 233666 c. SU 214675 cen. SU 189585 SU 128685 SU 168712 SU 168718 probably c. SU 163710 cen. SU 139764 SU 122739 SU 12607133 SU 205713 original findspot uncertain probably SU 16497183 SU 287578 SU 13206860 cen. SU 208582 SU 266648 SU 273622 SU 165725 SU 157563 SU 166557 c. SU 164557 SU 236774 SU 15827429 SU 212586 SU 225667 SU 228695 SU 213694 cen. SU 198582 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE SITE TYPE Enclosure Lynchets Enclosure around Giant’s Grave Long Barrow Settlement ?Barrows W.O. 9a, 9b, 9c: 2 Barrows 1 probably O.S.A. 6b Barrow Bowl barrow Barrow O.S.A. 16 ‘Depression’ Enclosure & field system ARTIFACTS 3 20 flint Gncl. blades, fabricators, scrapers) stone (incl. shale, honestone, 2?quern frag.) shell frags animal bone (incl. bone points) antler (incl. handle) 1 RB Dragonesque fibula - DM/2718 : charcoal .10 1 chalk pendant (perf.) .11 1 amber bead Missing aN wcaouaw -1 45 RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r; Sam; im Sam) Py tile Missing — Samian sherd — ‘REDITUS’ Missing -l 71 RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r) Missing Missing -l1 80 RB sherds (incl. 1 Sav) Missing Missing Missing see site 4 Missing None Possibly in M.C.Coll. DM/110.1981.D.7. or missing Lost after 1905 None Missing None Modern — not in collection 12 Beaker sherds 53 MBA+LBA sherds — mostly MBA 25 RB sherds (incl. Sav; B-r; Sam) 1 RB pottery counter—Sav. 6 flint scrapers .6 1 bone frag Iron axe-head — DM/11/55/186 Never in O.M. coll. None Missing Fal flints (incl. pot-boiler) 1 flints 2 1 chisel-shaped Palstave 2t- 9 LBA. sherds -1 1 Beaker sherd 2 1 UBWNE 1 2?MBA sherd -1 20 RB sherds (incl. B-r; im Sam) Modern — not kept Missing -1 52 RB sherds (Sav) 2 4 iron (incl. nail & fibula) 3 human jaw 4 2 frags. bone 5 1 ox tooth 6 oyster shell frags. Never in O.M. coll. -1 34 RB sherds (incl. B-r; Sam) .2— 1 chalk pendant/counter (perf.) REFERENCES M.C.N.H.S. 1905, 98. W.A.M. Dec 1951, 228 M.C.N.H.S. 96, vol for 1947-55, 19-20 )SITE™ PARISH | NO. 212 M. 213 Fit. 214 Chis. 215 Sav. 216 Bro./R./Row. 217 Oak. 218 B.H. | 219 Mar./B’st. — 220 O.S.A. | | | 221 O.S.A. 222 O.S.A. 223 W.O. 224 Pres 225 W.M 226 W.M 227 Fyf 228 JS 229 L.B. 230 Eve./ Coll. D. 231 Chis. 232 Wil. 233 M.Br. 234 M.Br 235 M.Br 236 O.S.A 237 W.O 238 Ald. 239 Ald. 240 Wan 241 Wan 242 Pres 243 Pres 244 Up. 245 Lidd 246 Wood 247 Wood. 248 Ald. 249 Ald./Wan. 250 Wan. 251 Ave. 252 Lidd./Wan. 253 Fyt 254 Bay. 255 Bay. 256 M. THE OWEN MEYRICK COLLECTION N.G.R. SU 180680 SU 197515 SU 163804 SU 201647 ST 999643 ST 987934 SU 107794 SU 087578 cen. SU 139749 cen. SU 139752 SU_ 166735 SU 133681 SU 168705 SU 12077264 SU 120725 probably SU 14287070 SU 291654 SU 286651 SU 207554 SU 164804 SU 165643 probably SU 163562 SU 164564 cen. SU 162565 SU 183745 SU 142668 SU 247771 SU 247773 cen. SU 236813 cen. SU 237249 SU 152714 cen. SU 140752 c. SU 128544 SU 218793 possibly SU 110365 probably SU 110267 SU 24577640 SU 237789 c. SU 244785 c. SU 117697 Su 226797 SU 136717 SU 284799 SU 264799 SU 195690 SIME PYPE Bank & mound ?Long barrow Bank & Ditch Roman Well Settlement Barrow W.M. 13 Field system Barrow Enclosure ?Barrow Barrow Eve. 8 Pits Ditch Bowl barrow ?Bowl barrow Field system ?Barrow Ditch Long Barrow Banks Barrow Barrow Ald. 29 Earthwork Lynchet Barrow Fyf. 1 Lynchets Roman road/building ARTIFACTS al 1 RB sherd .2 2 unidentified sherds 1 4 MBA sherds 2 16 RB sherds (incl. Sav. coarse wares) Missing Missing -1 1 LBA sherd Missing Missing Missing -l 2 Beaker sherds .2. 19 MBA+LBA sherds .3 3 Med. sherds 4 1 flint Missing .| 7 Beaker sherds .2 28 MBA + LBA sherds .3 12 RB sherds (incl. im Sam) 41 frag. stone rubber Not in O.M. coll. & related -1 12 RB sherds — part of urn with lattice pattern wv remains of human cremation -l1 2 EBA sherds Missing -1 31 RB sherds (incl. B-r; Sav) None None Missing — ?Edinburgh University .1 1 LBA sherd .2 11 RB sherds (incl. im Sam) Missing Missing Missing -1 9 RB sherds .2— 1 ox humerus None ?— not in O.M. Coll. -1 1 MBA sherd -1 1 RB sherd Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing 1 Beaker/Biconical urn sherd ol | 1 LBA sherd .2.— 9 RB sherds (incl. Sav) 31 piece baked clay Missing Missing Missing 1 1 Beaker sherd Missing None 4 LBA sherds 48 RB sherds (incl. im Sam; mort) Slag l 2 | Brick 4 5 2 Nails 17 REFERENCES W.A.M. Dec. 1951, 227 W.A.M. Dec. 1952, 439-440 W.A.M. Dec. 1955, 193-4. 18 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE SITE PARISH N.G.R. SITE TYPE ARTIFACTS REFERENCES NO. 257 H.-P. SU 251804 Missing 258 Coll. D. SU 216566 Missing 259 Mild. SU 207688 Settlement .1 6 LBA sherds .2 40 RB sherds (Sav) 260 Bish. SU 258803 Missing 261 Mild. SU 215697 : DM/2/56/228 W.A.M. Dec. 1955, 194. 262 Bul. cen. SU 196427 -1 17 RB sherds (incl. N.F.) .2 2 pieces bronze wire 263 Ald. cen. SU 275783 Field System Missing 264 Ald. cen. SU 237770 .l1 6 RB sherds 265 Mild. SU 215698 Ditch .1 1 MBA sherd W.A.M. Dec. 1955, .2. 41 RB sherds (incl. im Sam; Sam, dec; 194. black-burnished ware) 266 Figh. probably in RB — not kept SU 1446 267 Ald. SU 21447821 Barrow Ald. 19 .1 3 EBA sherds 2, 1° ?RB 268 Ald. c. SU 216782 near settlement Missing 269 O.S.G. in vicinity of Missing SU 214755 270 Mil. c. SU 215468 RB sherd: not kept by O.M. 27) Pres. SU 153690 Barrow None W.A.M. Dec. 1955, 193. 272 Pres. SU 152690 Barrow None W.A.M. Dec. 1955, 193. 273 All. C. SU 098652 Earthworks None 274 AlL.C. SU 098652 Barrow Missing 275 Mild. c. SU 206685 Missing 276 Ald. SU 251788 ?Settlement Missing 277 Ald. cen. SU 244783 Missing 278 O.S.G. SU 218747 Missing 279 W.O. c. SU 139672 ?Barrows None 280 Fr. SU 281682 ?Barrow None W.A.M. Dec. 1960, 402. 281 Fr. SU 266682 ?Barrow None W.A.M. Dec. 1960, 403. 282 Fr. SU 267682 ?Barrow None W.A.M. Dec. 1960, 403. 283 G.B. SU 263657 Barrow None W.A.M. Dec. 1960, 402. 284 G.B. SU 264657 Barrow None W.A.M. Dec. 1960, 402. 285 Sh. Grange Fm. ?Kiln site Missing SU 315632 Sh. Mill SU 316636 286 Sav. SU 248632 ?Bowl Barrow None W.A.M. 1964, 182. 287 Sav. SU 247630 ?Bowl Barrow None W.A.M. 1964, 182. 288 B./Bed./Sh. in area Cc. Track None W.A.M. 1964, 184. SU 239638 — SU 259623 289 Pres. SU 156689 Barrow None W.A.M. 1964, 181-182. 290 Pres. SU 152691 Barrow None W.A.M. 1964, 181-182. Acknowledgements 1am very grateful to the Curator of Devizes Museum, Dr Paul Robinson, for allowing me access to the Meyrick Collection, and for his considerable assistance in researching related material already in the Museum’s collections. I am indebted to Christopher Gingell for the valuable time he spent dating the pottery and for the useful discussions which ensued. Many thanks are due to Lesley Marshman, who completed the preliminary work on the recently acquired material, and to Mrs Margaret Guido for her help and encouragement. A.M. BORTHWICK | D.L. DARTNALL _ R.A. HODGES RM. JACOBI | H.W. PENGELLY Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 19-S1. Excavations at Box Roman Villa, 1967-8 by H.R. HURST, D.L. DARTNALL, C. FISHER, with contributions by F.K. ANNABLE, A.M. BORTHWICK, R.A. HODGES, R.M. JACOBI, H.W. PEN- GELLY, L.F. PITTS, I.F. SMITH, V.A. TATTON-BROWN, A. VINCE* An outline chronology for the Box Roman villa, together with new structural evidence, is provided by small-scale rescue excavations and selective re-excavation, and the character of the site as a whole is reassessed. Aspects discussed include the significance of a large apsidal room added to the villa in the late third or fourth century. The relationship between Box and neighbouring villas and the question of continuity into the post-Roman period are also considered. Further information 1s also provided about the natural tufa deposit at Box, together with evidence for possible Mesolithic, Neolithic and medieval occupation. INTRODUCTION (Figures 1, 3) In 1968-9 a new village hall (the Selwyn Hall) was built at Valens Terrace, Box, on a 4 acre site situated immediately to the northeast of the known remains of the Box Roman villa. The Ministry of Public Building and Works (now HBMCE) sponsored a four-week _ excavation in December 1967 and January 1968 to test the site for archaeological remains. The area lay largely outside the main villa buildings, but the discovery of stratified groups of finds provided the _ first steps towards a chronology for this hitherto undated site. A further ‘research’ excavation (mainly re-excavation of part of the east and north wings, in the _ gardens of The Wilderness and the Vicarage) was carried out during June and July 1968 in order to relate these finds to the villa’s main structural sequence. In the winter of 1968 a trench was dug to look for a southwards extension of the west wing and there was small-scale excavation in the area * H.R. HURST Museum of Classical Archaeology, Uni- versity of Cambridge Box Hedges, Horton, Devizes, Wilts. Archaeology — Wiltshire County Council. Library & Museums Service, Bythesea Rd. Trowbridge, Wilts. BA14 8BS City Museum, Gloucester County Museum, Liverpool Dept. of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Sheffield Dept. of Classics and Archaeology, Uni- versity of Lancaster 14, Denmark Street, Bletchley, Milton Keynes F.K. ANNABLE C. FISHER | L.F. PITTS Dept. of Classics, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College LF. SMITH 2 Church Walk, Avebury, Wilts V.A. TATTON-BROWN Dept. of Greek and Roman Anuquities, British Museum A. VINCE D.V.A., Museum of London immediately east of the east wing. Further observa- tions have more recently been made in the garden of the Wilderness by Mrs. K. Carless and she carried out a small excavation in 1982 in the grounds of The Hermitage, over 100 m to the southwest of the nucleus of the villa (to be published separately). The main aim of the present report is to set out our understanding of the chronology and development of the villa in the light of the 1967-8 work, and it also presents new information about the pre- and post- Roman periods encountered in the excavations. An apology must be made for the long delay in producing it, mainly due to the writers’ commitments elsewhere: an earlier draft has been revised, taking account of knowledge in 1986. THE SETTING (Figures 1-2, 13) Box is situated near the southern limit of the Cotswolds, some 8 km east of Bath. The site of the Roman villa is a terrace, which runs approximately east-west for about 100 m along the S. side of the Box Brook valley. This terrace is at a level of c. 45 m A.O.D, and is about 30 m wide, with the ground falling steeply on its north and rising equally abruptly on the south towards Kingsdown Hill. The east and west sides of the terrace join the general slope of the Box Brook valley, the northeast corner corresponding more or less to the present northeast corner of The Wilderness garden. The main agency in the formation of this terrace has been a series of springs which even now gush vigorously out of the limestone hillside at about 50 m A.O.D. The soluble salts carried in their water have in the past formed a solid precipitate of calcareous 20 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE BOX ROMAN VILLA LOCATION” ‘OF SITE A known A propa Land over 250 ft Other Roman sites Pavemeni re (before pane Church? coins and pottery® ER A Herr stag SINS as Figure 1. Location of site Figure 2. Site of villa, looking SE across valley of Box Brook. Villa extends from arrowed buildings (Valens Terrace) to church (marked by steeple) EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 tufa, which has built up to form the terrace. Confir- mation that the eastern limit of the terrace correspon- ded to that of the tufa was obtained at the Selwyn Hall site (see Figure 13, section A—A’). The combination of an abundant water supply and the light soil which formed above the tufa evidently made this spot attractive for human habitation in successive periods. Apart from the Neolithic and Roman occupation revealed in the excavations, this area was the centre of Box at least from Late Saxon umes until the village spread eastwards along the Bath-Chippenham road in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. | THE TUFA FORMATION AND POSSIBLE MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION The precise environmental conditions required for the formation of limestone tufa are still the subject of _ study and discussion (cf. for example Preece 1980, on Blashenwell, Dorset). A general explanation of the Box formation is that the calcareous salts carried in the spring water precipitated into a solid mass at the | lower end of the deposit, creating a marshy area or pond where the flow of water was impeded nearer to the springs. The pond in The Wilderness garden might be a last relic of this, having formerly been the pond of a medieval mill owned by Monkton Farleigh Priory. It corresponds approximately to the position of the courtyard of the Roman villa. The Box tufa was examined in 1939 by Henry Bury /at a point which seems to have been close to its _western or northwestern edge since the hard tufa here /was only some 9 inches (0.23 m) thick (Bury and Kennard 1940; the sample studied is said to have been in the grounds of Box House ‘on a fairly steep slope at about 140 ft. O.D., on the north side of the Bath — Chippenham road’, op. cit., 149). A single flint flake found in the 1939 excavation was suggested from its iron-staining to have come from the tufa, which was similarly stained, and J.G.D. Clark noted that it had been struck from a pyramidal core and could therefore be Mesolithic. By analogy with Blashenwell and Prestatyn, Flintshire, where Mesolithic artefacts were securely stratified beneath tufa deposits, it was suggested that the Box tufa might date to the Mesolithic period or later (Preece 1980 gives a date range of c. 9000-5000 bp for the formation of the Blashenwell tufa). The climatic indications given by the molluscs from the Box House deposit were inter- preted as being appropriate to the Mesolithic period (Bury and Kennard 1940, 152). In the present excavations at the eastern edge of the tufa deposit one flint blade appeared to underlie the 21 tufa where it petered out in the Selwyn Hall site, but the tufa layer was patchy at this point and a single find would have to be treated with caution. However, since 18 of the 26 flints came from the very small area where the excavation extended just beyond the eastern limit of the tufa, it seems likely that the tufa may cover a flint-working site. There were too few flints to allow a cultural diagnosis any firmer than Dr Jacobi’s suggestion that the material would be ‘most “at home” in a late Mesolithic or early Neolithic context’ (p. 44, below), but since there was evidence of Early Neolithic occupation on top of the tufa, there is a good case for any flints predating it being Mesolithic. NEOLITHIC OCCUPATION (Figures 14, 19) One flint scraper and eight sherds of pottery (descri- bed below, p. 44) were found in the fill of a pit or gulley cut into the top of the tufa in the southeast corner of Trench 23 in The Wilderness garden (figure 14). Only a very small part of this feature could be excavated between the walls of the Roman building and the edge of the trench (Figure 19, Section J—K). THE ROMAN VILLA PREVIOUS WORK AND APPROACH TO PRESENT STUDY The earliest recorded discoveries are described in the Gentleman’s Magazine of 1831 and 1833, but as the account of 1833 makes clear, there was already a tradition of Roman remains in the village of Box. The site was dug sporadically through the rest of the nineteenth century and, on the initiative of Mr Hardy, a local shopkeeper, extensively excavated in 1902-3. The results of this work, which revealed a substantial part of the villa’s plan, were coordinated with earlier discoveries and published by Sir Harold Brakspear in 1904. Brakspear’s report, which includes an accurate plan of the villa, photographs and drawings of the main mosaics and a room-by- room description, in effect sets out all that was known when the present work began. It was clear from this that the most useful task in 1967-8 was to attempt to establish a chronology for the site. Here the stratigraphic evidence from the excavations is first summarised and correlated with the likely typological dating of the mosaics; then the development of the site is considered more widely. Discussions and detailed reports follow. {Summary bibliography: Genr’s Mag 1831, 1, 595-6; 1833, 1, 357-8; H.M. Scarth, Aquae Solis (1864), 119; WAM. xxvi, 405-9 (hereafter Goddard 1897); xxvii, 258-9, xxniii, 22 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 236-69 (Brakspear 1904); xxxvi, 489-90 (corrections to Brakspear); xliii, 335 (objects found 1922-6, mainly garden of Box House?); xlv, 177; li, 193; Ixiv, 123 (preliminary report of present work); Ixxvui, 149-50 (potter’s stamp, The Hermitage); Arch. Fourn. \xi, 1-32 (same as W.A.M. xxxiii, 236-69); civ, 89, fig. 1, no. 17, 94; 111, no. 30 (plough- share); Journ. Brit. Arch. Asscn. xvi, 340; xlitt, 47-55; Devizes Museum Catalogue ii (1934), 197-8, pls. Ixii, Ixxx, no. 1; V.C.H. Wilts. 1, part 2 (1973), 448-9, 453, 463-4, 484] SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FROM 1967-8 EXCAVATIONS (Figure 3) At the northeast corner of the villa a first-phase construction seems to have included the northeast room (Room X) and external corridors to N. and E. This was a stone building, probably having a fired- clay tile roof and built before the middle of the second century; there are indications of demolition around that date (Horizons 16, 17 in Stratigraphic report, p. 36-7, below, hereafter H16 etc.). The walls to the N of the main range of rooms and northern corridor appear to have been replaced in a second phase by much more substantial walls than elsewhere (Phase 2A, H18), suggesting that a struc- tural defect was being remedied (caused by the north- wards thrust at the edge of the terrace on which the villa was situated) or perhaps the northern corridor was now terraced out in two storeys to take advantage of the slope (section on Figure 15). A wall was added blocking the corridor near the corner (Phase 2B, H19). No further structural changes are apparent until after the deposition of a burnt layer containing copperworking remains and third- to fourth-century pottery (H20), directly overlain by demolition depos- its associated with a general rebuilding (H21). Frag- ments of mosaic in H21 show that the first/second- phase villas had mosaic floors, and there was painted plaster on the walls as well as window glass of a second-century type. The rebuilding involved principally the construc- tion of a large apsidal-ended room, Room XXVI, at the NE corner of the villa and the remaking of the eastern external corridor outside it (Phase 3A, H21). This seems to have been structurally inadequate as first designed, since its E. and S. walls and the E. wall of the rebuilt E. corridor were all ‘doubled up’ with more substantial foundations (Phase 3B, H22). It is difficult to tell whether this occurred at a later date or during the initial building. The ground was generally made up to a higher level than before inside the building, and the mosaic floors in Rooms VIII and IX can be associated with this phase of construction (H23). Phases 3A, 3B have a terminus post quem of the late third-/fourth century from the pottery found in H20 and a few sherds in H21 and H23. Alterations were later made to the corridor area east of the apsidal hall (Phase 4, H24). The Phase 3 rebuilding may have occurred at the same time as the construction of an eastern extension to its east wing, since this also has a terminus post quem provided by a group of late third- to early fourth- century pottery in an associated culvert and external linear feature (H3, 4, 5; north-south external found- ation of this date or later, H6; H7, silting of culvert; H8, later rubble makeup or destruction). An oth- erwise unassociated wall running N-S on a slightly oblique line may be an enclosure wall relating to this extension of the villa (H9). A cow burial associated with twelfth-century pot- tery was found above robbed walls in the east wing extension (H10) and, further east, a ditch of medieval or post-medieval date cut across the same structure (H11). There was a general stony loam accumulation and other features above this (H12, 13) extending up to the nineteenth- and twentieth-century use of the area as the Vicarage garden (H14). At the northeast corner of the villa the fill of robber trenches and a stony loam accumulation (H15) were succeeded by deposits belonging to the 1902-3 excav- ation (H26) and modern garden features (H27, 28). CHRONOLOGY OF THE MOSAIC FLOORS (Figures 4, 5) Box had one of the richest collections of mosaic floors of any building in Roman Britain, with remains of floors recorded in twenty of its rooms (equalling the total known for Woodchester). There are illustrations of eight floors, in Rooms, I, IV, VI, VII, IX, XX, XXX, XXXI (cited individually below), the others being found in a fragmentary condition. The mosaic in Room VI (Brakspear 1904, colour plate, fig. 3, and pls. facing and following p. 248) was described by D.J. Smith (1975, 274) as ‘lozenge pattern developed to an extreme’; he therefore placed it typologically later than other examples in a second- century group of lozenge patterns and suggested a possible third-century date (op. cit; using an elabo- rated version of this typology, Cookson, 1984, 20 and Appendix E, assigned this floor to the second half of the second century). However, the design of the floor has some similarities with one of the repeated designs surrounding the central panel in the fourth-century Orpheus mosaic at Woodchester (Cookson 1984, pl. 43; Branigan 1976, ill. 24) and, although uncertainty remains, Smith would now be inclined to advance its dating to the (early?) fourth century (pers. comm.: I ~ am indebted to Dr. Smith for this comment). A 23 (FO6I IJeadsyerg ase) QOS:] I pIA fo unig “¢ aansi] | EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 l | SOJAW OF oz — T T —1— igh Me || }994 O01 06 o8 OZ 09g f ' 1 = fal aks S aa : r @H ) i} r LI eAXX Xe a et Se Re eee - 9H eal AIX XX 10 CLLLZL | fz gee ee iL = L WX XX7BH em uapsen e ~~ Cs eid la L= at XXX f£ dsayog se / ; S961 XO" | / | d f | f | asnoy—/ fi: | | Re y | . / | €€ 4 Sy ~ SS aT TTB AT \NIAX Se Geass haere sar uapie6 = abevesi, ae. 4 G ILAX = ie AGG : pudog SE 4L = o WY oe =) foes iy) — Y xix We 1 7 pee 2 A. =f ae fH : ut IAKXX rl ZZ. Zz LMA LLLLLL? | li ' rates | ti = iz) AIX =. Cc See vA | . v 5 i] fi a é- iz i }] HAXX <--.4 y j Ze B® Ixx u Se === 4 Zi / at “ | | = ay A: 1 / eof | HIAXXX 7 ia y! // = = | = \\ ‘Zi My) N ! ' SH Vt Pelosi eee ue, N pea BE ber: : i eet ocr cee Z te ete ene eo im A ss enlily a a Z it Y Q A | WY JN, DR Ge eee --- IlEH UAMag G | aoeuay | sua|en 24 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Figure 4. Mosaic in Room IX, looking N. Fire discolouration towards r. of floor. second-century dating would, on the other hand, conform with indications of a second-century phase of the villa (mosaic referred to above in H21; Mrs Carless also informs me that tesserae were found with second-century pottery at the Hermitage) and it may also be noted that this floor did not rest on a hypocaust, unlike the others in the north range; this might support an early date if the hypocausts were a secondary addition to the villa. The other illustrated floors have simple designs, blue meander patterns on a white background, or the blue and red pelta on a white background of the courtyard corridor. As these are decorative elements which formed a basic part of a mosaicist’s repertory, they are less susceptible of typology, although they would come into the category of ‘simple geometric patterns’, which Cookson cites as characteristic of the later third and fourth centuries in central southwest England (op. cit., 48; he does not refer specifically to any of the Box pavements). Room VIII (Brakspear 1904, figure on p. 249), which has a central square containing a twisted knot in white, red and blue tesserae surrounded by ‘relieved meander’ in blue tesserae on a white background, is unlikely to be earlier than the late third-/fourth-century rebuilding (the floor must have abutted Wall 21 on the south; cf. Stratigraphic Report, Horizon 23, below). If the meander patterns can be regarded as a group laid at the same time, they would all thereby have a late third-/fourth-century date. The other floors are: Room IV, a corridor, similar meander pattern to Room VIII, with a cream (=oolite?) border (op. cit., pl. following p. 246); Rooms XXX, corridor leading to baths, two interlocking simple meanders and XXXI, room with semicircular cold plunge (?), join- ing Room XXX, another interlocking linear pattern (Goddard 1897, plates facing p. 407); Room XX, a more elaborate version of the interlocking meanders of Room XXX, with a cream (oolite) border (op. cit., colour plate, fig. 1). EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 % am, at = Figure 5. Mosaic in courtyard corridor (Room 1), Tr. 27, looking E. Room IX, a corridor west of the large apsidal chamber, had a simple chessboard design in oolite and Pennant sandstone (Figure 4): on stratigraphic grounds this should be not earlier than the late third-/fourth century rebuilding (Stratigraphic Report, Horizon 23, below). In its materials and cruder workmanship (tesserae c. 0.02 m across or larger, more irregularly shaped than in the other floors), it stands apart from the floors just described and it might therefore be tempting to regard it as later. Room 1, the courtyard corridor, had a pelta-pattern design in blue and red tesserae on a white background (figure 5; Brakspear 1904, colour plate, fiig. 2: the floor as excavated in Trench 27 only occasionally had lines of yellow tesserae inside the peltae, also the border is shown as cream whereas in the excavation it was white lias; the centres of the peltae, which are drawn black in Brakspear’s illustration, were of blue tesserae in the excavation). This is again paralleled most easily in late contexts such as the late fourth- century site at Lydney Park (Room XXXV of the bath building, the corridor in the ‘guest house’ or Room LXV of the temple: Wheeler 1932, 66, pls. 1, XXA, XXIIA) or room 14 at Chedworth, where there is a border guilloche (Cookson 1984, pl. 58a). Finally, the large apsidal chamber, Room XXYI, is said to have had a floor of small tesserae, some pieces making a guilloche pattern, and a border of large ‘chocolate-coloured’ tesserae (=Pennant sandstone? — see p. 47, below: Brakspear 1904, 251, referring to Room X, but the floor is likely to belong to the later build since it was intact in the rebuilt southwest corner: Stratigraphic Report, Horizons 21-2). The fragments of mosaic found in Horizon 21 suggest that Room X had a mosaic floor prior to the rebuilding (in which it became Room XXVI): this would be another possible second-century floor from its stratigraphic context. 26 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Tj, (fe A . 7g . EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 NTERPRETATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF SITE (Figures 1, 3, 6) The earliest stages of the Roman occupation at Box are not yet understood, but the find of a pre-Roman coin in the grounds of Box House (W.A.M. li, 193) ‘hints at early occupation to the west of the main villa site. By the mid-second century there is evidence for occupation on the main villa site and also west and east of it. ‘About 30 small fragments’ of samian pottery were probably found at Box House (W.A.M. xliii, 335: location not stated, cf. p. 45, below, on coins); at the Hermitage a ditch containing late first- to second-century pottery was excavated (Mrs Carless kindly informed me of this); east of the main villa nucleus, a wall foundation and finds including a stamped samian vessel were made when the ground was levelled for the bowling green east of Valens Terrace (information from the Rev. Selwyn Smith, former vicar of Box). The second-century villa building was therefore part of a larger settlement, as is to be expected, with the more functional buildings for an agricultural estate and perhaps lesser dwellings and religious or funerary structures yet to be discovered. The possible layout in the late third/fourth century is discussed below. The main villa is shown to have had both mosaics and probably window glass in the second century, while the most likely reconstruction of its plan prior to the major late third-/fourth-century rebuilding ‘suggests that it was already a courtyard building. Excavation has shown that the north range with its ‘external corridor and at least part of the east range existed. Brakspear’s description of the rooms further west indicates that there were two major building periods at the NW corner (op. cit. 260-2), with a probable first period consisting of rooms flanked by an external corridor of the same width as the north and east ranges. Thus it is also likely that there was a west range. The main elements of uncertainty are how far to the south the building extended and whether it already had a courtyard corridor and colonnade (cf. ‘Trench 27, p. 42, below). On the west, the external corridor, which appears to have been interrupted or ‘removed in the next period of building, seems to continue to the southernmost limit shown in Figure 3 and the eastern external corridor extends almost as far. If so, the wings flanking the main north range were already deeper than in the normal modest ‘winged corridor’ villa, where there were one or perhaps two rooms in the side ranges. This would point towards some sort of courtyard arrangement. For this it would be desirable to have an internal corridor/colonnade. Whether Room | already existed 27 is uncertain: such indications as there are for the date of its mosaic (above) and character of its makeup (see below) incline towards a later dating, yet the absolute level of this floor is somewhat below that of other floors belonging to the later rebuild (cf. Figuce 19, Sections G-G’, of the corridor mosaic, and H-H’, of Room XI, where the floor must have been above the top surviving makeup level, 24). The northern facade of the villa was terraced out from the valley side and may have been two-storeyed to the extent of having a first-floor corridor at the level of the main rooms higher up the hillside with a basement space, perhaps a service corridor, beneath it (Figure 15). The insubstantial nature of the found- ation for the outer wall of the eastern external corridor suggests that it might have been a colonnade or dwarf colonnade (Brakspear 1904, 253, illustrates the capital of a dwarf column reused just N. of Room XX; what looks like a shaft fragment of a full-sized column is shown among debris beside the buttresses of Room XXVI, idem, plate facing p. 255; W.A.M. xliii, 335 refers to two pieces of plain stone columns being found). If the first-floor corridor on the north is also reconstructed with a colonnaded or arcaded outer facade, the aspect of the villa when seen from the north across the valley of the Box Brook would be reminiscent of the classic image of a rich country dwelling, as portrayed in the ‘Dominus Julius’ mosaic from Carthage (Figure 7, although this, of course, shows the front facade of a villa). Neal (1974, 91) has drawn attention to the simi- larity between the general plan of Box at this stage (including the courtyard corridor) and the contem- porary villa at Gadebridge Park, Hemel Hempstead, (Building A, Period 3). In the late third or fourth century, the villa in- creased in size by the extension of the east wing; water disposal arrangements show that the baths were in operation; and the northeast corner of the earlier house was rebuilt to accommodate a large apsidal- ended room, Room XXVI (Figures 6, 15). All these developments have not been proved conclusively to be part of a single rebuilding, though this seems prob- able. A number of mosaics can be assigned to this expanded stage of the villa, though they are not necessarily all of the same date: these include the chessboard-pattern floor of the corridor, Room IX, traces of a mosaic in Room XXVI, and the blue and white meander-patterns in Rooms II, IV, VIII, XX, XXX and XXXI. Assuming that the less-excavated west wing of the villa extended as far south as the east wing (this is perhaps supported by the tradition mentioned in Gentleman’s Magazine 1831, i, 595, that ‘several 28 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Figure 7. ‘Dominus Julius’ mosaic (in Bardo Museum, Tunis), showing African villa. The baths and ‘status room’ are shown as distinct structures behind the facade. beautiful tessellated pavements had formerly been found in the churchyard and gardens adjoining. . .’), the plan of the villa was now probably of the ‘double- courtyard’ type, characteristic of rich Gallic and British villas and exemplified by the well-known sites of Chedworth and Bignor. In this the residence proper (sometimes referred to as the villa urbana, after Columella) was set in an inner courtyard, with ranges of rooms often occupying three sides and a wall with gateway on the fourth side dividing it from a less rigidly planned outer court. The outer court usually contained subsidiary residential quarters and some farm buildings; it was also an appropriate location for a bath building since this facility might be shared between the estate owner and his subordinates. The easiest way to reconstruct the Box plan would be with the baths in an outer court and a dividing wall crossing the present pond in The Wilderness garden (Mrs Carless informs me that traces of such a wall might have been found when the pond was recently cleaned out). The southern limit of the outer court would be the point where the ground rises steeply at the southern limit of the modern churchyard and gardens fronting Church Lane. Access to the whole complex could have been either from the southeast (as modern Church Lane) or from the southwest, from the direction of Box House. This reconstruction regrettably means that a considerable part of the plan is sull missing, even if the villa’s basic character as a rural mansion is not in doubt. However, a closer look at the architecture and’ significance of the apsidal- ended Room XXVI provides further insights: it is argued below (p. 31) that this room had at least a partly ‘public’ function, uluumately copying the archi- tecture of the imperial palaces; and this shows that Box was at least the centre of a great estate. The latest Roman structural evidence can be explained as the division of the former portico (?) to the east of Room XXVI into rooms. IEXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 DISCUSSIONS Alternative interpretation A radical alternative interpretation of Box is that the main excavated building might have been similar to the ‘guest house’ at the Lydney temple site which it resembles in plan (Wheeler 1932, end plan). At Lydney this building was situated at one end of a courtyard containing the temple, together with a separate bath building and ‘long building’ along another side of the court. Religious artefacts have certainly been found at Box: the Hunter God relief referred to below; the ‘small perfectly plain altar measuring 22’ inches high by about 10 inches square’, found in Room XV and now in Devizes |Museum (Brakspear 1904, 252); possibly the frag- mentary Neptune relief (W.A.M. xliii, 335) and a silver eye found recently at the Hermitage (inform- ation Mrs. Carless), which is reminiscent of the pottery and incised-plaster eyes from P.A. Barker’s excavations at Wroxeter. The abundant springs at Box might also have attracted a water cult such as was common in the Celtic world. However all of these religous phenomena would be compatible with the site’s use as a villa: the significance of the Hunter God is discussed below, the altar may have been for domestic purposes (as its small size might suggest), the Neptune relief is not necessarily religious, the ‘eye cult’ relics at Wroxeter were not from an overtly ‘religious’ site, there was a ‘water cult’ at the Ched- jworth villa, with a shrine over the water source. Also, Lydney has a quite different history from Box, being a large complex constructed de novo in the late fourth century. For these reasons the conventional villa interpretation remains the most plausible, though it will be worth keeping at least a partly open mind for any future discoveries. Note: The above was written before I read Webster (1983) on the function of Chedworth Roman ‘villa’. This cites the ‘same list of artefacts at Box (op. cit., 15) together with ‘a ‘length of iron rod sheathed in bronze, which may have been part of a sceptre’ (the reference given in the Catalogue of Antiquities in Devizes Museum is incorrect and I have not ‘seen this object) and reaches the same conclusion about the possibility of a water-cult. Webster raises the possibility that ‘Chedworth also might have functioned as a ‘healing spa’ like Lydney and that this interpretation might also apply to the Sites at Nettleton Scrub, Gadebridge Park and Lufton.] Note on Hunter God sculpture Some indication of date can be provided for the well-known relief of a Hunter God from Box (Brak- Spear 1904, pl. on p. 255; Toynbee 1964, pl. x!vd). This is an incomplete piece, showing the middle 29 secuon, from the chest to the thighs, of a figure clothed in a tunic and carrying two beasts, one of which is a wild boar, but the quality of the carving is such as to have enthused Toynbee in her survey of Art in Britain under the Romans: ‘even in its mutilated state... one of the most satisfying extant pieces of Romano-British sculpture known to us. . . There are few broken sculptures of this country whose incompleteness we could regret more deeply’ (Toyn- bee 1964, 179). Brakspear’s report (1904, 256) states that the sculpture was found ‘in made ground’ in Room XXII. The most likely context would seem to be the general late third-/fourth-century rebuild, Horizons 21, 23 (p. 37, 39, below), when the ground level was made up by at least 0.7 m in this room. This would suggest that the sculpture predated the rebuild and thus perhaps derived from the earlier, second century (2) period of construction. A brief comment can be added on the association between this sculpture and its villa setting. Hunting in Roman, as in earlier and later times, was regarded as an elite, and even imperial, activity. This is shown, for example, by the Hadrianic hunting roundels reused on the Arch of Constantine in Rome and by the popularity of hunting scenes on rich sarcophagi. Hunting as a part of villa life is described in the writings of Sidonius Apollinaris (talking about fifth- century Gaul) and illustrated in the contemporary mosaics of North Africa. Thus a hunting sculpture at Box can be seen as part of its ‘upper class’ material culture (see also following section); another relief from a British villa, which probably portrays a Hunter God, is known from Chedworth (Toynbee, op. cit., 179). Significance of the apsidal room (Room XXVI). (Fig- ures 3, 6-8, 15) The most noticeable feature of this room is its scale. With an internal area of over 76 sq. m, it is just twice the size of the next-largest room in the villa (Room III), and as comparison with the plan of the Audience Chamber at Fishbourne shows (Figure 8d, after Cun- liffe 1971, 87), it is one of the largest rooms in a domestic building in Roman Britain. When it is reconstructed in three dimensions, by adding typical Roman room-heights in proportion with its plan, its total effect would be to dominate the villa in the way shown in Figure 6. Internally scale was probably allied to a strong architectural effect. The normal way of treating an apsidal plan in Roman architecture was to carry the walls up to a semi-dome; if the rest of the room had a rectangular plan, as here, there might be a THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 30 SOUIOY (sprempy ‘eiddy eta “Ay Aq umesp) uoqoiury y sUOlssul[NT 3 ‘10usTg J ‘xog 3 squINOQYsty p SeusWIY ezzelg 9 ‘sntuoxeyp Jo e]]TA q fowoy “eueisn3ny snurog e :suIoor papus-lepisde jo surjd aaneseduroy -g aimsrz EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 _ barrel-vaulted ceiling along its long axis, which would end in the semi-dome. The whole effect would be to produce a strong axial focus on the curving end; this is a standard device for rooms with an ‘important end’, as for example the civil basilica (where the magis- trates’ tribunal might be situated) or sometimes in the cella of a temple, where the cult statue might be located. Why should Box have such a room? Two main functions can be suggested: first that of a ¢riclinium or dining room, the apse reflecting a fourth-century vogue for the semi-circular dining couch (stabadium); in very wealthy residences this often led to elaborate | plans, notably the ‘triconch’ or three-apsed halls — of which there is a probable British example at Littlecote Park — or sull more complicated designs, perhaps best illustrated in Britain by the hexagonal room at Keyn- ‘sham. Secondly apsidal-ended rooms in important _ dwellings often served a specifically ‘public’ function. | Figure 8 shows some parallels and suggests that their | pedigree can be traced back to rooms with a specific function in palatial dwellings: a is the ‘basilica’ in the Domus Augustana in Rome, one of a group of three | ‘public’ rooms in the imperial palace (MacDonald, | 1982, fig. 6 for measurements and plan). Its precise |use is somewhat disputed — it is suggested that this | was where the emperor may have exercised a judicial | role or/and where he received his consilium or advisers — but in either case the architecture would probably -have worked to the same end of emphasizing the ‘relationship between the emperor and any others present: by setting his person in the apse his superi- ority would be clearly stated. The Audience Chamber in the Fishbourne palace was similar. Although on a much smaller scale, the architectural effect was heightened here by the axial position of this room in the palace as a whole, across the great central courtyard from the main entrance hall. The Domus Augustana and Fishbourne are both first-century examples; by the fourth century the ceremony and ritual surrounding the public appearances of the ‘emperor had been greatly formalised, as is perhaps best shown by the elaborate audience chamber and approach to it in Diocletian’s palace at Split. The huge apsidal hall in the Villa of Maxentius by the Via Appia (Figure 86: Pisani Sartorio 1976, pl. lvii) shows ‘a similar architectural treatment to the first-century examples in a rural (or suburban) setting: for all the ‘difference of scale, this room dominates the rest of the ivilla in a similar way to the apsidal room at Box. The use of this ‘imperial’ architecture by figures lower down the social scale is shown most strikingly at the villa of Piazza Armerina in Sicily (Figure 8c: 3] Carandini et al. 1982, pl. xxxii), which also dates to the first quarter of the fourth century: this was formerly thought to have been a residence of the same emperor Maxentius, but it has now been argued convincingly that this was the residence of someone of senatorial rank (Wilson 1984, op. cit.). In the most grandiose residences there was an evident separation between public and private func- tional areas. Piazza Armerina, for example, has a triconch dining room at the head of a subsidiary court as well as the huge single-apsed hall shown in Figure 8c; the latter was reached from the main peristyle via the corridor with the Great Hunt mosaic, as would be appropriate for a room with a public role. This separation is also shown clearly in late antique urban buildings such as the Palace of the Dux at Apollonia, Cyrenaica, or the Governor’s Palace at Aphrodisias: at the former site an apsidal hall on the north side of the building had an explicitly ‘public’ character, since it could be reached directly from a vestibule opening onto the street; an opening in the apse at the far end of the room enabled the owner of the house to create maximum effect by his entry (Ellis 1985; I am grateful to Dr. Ellis for his help with this discussion). In a comfortable, but not exceptional, rural man- sion such as Box, which was perhaps at the head of a moderate rural estate, the distinction between ‘pri- vate’ (dining) and ‘public’ (audience) rooms is likely to have been blurred, both because of the general tendency in modest examples of any building type to be mulufunctional and also because the distinction between public and private here is somewhat arti- ficial. An estate-owner displaying his wealth and status to his dining guests was not wholly acting a private role; nor was his reception of political allies or hearing of petitions and adjudication of disputes among clientes and dependants entirely a public activity. In practice the giving of hospitality and exercise of power must have overlapped much as they did in the English country house of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. One room combining these functions would, therefore, suffice for all except the very grandest of Romano-Britsh villas. It is indeed the case that many of the major villas are dominated by one particularly large room, sometimes axially placed, as the hexagonal room at Witcombe, sometimes apsidal-ended, as in the four examples shown in Figure 8 (e, Box; /, Bignor, after Frere 1982, figure 3; g, Lullingstone, after Meates 1979, figure 6; h, Winterton, after Stead 1976, figure 33). From an entirely different set of data, the repre- sentations of villas on African mosaics, Sarnowski reached, in effect, the same conclusion, arguing that 52 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE in a number of cases, notably the Dominus Julius mosaic (Figure 7), a deliberate effort has been made to represent one particularly large room, shown more or less as a separate building, in order to convey the status of the villa and its owner as a man of public importance (Sarnowski 1978, 76-9, 113-5). Here, then, is a potentially useful tool for studying villas in general, enabling us to distinguish those with a ‘status’ role on the more or less objective ground of whether a certain room — or suite of rooms (as suggested for the largest villas) — is present. The whole question deserves further research, since it may provide a more significant and precise criterion for the classification of top-rank villas than the ill-defined ones of general size and degree of luxury that have been used in Britain up to now (eg. Rivet’s ‘A’ and ‘B’ villas: Rivet 1969, 211-3). It is also hoped that by stressing the way British villas reflect changes occurring elsewhere in the Roman world this discuss- ion will work as an antidote to the insular nature of some recent villa studies. [Note: A comment may be added on one detail of the Box apsidal room, the rectangular foundation on its east side beside the start of the apse (Wall 4B, H21, Figure 15). This may have been no more than an external buttress or might be the base for steps to an entrance just south of the apse. Such an entrance would be suitable for a dominus to hold audience, with his petitioners approaching from the far end of the room (cf. the Palace of the Dux at Apollonia and Figure 8a, b), or would equally well suit diners using the apse and those who served them] Box as the centre of an estate; post-Roman ‘continuity (Figure 9): with Richard Hodges Apart from the considerations just set out, two other approaches to Box as the centre of a landholding deserve discussion. Branigan (1976, 90-2) suggested that it belongs with other rich villas at the top of a hierarchy of rural sites, with lesser villas tending to occur in clusters around them, as if they were subor- dinate elements in large landholdings. Bonney (1973, 484) had previously drawn attention to the similar pattern of villas and Domesday manors in Box parish and speculated on the possibilities of continuity between the late Roman and medieval settlement. The nearest known or possible villa sites to Box are Ditteridge, c. 2 km. to the north, and Hazelbury, c. 1.5 km to the south, both in Box parish, and Atworth, Colerne and Bradford-on-Avon in neighbouring parishes, c. 5-10 km away. The site at Ditteridge has not been securely located, while that at Hazelbury is known from an eighteenth-century illustration of a mosaic and an air photograph taken in 1975 (Figure 9) showing curvilinear and rectangular enclosures (the latter looks typically Roman, although field-walking has revealed a twelth- to fourteenth-century deserted medieval village in this area; see notes below). Atworth is a luxury villa in its own right, while . Colerne is of the more modest ‘intra-mural yard’ type (in Branigan’s terminology, op. cit.), but these sites and Bradford-on-Avon are probably too far from Box to have direct links with it. In any case, detailed survey is required to say any more about settlement in the area. Where this has been done, as for example the aerial work by Agache (1978) in the Somme valley, or the work by Leech (1982) in Somerset or the Oxfordshire Unit’s work in the Upper Thames valley (Miles 1982), a wide range of sites is seen to occur in the villa-dominated landscape and there appears to have been a varying, and evidently complex, rela- tionship between the large villas and lesser sites. Through these and other surveys now being done we may soon be able to compare patterns of Roman rural settlement over environmentally comparable land- scapes and from that make more solidly-based deduc- tions about their social organisation. The ‘continuity’ discussion would also, it is hoped, now be seen in a different perspective. A distinction has to be made between continuity of physical elements in the landscape, both natural and man- made, which may influence settlement patterns (for example, a geographically favourable setting such as that of Box, reflected in the multi-period settlement on the site, or an earlier man-made feature such as a Roman road influencing later manor or parish bound- aries) and continuity of economic and social organis- ation. Bonney argued persuasively for the former in northwest Wiltshire, by demonstrating the rela- tionship between parish boundaries and Roman fea- tures, but this tells us nothing about the second element. Without labouring the point, all that we have learnt over the last decades in archaeology tends to stress the break between Roman and post-Roman (which might anyway be expected from the general differences in the economy of these two periods): where survey work has been done, as Leech’s work in Somerset, the correlation between Roman and post- Roman settlement patterns is not impressive. Grinsell has shown that while 70% of the villas in Wiltshire were also the foci of Domesday manors, only 30% of the Domesday sites as a whole have known Roman antecedents, a pattern which could best be explained by both villas and manors occupying favourable loca- tions and there being otherwise no significant link between the two patterns of settlement. EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 Notes on Ditteridge and Hazelbury | Dutteridge: Scarth (1864, 119) suggested there was a villa and reports the finding of ‘several imperial coins’ in July 1813 in the orchard at Cheney Court (cf. also W.A.M. xlv, 186). | Field walking in recent years has failed to locate any villa, although abraded Romano-British sherds have been found in the fields above the small Norman-period church. Hazelbury: Musgrave (1719, 150-3) reported a villa and illustrated a mosaic: aerial photograph, Figure 9,taken in 1975 by West Air Photography. Mr T. Webster told ' Richard Hodges’ father that when he worked on the Hazelbury estate in the 1930s he broke up a Roman tessel- lated pavement that was kept in one of the farm buildings and used it for aggregate when making a new concrete floor. Hazelbury manor was renowned in medieval times as a | centre for the ‘Bath stone’ quarries. As noted above, a DMV | has been located by field survey on the slopes of the combe below the manor house, but no further Roman evidence has been found. Figure 9. Cropmarks in field S. of Hazelbury Manor, looking N.E.: end of Box village in background. (West Air Photography) STRATIGRAPHIC REPORT: SELWYN HALL SITE AND NE CORNER OF THE WILDERNESS GARDEN (figures 10-19) While a sequence of building phases can be defined for the area re-excavated at the northeast corner of the villa, the evidence is too fragmented to allow the construction of a convincing site-wide sequence. So instead smaller stratigraphic groupings, here called ‘horizons’, have been used. These define particular activities or episodes of activity in the two main excavation areas (their chronological relationships are shown in Figure 10, based on the ‘Harris matrix’, Harris 1975). All excavated layers or ‘contexts’ are combined into twenty-eight horizons. They are here listed summarily under their appropriate horizon, noting those illustrated in section, and an index at the end of the report refers from trench and layer to 34 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Modern 1902-3 excavations 12th. cent. or later Latest Roman C.A.D. 270 or later C.A.D. 125-50 | Natural and pre-villa SELWYN HALL THE WILDERNESS Figure 10. Diagram showing chronological sequence from excavations (‘Harris matrix’, cf. Harris 1975). The numbers refer to ‘horizons’ in stratigraphical report. 35 EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 | boundary wall BOX 1967-8 | SELWYN HALL SITE | ORS F The Wilderness garden | | Selwyn Hall. site | | i ele Ae Sy bases Saar ae a } | ». SE | | | i =a | | | ie | | | | [ES je] 3 Ss ere) Ey | | = Ras es cE p 3 os | | | | | | Ray eal a Poy | | -9R¢ = OX = Cc’ | — \ | re , ] \ | A =< | | | | | | A | igo 31 7 4 | | : oo ae | | [oy pee PE SRE RR —— < & Oo 4 Pe 24) = aif — EN | ap) Re oa a a a 32 »] 34 etc WALL NUMBERS = 3% —— . B > tr 4 etc. TRENCH NUMBERS re A etc SECTION REFERENCE POINTS aA - - 1 0 5 10M. Vicarage garden F —tt bof i + ee -4y—+-4 4 J 5 0 30 FT Figure 11. Selwyn Hall site, plan 36 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE horizon. Description and discussion is given only where there are significant details of chronology or interpretation or unresolved problems. The layer numbering used is that of the original records, so that further information may readily be obtained from the site archive (held at Devizes Museum). Brakspear’s numbering of rooms, given in the 1904 report, is also retained. (Note: In the excavation walls were not given layer numbers; no attempt has been made to redress this) Horizons 1-14, Selwyn Hall site (Figures 11-13) (All section references to Figure 13. Trench 14 was the area of trs. 1, 8, 10, 12 combined) 1 Natural tufa: 4 13; 55, 8; 9,5; 13 4; 14 12, 13 (Sections A-A’, B-F, C-C’, D-D’, E-E’, F-F’). The tufa deposit did not extend to the eastern or northern limits of the site (observation during building). Layers beneath it were recorded at the south of the site in section A-A’. Its upper surface was irregular and, especially in tr. 14, pock-marked with holes of 0.1m diameter or less; these did not conform to any pattern. 2 Pre-villa: fine grey-brown loam, 1 9; 27; 36347; 5 3; 85; 9 4; 10 9, 11; 12 5; 14 6, 7 (Sections B-F, C-C’, E-E’, F-F’); small pit (?) — concentration of burnt clay lumps within fine loam, 1 10 (Section F-F’). Mid second- century pottery. 3. Culvert, S-N: 45, 6, 8-12; 17 3 (Sections D-D’; culvert, SW-NE: 16 3; gulley, S-N: 13 3: linear feature, S-N 5 4, 6, 7; 6 3; 10 6, 7; 14 10 (Section C-C’); redeposited tufa: 1 4; 10 8; 12 4; 145 Similar rubble was present in all features. The S-N culvert perhaps replaced an earlier feature since it was set in a trench unnecessarily large for its construction. Building rubble was used for its floor and reused masonry in its walls, including cut blocks similar to those im situ at the N. end of wall 5 (Horizon 16, below): Figure 12. The relationship between this culvert and wall 31 was not established in tr. 17 (recorded after contractors’ excavations), but Brak- spear’s plan shows it being fed by drains taking water from the east wing. The SW-NE culvert was possibly a continuation of the drain leading from the west side of the bath building. The linear feature was irregular-sided and varied in depth. Its southern limit was marked by wall 31, whose footings cut its rubble fill. It seems to have formed the eastern limit to the redeposited tufa; grey sandstone slabs were noted on top of this. The two combined might therefore represent an earlier timber-post building (with posts removed as no traces were found) or perhaps a garden feature. Large group of late third-/fourth-century pottery. 4. East range extension: Walls 31 and 32 and rubble makeup in Room XLII, SW-NE gulley (‘rumbling drain’): 1 6; 2 6; 10 10; 14 9, 14 (Sections B-F, F-F’). Late third-/fourth-century pottery. 5. Makeup for floor of room XX: opus signinum on rubble, 31 3 (Section E-E’). 6. Wall 33 (Section F-F’). One course only, dry-built of reused materials, resting on redeposited tufa of Hori- Figure 12. Reused ashlar blocks, mixed with freestone, making W. wall of culvert, Selwyn Hall site (Horizon 3). zon 3; S. end destroyed by post-Roman disturbance. Not load-bearing; support for insubstantial (e.g. timber) structure or waterpipe? Silting of S-N culvert (H3): 4 4 (Section D-D’). Mixed rubble (top intact Roman): 1 3, 2 3-5; 3 4, 5; 14 2B, 4 (Section F-F’). 9. Wall 34 (Section A-A’). Footing only, c. 0.75 m wide, of large stones, up to 0.6 m across, cut into natural and sealed by stony loam (probably as H12). S. end approximately defined in builders’ excavations. Presumably a Roman wall, of Horizon 3 or later from relationship in plan with other features (enclosure wall?), but the possibility of it being post-medieval is not totally excluded. 10. Stone-robbing: 31 6 (Section E-E’); cow burial above it: 31 4, 5 (Section E-E’), contemporary with robbing? Twelfth-century pottery. 11 Ditch, S-N: 10 5; 14 8 (Sections B-F, C-C’). 12... Stony loam: 1,2; 2 23 3°33 4°3,.3A5/5:23.6123°8'4; 9.3; 10, 3; 12 2, 3; 13 2; 14 2A (all sections). 13. S-N Ditch (?): 10 4 cutting 10 3 (H12). Stone-free loam (turfline?): 8 3; 9 2; 10 2; 14 3 (Section C-C’). 14. Nineteenth- to twentieth-century features: pit, 1 5, 7, 8; 14 11; garden path, 8 2 (Section B—B’); waterpipe, 5 1A; topsoil, incl. former tennis court, 1 1; 2 1; 3 1, 2; 4 15255 15.6 15/89 5.9/1210)15)12 13135 14 1 31 12 (all sections). oon Horizons 15-28, NE corner of the Wilderness garden (Figures 4, 14-19) (All section references to Figure 19. Natural tufa beneath lowest numbered layer in all sections) 15. Pre-villa: ditch or pit, 23 18 (Section J-K); fine grey loam 21 12; 22 17; 23 12 (Sections H-H’, J-K, K-K’, L-L’, M-M’). Fill of ditch/pit was fine grey loam with small stones and Neolithic sherds and flint scraper (p. 44, below). 16. Initial construction of villa: Walls 1, 1A, 5, 22 (Sec- _ tions H-H’, J-K, M-M’; Figures 16-18). Walls la, 12, 22 were bonded, 1 was a northern continuation of la GROUND PROFILE PROJECTED FROIA Section A-A:: foundation tr. S. wall of Selwyn Hall oe a el ease! A s Mee | GREY TUFACEOUS S/LT a LIMESTONE RUBBLE & GRAVEL MEE aussve on Graver & CLAY/ SILT III) Grev-eRown sur YA, onance ciay !, TUFA Section D-D trr4aN Section B-B': tr 14, S. TENNIS COURT ts) TUPA (REDEPOSITED) ad “At =F NY . Yi MORTAR ae WALL PLASTER SC FIRED CLAY TILES 359%. SANDSTONE TILES WY FINE LOAM WITH BURNING WW GREEN-GREY S&T YY ti, BLACK LOAM WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENT Figure 13. Selwyn Hall site and Tr. 31, Vicarage garden, secuons Sy OH Bi arias (24 a 7 EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 BOX 1968 THE WILDERNESS GARDEN 37 boundary wall The Wilderness garden Oe Oh Selwyn Hall site JO S aS 3.4 etc. WALL NUMBERS NS beh tr 24 ec. TRENCH NUMBERS Ia *, i Loic, SECTION REFERENCE POINTS Figure 14. The Wilderness Garden, plan (same construction and line); Wall 5 was of similar construction, though narrower (because supporting dwarf colonnade ?); foundation tr., Wall 12, 23 28; makeup, room XXII, probably associated with Walls la and 5, 23 23, 30 (Section J-K). Stratification up to second-phase rebuilding: charcoal- flecked loam N. of Wall 2, 22 24, beneath building rubble with much fired-clay tile, 22 23 (Section H-H’); similar rubble (mainly clay tile with sparse sandstone) E. of Wall 5, 21 11, 17; 23 11; 24 10 (Sections J-K, K-K’, M-M’). Mid second-century pottery. Second-phase Walls 2, 13, 17 (Phase 2A; Figures 16, 17). Walls 2 and 13 were more substantial than the primary walls, being 0.9 and 1.2—1.35 m wide respect- ively; both had a similar pebbly mortar rendering on their N. faces; Wall 17 was bonded to Wall 13 and is probably one of a series of ‘buttresses’ Brakspear shows attached to the southern side of Wall 13 (op. cit., plan and p. 250, describing Room VIII). Wall 13 abutted Wall 1 in a way that suggested it was of a later phase of construction: the construction trench for Wall 2, 23 17, cut 22 23, 24 (H17, above; Section H-H’). If these are correctly interpreted as secondary walls, they must have replaced others on the same line: presumably less substanual walls which were found insufficient to carry the weight of the building (there 19. 20. 2): would be maximum thrust northwards down the slope). [This suggestion is supported by the fact that the external corridors on the N and E sides of the building would have exactly the same width if the N wall of the N corridor was similar to Wall 5, the primary E wall of the E corridor] The rubble level described in Horizon 17 could thus be interpreted as debris associated with this rebuilding. The ‘buttresses’ referred to would perhaps simply be the rebuilt north ends of walls joining Wall 13. Second phase or later Wall 18 (Phase 2B). Butt-jointed to Walls 2 and 13 (Section H-H’; Figure 17). Burnt layer ending second phase: N. of Wall 2, 22 22 (Section H-H’); E. of Wall 5, 21 10, 15; 22 14; 23 10 (Sections J-K, K-K’, M-M)’). Third-/fourth-century pottery (early third- in 22 14; third-/fourth in 23 10). Third-phase rebuilding (Phase 3A; Figures 16-18): Walls 3 (23 29), 11, 15, 16, 19 (Sections H-H’, M-M’); robbing of Wall 5 and related debris: 23 9, 9A; 24 9 (Sections J-K, K-K’); construction trench, Wall 16, 24 7. The apsidal Room XXVI was defined by Walls 3 (on E.), 11 (on S.) and 17a (or an earlier wall on the same line), 17 and 19 on the W. (Horizon 18 for Wall 17, 22 for Wall 17a). The unity of the room is evident from the fact that there were the same hypocaust pilae in both the former Room X and north of it (Brakspear THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE \ ie Nice 16h ZZ Zz Zu IX WY 400} Z NOLLO:1S = vainly uaa es TT FZ a | S XXVI = NY Figure 15. NE corner of villa, interpretation of structural sequence s ms GG "7 Few \ | Zee ——— AS Y + Ee tz © 22 \ > \ N N 38 ht OSs As : i; N a ———————eeeeeeeor ™ eee XCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 39 Figure 16. Tr. 23, looking N. For identification of walls cf. Figures 14, 15 1904, 250-1, 256, referring to his ‘Chamber XXV’); and the top of Wall 13, which formed the north wall of the former Room X, was flush with the top of the pilae, suggesting it was demolished to this level beneath the floor of Room XXVI. Walls 4, 4a, 8, 10, 17a, 20, 21 (Phase 3B; Figures 4, 16-18). Walls 4 and 10 abutted 3 and 11. Their construction was similar to that of Walls 3 and 11 except that they contained fragments of sandstone and clay tle laid flat as localised ‘courses’. One such tile course in Wall 4 overlapped the edge of Wall 3. A reused door- or window-reveal at the W. end of Wall 10 similarly overlapped and was bonded to Wall 11. Walls 4 and 10 were evidently a strengthening or rebuild of 3 and 11; the question is whether they were of a later period or the result of an adjustment made during building. The use of tile perhaps suggests that they were later, but if so, the earlier walls must have been demolished or underpinned where the overlaps occurred. Wall 17a also had sandstone and clay tiles used for bonding. It abutted Wall 12 (Horizon 17) and seemed not to be quite on the same line as Wall 17 (Horizon 18). Wall 11 (Horizon 21) abutted it, at first sight suggesting it should be earlier than Horizon 21, but this would not be a problem if 17a was the replacement of an earlier wall on the same line. Wall 21, dividing Rooms VIII and VIIIa, also contained reused tle. This would suggest that the mosaic floor of Room VIII (p 24, above) was of this phase. In Room VIIa a fragment of hard pebbly mortar with concave upper surface similar in 23. appearance to a gutter was attached to the W. side of Wall 10; in the earlier excavations a drain was found leading from the centre of this room and interpreted as being ‘for necessary convenience’ (Brakspear 1904, 250). Wall 21 abutted Wall 20, which in turn made a straight join against Wall 12 (Horizon 16): Wall 20 was certainly in use in this phase since it was associated with the chessboard-pattern mosaic in Room IX, which was bounded on its E side by Wall 17a. Wall 8 ‘doubled up’ Wall 16 on the E. side of the corridor or verandah, Room XXIII, and so is perhaps to be explained in the same way as Walls 4 and 10 above; construction trench 21 13, 16 (Section M—M’). Wall 4a, a rectangular foundation within this corridor or verandah area, abutted Wall 5 (Horizon 16) and was probably cut by Wall 7 (Horizon 24). The N. limit of this feature was shown in Brakspear’s plan, giving it overall dimensions of c. 2 (E-W) x 4 m if, as seems likely, it was added to the E. side of wall 4. As such it might have been a buttress, like those found in the earlier excavations at the N. end of room XXVI, or perhaps it was the base of a staircase giving access to the NE part of Room XXVI (cf. note, p. 32, above, on this feature in relation to function of room). Makeup levels associated with Horizons 21, 22 (Phases 3A, B). Since robbing and earlier ‘wall-chasing’ excav- auons have largely separated the horizontal stratigra- phy from the walls, these layers could go with either (or both) sets of walls, just described: Room XXIII- XXIV, 21 7; 22 12; 23 S—8, 19-22; 24 3-5, 8 (Sections J-K, K-K’, M-M’); Room XXVI, 22 18-21, 25; 23 13, 40 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Se Figure 18. Trs. 21, part of 22, photo-montage, looking S. For identification of walls cf. Figures 14, 15; stratification in section recorded in figure. 19, Section M—M’. SUOTIIIS “UDP SSIUIOPIIA\ OL 6] PINS] at N g Py py . uv LOW" SNOITS TWODWHD ,~,=~") ONINSNG HLIM Wv0O7 INIF WN SIL INOLSONYS © SIL AVID Fuld ree 7 YUSVId TIVM “AN, (OFL/SOSFIFH) WIL iL Vd Sl oy S Ona pa - a Wo fare ws b € eet St sore 8 Pie: 5> 2 rs ROP Se IN So S12 S427. -W Y0l325 S ‘€Z 41M -f YoRIS = MCC M EC S41 GH-H ¥0Dag BEAD =D 00295 42 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 14 (Sectons H-H’, M-M’); Room XI, 23 24, 25, 27 (Section H-H’); external (?) makeup, E. of Room XXIV, 21 14, 14A. (Section M-M’). Fourth-century pottery. 24. Division of Rooms XXIII, XXIV (Phase 4): Walls 7, 9 (Section K-K’). Wal! 9 appeared to cut all the intact horizontal stratification in Rooms XXIIJ-IV (Horizon 23) and it was built from a higher level than Wall 16 (Horizon 21). 25. Robbing of Wails 8 and 16 and stony loam above: 21 6, 9 (Section M-M’). Area of shed unexcavated in 1902-3. 26. Backfill of 1902-3 excavations: 22 7-10A, 13; 23 2-4, 15, 16, 26; 24 2, 6 (Sections H-H’, J-K, K-K’, M-M’). Also probably clay-filled pit against E. sides of wall 5, 22 16. 27. Shed (used as privy) and flagged area to S. of it: Wall 6; 21 2-5; 22 2-6. 11 (Sectons K-K’, M-M’). Shown on Brakspear’s plan. 28. Modern garden paths and topsoil: 21 1; 22 1; 23 1; 241 (all sections). OTHER EXCAVATIONS Trench across courtyard corridor (tr. 27: Figures 3, 5, 19, Section G-G’,). This was intended to test whether the courtyard was surrounded by a full-size colonnade. Excavation seemed to confirm this, since the division between courtyard and corridor is not marked by any separate foundation such as would be expected if there was a wall (or wall supporting a dwarf colonnade). The courtyard corridor mosaic rested on a thick makeup of gravel on large fragments of limestone; the gravel continued southwards into the courtyard sandwiched between two layers of clean redeposited tufa. A shallow disturbance on the division line may derive from earlier excavations, or might (less plausibly) indicate a robbed stylobate. The gravel and stone makeup was similar to 23 27 in Room XI (Horizon 22), suggesting that the courtyard corridor (or its mosaic) might have belonged to a secondary phase of the villa, but this is only a tenuous indication. Trench south of Room XXIII (tr. 32: Figures 3, 19, Section L-L’;) This was placed on the projected line of the drain taking water from the baths and of a stump of wall shown projecting northwards from Room XX in Brakspear’s plan: it was intended to test whether these two features continued on the same line; and it was hoped to determine more positively whether the drain was the same as that found on the Selwyn Hall site (Horizon 3, SW-NE culvert). Neither the drain or the wall were present. This confirms that the wall did not belong to any major structure (it might even have been a buttress), but is not conclusive about the drain since it could have run just outside the small area excavated (c. 2 m E-W x 1.5 m N-S). Strata revealed were (from bottom up): tufa (layer 9), fine grey-brown loam (8), loam with Roman tile and pottery (7), compacted redeposited tufa (6) with Roman pottery above it, rough cobbles of limestone, fired clay tile and sandstone tile frags. on sandy makeup (4, 5), limestone, fired clay tile and sandstone tile rubble (3, Roman destruction?), stony loam (2) and pit with sawn bones and nineteenth-century pottery, topsoil and garden path. (1) The cobbles may correspond to Horizon 23. Trench at SE corner of E. extension to E. range (tr. 33: Figure 3) This was dug to test the corner. It was confirmed there was no wall running southwards from the corner. Strata severely disturbed in nineteenth century, no detailed record made. Trench S. of W. wing (tr. 35: Figures 3, 19, Section N-N’) This was intended to test whether the W. wing extended S. of the limit shown in Brakspear’s plan. Results were inconclusive because the area had been levelled in post- medieval times. The surface of the natural tufa was cut by small pits filled with fine grey-brown loam similar to the layer above tufa elsewhere (layer 8). Above this there was a layer of dark loam with burning and fragments of Roman flue tiles (7). This was beneath three successive metalled surfaces of oolitic limes- tone (4-6), a thick layer of grey loam (3) and a further substanual metalling of limestone rubble (2). This was cut by the stump end of a N-S wall of coursed oolite, and over the wall and layer 2 was topsoil (1). Seventeenth to eighteenth-century pottery was found in layers 4-6 and 7; a sherd of salt-glazed pot was beneath the wall; a coin of 1732 came from topsoil. FINDS REPORTS Small quantities of a wide range of material were found in the excavations, as the following reports show. However, no individual category was suf- ficiently abundant or unusual to justify extended treatment. For this reason, and also taking into account the normal constraints of cost, there appear to be no good grounds for publishing illustrations. It is hoped that all the identifiable objects listed should be recognisable to specialists from the references given; the objects themselves are stored at Devizes Museum (with the exception of medieval pottery, at present missing). FLINTS by R. M. Jacobi Twenty-four pieces of struck flint were recovered, among which the only certain artefact was a flake scraper. The flints appear initially to have been a dull black in colour, but are now patinated a glossy blue, white or mottled brown and cream; cortex is chalky but appears heavily weathered and slightly discoloured as if the original nodules had been collected from a surface scree. The collection consists of: 1) Tools: scraper on flake whose bulbar face has been spalled away as a result of burning. What remains of the working edge is lightly nosed, while the edge where the bulb and striking platform may be suspected to have been positioned is covered with cortex. (Excavator’s note: now missing, but. probably associated with Neolithic pottery in 23 18, Horizon 15). 2) Debitage: flakes — 15; blade — 1 (slightly plunging and clearly struck from a two-platformed core); broken pieces — 6 (of these five appear to derive from neat blades, at least one of which has been struck from a two-platformed core); core — 1 (split pebt!_ “~~!>r in outline and 23 mm diameter, has had short flakes removed from round its periphery). (Exca- vator’s note: 18 of these came from area of E. limit of tufa on Selwyn Hall site, including one blade frag. beneath patchy tufa). EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 43 LAYER TO HORIZON INDEX Tr. and layer — Horizon Tr. and layer — Horizon Tr. and layer — Horizon Tr. and layer — Horizon \ 1 | 14 8 1 14 18-20 9 21 2 12 2 14 not used 9A 21 3 8 3 13 10 20 4 3 4 12 21 l 28 1] 17 5 14 5) 2 2 Hy 12 15 6 4 9 1 14 3 27 13 23 Vf 14 } 13 4 27 14 23 8 14 3} 12 5 27 15 26 9 2 4 2 6 25 16 26 10 2 5 1 i 23 17 18 8 27 18 15 10 1 14 9 25 19 23 2 1 14 2 13 10 20 20 23 | 2 12 3 12 11 17 21 23 3 8 4 13 12 15 22 23 4 8 5 11 13 22 23 16 5 8 6 3 14 23 24 13 6 4 7 3 14A 23 25 23 7 Di 8 3 15 20 26 26 9 2 16 22 27 23 10 4 17 17 28 16 3 l 14 11 2 29 21 2 14 22 1 28 30 16 3 12 ll = - 2 Zi, 4 8 3 27 24 1 28 5 8 12 1 14 4 27, 2 26 6 2 2 12 a) ai 3 23 | 3 12 6 27 4 23 | 4 1 14 4 3 7 26 5 23 | 2 14 5 2 8 25 6 26 3 12 9 25 7 Zl 3A 12 13 l 14 10 25 8 23 4 7 3 12 10A 25 9 21 5 3 3 3 1] 27 10 17 6 3 4 1 12 23 7 2 13 26 25-26, 28 - 8 3 14 l 14 14 20 9 3 2A 12 15 17 27 descr. 10 3 2B 8 16 26 separately 1] 3 3 13 17 15 12 3 4 8 18 25 29, 30 13 l 5 3 19 23 not used 6 Z 20 23 5 l 14 7 2 21 23 31 l 14 1A 14 8 1] 22 20 2 14 2 12 9 4 23 17 3 5 3 2 10 3 24 17 4 10 4 3 1] 14 25 23 5 10 5 | 12 1 6 10 6 3 13 1 23 ] 28 ul 3 14 4 2 26 32-33..35 8 l 15 4 2A 26 described 3 25 separately 6 ] 14 15 = = 4 25 2 12 5 23 34 3 3 16 3 3 6 23 not used 7 23 Uf = = 17 3 3 8 23 44 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE A small piece of worked flint and a battered nodule (from a medieval level, Horizon 10) appeared to be unworked. The quantity of worked flints is too small for cultural diagnosis but all the pieces might seem most ‘at home’ in a late Mesolithic or early Neolithic context. NEOLITHIC POTTERY by I.F. Smith Eight small body sherds from 23 18 (Horizon 15) probably represent two or more Earlier Neolithic bowls. Limestone detritus in the fabric (fossil shell, ooliths, calcite crystals) suggests a more or less local origin. COINS Three coins only were found:- Denarius, Elagabulus, 218-222. RIC 112 (identified by R. Reece). 10 4 (Horizon, hereafter H 13) Halfpenny, George II, dated 1732. 35 1 Halfpenny, George III, 1770-5. 23 2 (H26) This single Roman coin is in keeping with the remarkably meagre list of site finds from earlier excavations. The total published Roman coin list for the site is:- Galba, aureus* Julia Soaemias, denarius* Elagabulus, denarius (as above) Allectus, ae 2* Claudius Cothicus, ae 3* Aurelian, ae 3* Diocletian, ae 2* Constantine 1, ae 3* Constantine IT, ae 3* Constans (?), ae 3* Valens, ae (Brakspear 1904, 269; W.A.M. li, 193) * = W.A.M. xiii, 335, where no provenance is given. W.A.M. li, 335, however states that the aureus of Galba was found ‘casually on the site’ [of the villa], like the coin of Valens, whereas ‘From time to time Roman coins have been unearthed in the soil of Box House Garden, including an interesting silver one of the Empress Julia Soaemias. . .” It therefore seems reasonable to assume that all the other coins listed came from Box House. SMALL FINDS Attention may be drawn to the evidence for bronze-smithing in the late third-/fourth-century level, Horizon 10 (Copper alloy, nos. 1-3, Ceramic, including crucibles, nos. 3-4). Otherwise the finds are not noteworthy. oe alloy Frag. cut from sheet 0.8 mm thick; point of pin. 23 10 (H20) 2. Two clippings from sheet 0.8 mm thick, triangular, c. 15 x 1S mm max. 23 10 (H20) 3. Lump of molten bronze (gunmetal). 23 10 (H20) 4. Possible fragment of brooch. 4 5 (H3). 1. Strip, 7 mm wide, 5 mm. th., 50 mm. long (in four frags.) 23 10 (H20) 2. Corroded strip bent in gentle curve, 17 mm wide, 4mm th., 90 mm long 16 3 (H3) 3. Frag. of blade (?), 19-23 mm wide, c. 1 mm th., 50 mm long. 16 3 (H3). Bone 1. Pin, intact 78 m long: Crummy (1983, 22), Type 3D. 16 3 (H3) 2. Pin, shaft frag., 70 mm long, 4 mm max. diameter, tapering at both ends. 16 3 (H3) 3. Pin, shaft frag., 54 mm long, 4 mm max. diameter, tapering at both ends. 4 5 (H3) 4. Disc, pierced at centre, 11 mm diameter. 22 10A (H25) 5. Disc, as no. 4, 13 mm diameter, 2 mm max. th., 3 mm diameter of hole. 22 21 (H23) Shale and stone 1. Shale bracelet, frag., 63 mm internal diameter, quad- rilateral in section, 6.5 x 5-6.5 mm. 16 3 (H3) 2. Whetstone, broken at both ends, 53 mm long x 17 x 11 mm. 16 3 (H3) Wood 1.. Carbonised cylindrical object with carved thread (?) on outside, two frags, c. 33 mm diameter. 31 4 (H10) ee by V.A. Tatton-Brown Annular bead, perhaps blue (colour obscured by weath- ering), irregular, 2-3 mm long, 4 mm diameter, 1-2 diam. of perforation. 4 6 (H3) 2. Plano-convex counter, translucent orange, 15 mm diameter, 5 mm th. 4 3 (H12) 3. Rectangular strip, cut out lengthwise on one side as if to fit around the edge of a panel or inlay, opaque greenish blue, 26 mm long, 5 mm wide, hollow 2 mm wide. 16 3 (H3) (See also Glass vessels, building materials) Ceramic, including crucibles 1. Graffito on inside base of pot, grey ware bowl or platter frag. ] LES in cursive script (L or A). 5 2 (H12) 2. Perforated sherd, cheese press or colander, grey ware oxidised orange on surfaces. 4 1 (H14) 3. Crucible frag. wall sherd 5-8 mm th. 22 14 (H20). Dr. C. Peacock of the Dept. of Chemistry, Lancaster Uni- versity, analysed deposits on internal and external surfaces and found (all figures %): on inside, Cu 0.13, Zn 0.07, Pb > 0.04, Ag 0.07. Fe 2.3, Ay 0.13, Sn > 0.01, Al 3.8; on outside Cu 2.14, Zn 1.35, Pb > 0.2, Ag. 0.26. Fe 2.64, Au > 0.002, Sn 0.05, Al 2.8. The Fe and Al components were probably derived from the fired clay of the crucible and the surrounding soil. Other evidence consistent with bronzeworking. 4. Crucible frag., wall sherd, c. 3 mm th. 23 10 (H20). Analysis of deposit on outside (as for no. 3) revealed: Cu 0.08, Zn 0.18, Fe 1.58, Al 1.1, Pb > 0.08, Ag > 0.02, Sn > 0.02, Au >0.001. GLASS VESSELS by V.A. Tatton-Brown 1. Lower part of flask or jug, colourless, many small bubbles, whitish film. Blown. 16 3 (H3). 2. Part of side of beaker or deep bowl, decorated on outside with pair of wheel-cut lines, colourless with greenish tinge. Blown. 4 5 (H3). Probably part of second-century type of footed beaker with rim outsplayed, knocked off and ground smooth (somewhat similar to Charlesworth . 1972, 206-8, no. 3, fig. 77.43). 3. Two frags. perhaps from side of same vessel, the larger EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 piece decorated on the outside with wheel incisions in two groups of three, 2 mm apart, colourless. Blown. Decorated frag. 38 mm surviving height, 45 mm max. width. 4 5 (H3). Possibly from a late Roman beaker with convex sides, flat base and knocked off rim either outsplayed or inward-curving. Usually fourth century, but an example was found in a context of A.D. 280-315 at Verulamium (Charlesworth 1972, 210, no. 4, fig. 79.61; Harden 1975, 371, no. 10b, fig. 198). 4. Frag. from side of cylindrical bottle, bluish-green. Mould-blown. 48 mm surviving height, 42 mm max. width. 4 6 (H3). A common type, most popular in the later first and earlier second centuries (cf. Harden and Price 1971, 361-6, with refs.). | | . . | | | ! ROMAN POTTERY based on reports by A.M. Borthwick (wares other than samian) and H. Pengelly (samian) Only 224 sherds were recorded from the stratified Roman levels, of which 132 were from Horizon 3 and a further 50 from H20. A roughly similar quantity of Roman pottery was also recovered from post-Roman levels. The main use of this small collection is therefore as dating evidence. The pottery is not illustrated since the dating evidence is provided by common forms, to which precise reference can be made, and the assemblage is otherwise too insignificant. The stratified sherds may be summarised as follows:- 45 Use as dating evidence The second phase of the villa in the Wilderness Garden is given a mid second-century terminus post quem by the material from Horizons 17 and 18; this material probably derives from first-phase occupation. The two samian sherds in H17 were from Central Gaulish forms Dr. 18/31 and 33. Using samian as a guide to the earliest date of occupation, nineteen sherds in all were found in the two main excavation areas (including sherds found residually in later Roman or post-Roman levels); of these only two were Trajanic or earlier, 11 were early second century (Trajanic-Hadrianic), and 5 were later second century, with one unidentified second century. Thus there is no significant evidence for occupation earlier than about A.D. 125. An important point for the later chronology of the villa is that the pottery both from Horizon 3 in the Selwyn Hall site and Horizon 20 in The Wilderness garden indicates a late third- to fourth-century date. This supports the suggestion that H3 was associated with the large-scale rebuilding repre- sented by H21 (H20 was the preceding occupation material). The dating of these groups is provided by Black-burnished everted-rim jars (as Gillam 1970, type 148, in Horizons 3 and 20), flat dishes (as Gillam type 329, in Horizons 3 and 20) and flanged bowls (as Gillam type 228 in H3) and also by the few sherds of Rhenish, New Forest (indented beaker in H3) and Oxfordshire wares (mortarium, Young 1977, type WCS, and bowl, type C5, in H3). Horizon 20, however, differed from 3 in having a higher proportion of earlier third-century material (especially in 22 14). Four sherds of a large hook-rimmed jar, possibly of Swindon/Whitehill ware, Qa ea} 7 z c § e) ) as) : | 2 n & 2 By cs Ww fc oe Sh. ey omer ssc a Z v . 2) 2 5 7) 2 2 a a = D eS > » A ee eee eo Se BS SG S | ca ea 3 = iS = = : = oo = 8 a or GS ate SOG 7 6 = 2 g g 3G ° =] | v ~ a} : my : ral na fet Aa o) 2 ) = oe © : v = =e) =| Ras Sed > 2 «¢ 5 2 ee S im : Es oO al {051 5 Z 2 5} 3 oe > 5 = Ae Bea & <= B ZF E E =e ~ - - 2 — mid 3 7 = ] 25 Da G7) — > _ - - — C3/4 = = ~ _ - = ‘C4 - _ - - 2 - 3 - - 7 - 6 - - - - ~ - - — mid = - ] - 24 = (€2 - - ~ - l — mid 2 = = = 4 BF G9 3/4 “3/4 3 7 8 l 64 2 ntaining Roman pottery:— H2, 5 3, 10 11; H3, 45-10, 5 4, 6 3, 106, 8, 13 3, 163, 17 3; H4 2 6; H7 44; HB 2 4; HIS, 23 27-24, 23 11; H18, 23 17;.H20, 21 15, 22 14, 22, 23, 10; H21 23 9; H23, 22 12, 25) 46 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE dating to the fourth century, were from makeup adjacent to the foundations of Wall 3 (22 25) in Horizon 23 and thus would provide a direct terminus post quem for the large apsidal room XXVI. Pottery assemblage as a whole As the table shows, most of the stratified pottery was from a late third- to fourth-century context. The relative quantities shown in the table were broadly the same for the unstratified pottery. Such an assemblage, served by local potteries to the north and east and regional suppliers in Dorset, Oxfordshire and Hampshire, is typical of contemporary villa sites in the area. Within the excavation the only noteworthy feature was the concentration of red wares on the Selwyn Hall site (all 48 stratified sherds and all but one of the 117 sherds of N. Wilts. Red Ware recorded). The source of all these vessels was probably the building rubble deposit, Horizon 3. The red wares are represented almost entirely by forms suitable for the table (globular vessels, jars, beakers, flagons etc.), whereas cooking and storage vessels were in the grey wares. Notes on the pottery fabrics (Comments are only made about the less well-known !ocal wares or where there are difficulties or variations from normal identifications) Black Burnished. Generally BB] (as Williams 1977), but includes fabrics which cannot strictly be described as such but with form or finish imitating BB1. N. Wilts Red Wares. Orange to orange-red throughout or with grey core, sandy fabric with gritty surface; contains mica; rounded calcite grit and larger inclusions of calcite and occasionally ironstone and grog; self-coloured wash or distinctive streaky grey-brown wash on some vessels. Forms represented: globular vessels, jars, beakers, flagons, lids, cheese press or strainer, bowl, mug; some vessels have distinctive footring. Similar to products of Purton kilns and some from Shaw Farm (both N. Wilts.), but precise parallels not found. Also seen at Atworth, Stanton Fitzwarren and Bradford-on-Avon villas. Cf. Anderson 1979; idem, unpubl. typescript on Romano-British pottery kilns at Purton. N. Wilts./S. Glos. Wares. Brick-red to grey-brown throughout or with grey core, fine- to medium-grained sandy fabric with rounded calcite grit, often external and/or inter- nal colour coat; flagons, mortaria, jars. Wilts. White Colour-Coated Ware. Red throughout or with grey core, fine-grained hard sandy fabric; grey internal wash or white slip on internal surface; white slip on external surface, burnished. Wall sherds only, from thin-walled globular vessels (flagons?). Unknown kiln source, but poss- ibly Sandy Lane/Bromham (Verlucio) area. Misc. Red/Brown Wares. Dark grey core and brick-red inner and outer surface burnt or discoloured to dull reddish- brown, medium-grained soft fabric with rounded quartz grit tempering, some iron inclusion and small proportion of mica, some grey wash; jars with everted rims. Misc. Grey/Brown wares. Various fabrics, but probably including hard grey wares of Whitehill Farm/Eastleaze Farm, Swindon, type and Alice Holt or New Forest grey wares. Mainly jars of various sizes. Large Storage Vessels. Two sherds from Horizon 3 of amphorae or large storage jars: fine-grained pinkish-buff fabric with some quartz inclusions and horizontal bands of stepped or grooved decoration. BUILDING MATERIALS Stone The stone used throughout was the locally available Greater Oolite or ‘Bath stone’. Normally it was used as freestone (undressed) in small pieces, typically c. 0.2 x 0.15 x 0.8 m (length, width, height respectively of stones in walls). Neatly cut ashlar masonry was recorded in situ at the NE corner of the building prior to the rebuilding (Wall 5). The stones here were typically 0.3-0.45 m long x c. 0.09 m high. Similar ashlar blocks were reused among freestone in the walls of the late third-/fourth century culvert (Horizon 3, Figure 12). Three cut blocks of tufa, also presumably quarried in the immediate vicinity of the site, were mixed with other Roman building debris in disturbed ground above the E. wing extension (1 2). One such block measured 0.32 x 0.29 x 0.16 m. Architectural fragment Door- or window-reveal block reused in Walls 10/11 (Hori- zon 22), measuring c. 0.48 x 0.3 x 0.14 m, with a shallow concave moulding on the long side. Tile : Fired clay tegulae and imbrices and hexagonal Pennant sandstone tiles were present in some abundance, suggesting that both were used as roofing materials. The first-phase destruction level at the northeast corner, Horizon 17, showed a preponderance of fired clay tile, though some sandstone was also present. As the same sandstone was also used for tesserae, it is possible that the material first reached the site for this purpose and that the building was initially roofed with fired clay tiles. By the late third-/fourth-century rebuilding clay roof tiles may no longer have been obtainable (the sequence at Gloucester, for example, suggests that the production of fired clay tiles may have ceased before the end of the second century): certainly sandstone tiles are present in quantity in Horizon 23 (and the continuing occurrence of some clay tile could be explained as residual survival). One or two pieces of clay flue tile were also noted in Horizons 23 and 3. Mosaics Tessera identifications by F:K. Annable Tesserae of not less than six different colours* and materials seem to be represented throughout the villa as a whole: 1. White: white lias; nearest outcrops Corston/Malmesbury area. 2. White/cream/buff/yellow: oolitic limestone from Greater Oolite: locally available, e.g... Hazelbury quarry near Corsham. 3. Buff/brown: uncertain, possibly natural hydrated ferric oxide, probably from Lower Greensand deposits, since this occurred in uncut lumps and apparently tessera cubes in the construction level, Horizon 3. 4. Red: fired clay. EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 5. Blue/blue-black: fine-grained limestone (as Lower Lias?); uncertain source. 6. Purple/indigo/chocolate/grey: sandstone from the Pennant Grit of the Carboniferous; outcrops in Bristol and Forest of Dean areas. _ [*The range of colour descriptions includes that given in Brakspear’s 1904 report. In some cases it has been possible to show that different colours are given for the same material, for example the Pennant sandstone tesserae in Room IX, which might normally be called purple or purple- grey, were described as ‘chocolate’ and oolite receives a range of descriptions (‘buff in Room IX, normally ‘cream’ elsewhere); on the other hand, the colour ‘buff’ might refer ‘either to oolite or the material listed as no. 3. It is possible ‘that other materials were also used where the floors have not been reexamined: for example part of the bath floor in Room XXXII is described as ‘brown lias’ (unless this refers to no. +3, above)] Uncut pieces of nos. 1, 3 and 5, together with large ‘numbers of loose tesserae (mainly white, some showing signs \of use) were found among the building rubble in Horizon 3, ‘showing that tesserae were being cut on the site. _ Three fragments of mosaic were found in 23 9 (Horizon 21), possibly derived from a destroyed floor in Room X. One piece had a cross and curving line in blue-black tesserae on a white lias background with brown; tesserae c. 0.01 m ‘square. The other two fragments were of white lias tesserae, c. 0.02 and 0.15 m square. Setting on mortar with ceramic ‘inclusions, c. 0.02 m thick, above coarse yellow pebbly ‘mortar. Two fragments of mosaic possibly belonging to the later ‘Room XXVI were found in 23 15, backfill of the earlier excavations (Horizon 26). These had large (0.02 m or above) irregular tesserae of Pennant sandstone and one of oolite, set directly on yellow pebbly mortar. This floor would be of \probable fourth-century date, while the other fragments \with their opus signinum setting might be second-century. ‘Further work would be necessary, however, to see if these differences of setting were generally significant for dating. Vall Plaster oth L.F. Pitts Che only wall plaster in situ was a small fragment on the W. face of Wall 5, and there was unpainted pebbly mortar endering on the E. face of this wall and N. face of Wall 2 both external wall faces) and also N. face of Wall 13 (facing the external N. corridor). Finds of plaster from stratified Xoman layers, amounting to some 50 to 100 small fragments, were insufficient to allow any attempt at reconstructing interior decoration, but nonetheless indicate that the rooms Jemolished at the northeast corner of the building in the late hird-/fourth-century rebuilding had the high standard of nternal decoration which might be expected from the villa olan and mosaic floors (cf. Brakspear 1904, 263-4, for dlaster found in earlier excavations). “ive groups: Debris of first phase of villa (Horizon 17) : 23 11 ) Yellow garland on red background, white pendant with lob; ) black with traces of green foliage; :) framing stripe — white line over yellow. 47 Mid second-century context; plaster from walls of c. 125-50 (?) Third phase demolinon and rebuilding (Horizons 21, 23) Horizon 21: 23 9, 9A; Horizon 23: 21 7; 22 12, 18, 19; 23 5, 19. Selection of ‘feature’ fragments, a) — c) at least belonging to same decorative scheme; a), b), d), e) from 23 9; c) 23 9A; f) — i) 22 12; j) 22 18. a) Possible bottom of frieze with egg and tongue enrichment (buff, yellow and white on dark red background), black and white stripes, red band, white stripe, black band or zone; similar enrichment and black and white stripes, band or zone with green on black background; b) band or zone (dado?), probably of ‘fried egg’ imitation marble (curving yellow features on dark red background), black stripe, pale blue band, white stripe, band or zone with green on black; c) edge of white (stripe?), green band with rough finish and irregular surface (as if at corner of room?); d) green stripe, white band or zone, overlaid by buff-red foliate design; similar green stripe dividing white bands or zones; e) corner of panel: purple stripe on pink background (with blotches — imitation marble?) green and buff within panel; f) red, dark red stripe, green stripe, white band or zone with green foliate decoration, overlain by replastering 12 mm thick (no painting survives); g) pink imitation marble with black and red splashes; h) green foliate design (garland?) on red background; i) red foliate design (?) on yellow bordering white band or zone; j) edge of white, red and white stripes, yellow band, red stripe, edge of white; Late third- or fourth- century context, but derived from walls of second- and earlier third-century date (?) Construction of culvert and related(Horizon3): 45 and 16 3. Three fragments only, one plain pink and two white (?). These differed from the plaster so far described in having fired clay brick/tle frags. in the plaster matrix. Latest Roman level at Selwyn Hall site (Horizon 8); 14 2B Plain white or white with black stripe; on ceramic filler in matrix. Post-Roman, Selwyn Hall site (Horizon 12): 2 2, 3 a) Very coarse plaster up to 40 mm thick with large brick/tile frags. in matrix, painted dark red; b) rendered but unpainted pebbly mortar (external ren- dering?). From area of E. wing extension. Tron nails Typology as defined for Verulamium excavations: Type I. square-secuoned, tapering stem, round, conical or pyramidal head, often flattened by hammering; almost flat head for small examples. Type II (less common than 1), rectangular-secuioned tapering stem, triangular head with marked shoulders, of same thickness as stem; top of head often rounded by hammering (Frere 1972, 186). Three stratigraphical groups: First phase of villa (Horizon 17): one example Type [, 71 mm (length, as following measurements); one Type II, 41 mm; two Type I heads and heavily corroded fragments. Second-phase occupation and demolition (Horizons 20, 21): One Type II, 100 mm; one uncertain type 63 mm; misc. frag- ments. 48 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Construction of culvert and related (Horizon 3): at least twelve examples Type I, 26-54 mm, mainly c. 50 mm; four corroded clumps including both types; nail with head 18 mm diameter, 22 mm; headless nails or ferrules up to 60 mm; misc. fragments. Window Glass by V.A. Tatton-Brown All of the stratified glass was from a late third-/early fourth-century rebuilding context (Horizon 3), with the exception of one fragment from a third- to fourth-century occupation level (Horizon 20). As such the glass could either derive from demolition of the earlier (second-century) phase of the villa or be new material brought for the rebuilding. The two types of glass present suggest that it fits both these contexts. Horizon 20: 23 10 Matt/glossy, one frag., colourless, 3 mm thick. Horizon 3: 45, 10; 16 3 a) Matt/glossy, 27 fragments: 8 colourless or almost colourless, 6 green, 2 bluish-colourless, one bluish-green; 2-5 mm thick, but mostly 2-3 mm. The fragments were too small to allow an estimate of the pane size or show whether the panes thinned towards their edges. [The only edge piece found was from a post-Roman level, 4 3 (Horizon 12): green glass with rounded edge 4-5 mm thick] b) Double glossy, two pieces made up of joining fragments and 5 more fragments probably from single pane: bluish- green bubbly and streaky, thickness | mm at centre of large pieces, thinning to 0.5 mm, 1.5 mm at rounded edges; large pieces both c. 0.23 x 0.12 m in area. Matt/glossy was the common window glass of the first and second centuries. It continued into the third century, but was then replaced by the double glossy type. The latter is found in the third century and became the normal variety in the fourth century. Opinion differs over the method of manufacture of the matt/glossy variety: 1t was either blown in a cylinder and then flattened or cast in moulds; one side was made matt by grinding (cf. Harden 1959, 8-16; idem 1961, 44-9; Boon 1966, 41-7). Double glossy window glass was certainly cylinder blown and is known from several sites in Britain (Harden 1975, 368 with note 4, 373-4). On the present site it may therefore be suggested that the matt/ glossy type was used in the second-century villa and double glossy in the late third-/fourth-century rebuilding. MEDIEVAL AND LATER POTTERY Based on a report by A.G. Vince A small quantity of Medieval and Post-medieval pottery was found in the excavation. Only one group was closely stratified (31 4: Horizon 10) and can be dated by external parallels to the twelfth century. The rest of the material was from disturbed deposits mainly in the Selwyn Hall site (formerly part of the Vicarage garden) and consists of material of the twelfth and thirteenth and seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with one probable Late Saxon sherd, although the unglazed cooking pots are not closely datable. The collection contains a number of unfamiliar pottery fabrics, some of which were evidently local to the site. The main purpose of this summary is to characterise them briefly and record their presence at Box. A fuller description is provided with the archive material deposited at Devizes Museum. The group from 31 4 Most of the vessels were in Fabric A, with three sherds in Fabric B. Two vessel forms:- 1) a sagging-based cooking pot with everted rim (this was probably the form for the three Fabric B sherds). Four rim forms: rounded with slight groove below the rim; bent out; flat-topped without a definite neck angle; grooved without a definite neck angle. 2) the ‘West Country vessel’ (also known as a bee-hive base) — base sherds only represented. Notes on Fabrics represented Probable Late Saxon Cheddar Fabric E: sherd from handmade (?) cooking pot with rounded base angle. Cf. Vince 1979, Fabric E. Twelfth- and thirteenth-century wares Fabric A: unglazed, usually with grey core and patchily oxidized surfaces ranging from light yellowish brown (Mun- sell 1OYR 6/4) to reddish brown (SYR 5/3). Tempered with coarse sand (grains 0.5 — 2.0 mm across), mainly rounded and polished quartz and quartzite fragments, angular white chert and sandstone and rare flint and rounded red iron ore. The clay matrix contains a large quantity of very fine angular quartz and a little white mica. Forms represented: as described above (31 4 group). Source: local, since this was generally by far the most common cooking-pot fabric as well as making up most of the group just described; closely comparable wares exist at Warminister and Boreham (just SE of Warminister), so possibly from the documented nearby potting centre of Crockerton (active in late twelfth and thirteenth centuries: Le Patourel 1968, 105). Fabric B: similar clay matrix and colour range to Fabric A, temper as A, but including rounded limestone and rare shell fragments, no sandstone or flint. Eight sherds in all (including the three in group above), one with thin light green glaze on interior of base. Forms represented: see above, also T-sectioned rim from vessel 40 cm in diameter. Source: not seen at Warminister and Boreham, but just a calcareous version of Fabric A, so probably from similar source area. Fabric C: soft, oxidised fabric (light yellowish brown, 10 YR 6/4), scattered inclusions of rounded polished coarse quartz grains and rare white chert. Five sherds, all from handmade cooking pots. Fabric not recognized elsewhere, perhaps just another variant of Fabric A. Fabric D: as Bath fabric A (Vince 1979), two sherds from same everted-rimmed cooking pot, typical of twelfth- and thirteenth-century vessels. Fabric E: as Fabric A, but with large angular flint inclusions, limestone and red-stained chert. One sherd from handmade cooking pot with everted, thickened rim. Fabric F: as Fabric A, but with very few large quartz grains and much higher proportion of white chert. One rim sherd from handmade cooking pot, slightly everted with slight groove below the rim. Fabric G: hard with grey core and light brown outer surface (7.SYR 6/4), clay matrix like that of Fabric A, tempered with medium sand of subangular and rounded fragments of EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 quartz and sparse iron ore with occasional larger rounded and polished quartz grains. Two sherds from one cooking pot, probably handmade with everted rim. Fabric H: as Fabric G, but with additional sparse inclusions of shell, often several mm long. Two sherds from wheelthrown globular cooking pots with everted rims, one with light green glaze on the inside; one sherd from hand- made cooking pot; oval-sectioned handle with groove on upper surface and light green glaze. Fabric I: as Bath Fabric K (Vince 1979). Six sherds from handmade cooking pots; thick base sherd with light green glaze, probably from a tripod pitcher. A distinctive ware, recognised at several sites in northwest Wiltshire, at Bath and Chepstow (Gwent): found in twelfth-century contexts at Bath, Chepstow and Great Somerford. Fabnic J: as Hereford fabric G 7 or Gloucester type fabric 99 (Vince 1983). One sherd from a wheelthrown copper-green- glazed jug, with rod handle having central slash. Minety-type ware (Musty 1973): seven sherds from tripod pitchers, including rod handle and tubular spout typical of twelfth-century vessels. Ham Green ware: five sherds, all probably of Barton’s type B jugs (Barton 1963). Nash Hill ware: tentative identification of six sherds from jugs with copper-specked green glaze; fabric with medium subangular quartz sand with occasional larger rounded quartz grains and angular black iron ore. Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-century wares South Somerset Sgraffito bowl, late seventeenth/early eighteenth-century, three sherds; undecorated bowl, S. Som./Wanstrow, probably seventeenth-century, one sherd; ‘combed slip-moulded plate, Bristol or Staffordshire, ‘eighteenth-century, one sherd; rim of bowl with internal green glaze, fine-textured fabric with abundant very fine quartz, moderate specks of black iron ore and sparse white mica (as Crockerton early modern, but different form), sixteenth- or seventeenth-century, one sherd. Clay Pipe A stamp of Richard Greenland, of c. 1690, (Atkinson 1965, Greenland Mark 79, fig, 2) was noted on the stem of a pipe found in 5 2. Identified by P. Parker. ROMAN AND LATER ANIMAL REMAINS AND ROMAN MOLLUSCS With identifications by C. Fisher (small mammal and bird bones) and D.L. Dartnall (molluscs) Seventy-seven identifiable elements of bone and seven pieces f oyster shell were recovered from Roman levels and the ruiculated remains of a cow (from cervical vertebrae to halanges) and twenty-seven other identifiable fragments of one were found in medieval levels. On a simple count of dentifiable elements represented, the Roman bones were ade up of Bos 42, sheep/goat 22, pig 11, hare (Lepus capensis) 1, domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) 1. Some of the ovine bones showed evidence of butchery. The oyster shells ay all derive from the second-century (?) initial construc- ion of the villa (Horizons 15, 16) since only one shell was ound in a later level. The medieval bones included horse (6 ‘lements) and greylag goose (Anser anser, 4 elements) as well is Bos, sheep/goat and pig. The buried cow was between 49 7-10 and 12-18 months old since epyphyseal fusion had occurred on the scapula but not the distal humerus (Silver 1969). There was no indication of the cause of burial. The remains of two individuals of the bank vole (Cleth- rionomys glareolus) and one of the short-tailed vole (Microtus agrestis) and an ulna fragment of the barn owl (Tyo alba) were found in a layer of Roman debris (tr. 23 15) which had been redeposited in the 1902-3 excavations. Land snails were picked up unsystematically during exca- vation in The Wilderness garden, but nevertheless deserve mention. The group from the pre-villa topsoil (23 18) may be compared with those from Roman levels once the villa was built. Pre-villa Later Roman Cepaea nemoralis 10 8 Cepaea hortensis 8 3 Pomatias elegans 12 - Arianta arbustorum 9 3 Helicella itala 6 2 Oxychilus sp. (cellaria? ) 1 2 Hygromia hispida - 1 Hygromia striolata (?) - 3 Helix aspersa - if A genuine, if not surprising, difference seems to be that Pomaunas elegans, which burrows in friable calcareous soils, was only found in the pre-villa level, while Helix aspersa, a common garden snail often found in thick vegetation and old walls, only occurred in later levels. The whole group may be compared with the more systematically recovered sample of molluscs from Box House (Bury and Kennard 1940, 151-2). The two Cepaea species, Pomatias elegans and Oxychilus cellaria were present in the Upper Marl beneath Roman — Modern surface soil and in the tufa at Box House, Arianta arbustorum was present in the Lower Marl! beneath the tufa. The other species listed here were not represented. Acknowledgements. Thanks are particularly due to the Rev. T.R. Selwyn Smith, the vicar of Box at the time of the excavations, for his help and kindness and to Mrs and the late Mr Hughes, the owners of The Wilderness (then called Becket Mill), for allowing their garden to be dug up in 1968; the present owner of the house, Mrs K. Carless, has continued and developed their interest, and kindly provided information on the work she had done. Assistance was received from other residents of Box during the excavation and particular thanks go to the cricket club for the loan of the pavilion for camping accommo- dation. A major debt is owed to the volunteer participants in the dig, including several students from the Institute of Archaeology in London, and a special word of thanks is due to Richard Hodges for his help, both with the dig and the report. The Conservation Department at the Institute of Archaeology are thanked for their help with the finds, Mrs. M. Davis and Miss A. Mackenzie for assistance with the report and drawing and Miss R.E. Edwards for drawing Funding was received for the inital rescue excavation from the Ministry of Public Building and Works (now HBMCE) and further small-scale funds were provided for the work of summer 1968 by them, the Central Research Funds Committee of the University of London and the Society of Antiquaries 50 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE BIBLIOGRAPHY AGACHE 1978. La Somme pre-Romaine et Romaine (Mem. Soc. Antiqs. de Picardie, vol. XXIV) ANDERSON 1979. A.S. Anderson, The Roman Pottery Industry in North Wiltshire (Swindon Arch. Soc. Rept. no. 2) ATKINSON 1965. D.R. Atkinson, ‘Clay tobacco pipes and pipemakers of Marlborough’ W.A.M. Ix, 85-95. BARTON 1963, K.J. Barton, ‘A medieval pottery kiln at Ham Green, Bristol’ 7.B.G.A.S. Ixxxii, 95-127. BONNEY 1972. D.J. Bonney, ‘Early boundaries in Wessex’ in P.J. Fowler (ed.), Archaeology and the landscape, 168-86. BONNEY 1973. D.J. Bonney, ‘The Pagan Saxon Period: c. 500-700’ in V.C.H. Wilts., vol. 1, 2, 468-84. BOON 1966. G.C. Boon, ‘Roman window glass from Wales’ F. Glass Studies viii, 41-7. BRAKSPEAR 1904. H. Brakspear, “The Roman villa at Box’ W.A.M. xxxiii, 236-69. BRANIGAN 1976. K. Branigan, The Roman Villa in South- West England (Bradford-on-Avon). BURY and KENNARD 1940. H. Bury and A.S. Kennard, ‘Some Holocene deposits at Box (Wilts.) W.A.M. 1, 149-52. CARANDINI et al. 1982. A. Carandini, A. Ricci, M. de Vos, Filosofiana: the Villa of Piazza Armerina (Palermo). CHARLESWORTH 1972. D. Charlesworth, ‘The glass’ in Frere 1972, 196-215. COOKSON 1984. N.A. Cookson, Romano-Bnitish Mosaics: a reassessment and critique of some notable stylistic affinities (B.A.R. Brit. Ser. 135). CRUMMY 1983. N. Crummy, The Roman Small Finds from Excavations in Colchester, 1971-9 (Colchester Arch. Rept. no. 2). CUNLIFFE 1971. B. Cunliffe, Excavations at Fish- bourne 1961-9, I The Site (Soc. Antigs. Res. Rept. no. XXVI) ELLIS 1985. S. Ellis, “The “Palace of the Dux” at Apolionia and related houses’ in G. Barker, J. Lloyd and J. Reynolds (eds.), Cyrenaica in Antiquity (B.A.R. Int. Ser. 236), 15-25. FRERE 1972. S.S. Frere, Verulamium Excavations, I (Soc. Antigs. Res. Rept. no. XXVIID. FRERE 1982. S.S. Frere, ‘The Bignor Villa’ Britannia xiii, 135-95. GILLAM 1970. J.P. Gillam, Types of Roman Coarse Pottery Vessels in Northern Britain (Newcastle-upon-Tyne) GODDARD 1897. E.H. Goddard, ‘Notes on Roman remains at Box’ W.A.M. xxvi, 405-9. HARDEN 1959, D.B. Harden, ‘New light on Roman and early medieval window glass’ Glastechnische Berichte, 32K, Heft vili, 8-16. HARDEN 1961. D.B. Harden, ‘Domestic window glass: Roman, Saxon and medieval’ in E.M. Jope (ed.), Studies im Building History: Essays in recognition of the work of B.H. St. ¥. O'Neil (London), 39-63. HARDEN 1975. D.B. Harden, ‘The glass’ in B.W. Cunliffe, Excavations at Portchester Castle, 1 (Soc. Antigs. Res. Rept. no. XXXII), 368-74. HARDEN and prRIcE 1971. D.B. Harden and J. Price, ‘The glass’ in B. Cunliffe, Excavations at Fishbourne, IT The Finds (Soc. Antigs. Res. Rept. no. XXVII), 317-68. HARRIS 1975. E.C. Harris, “The stratigraphic sequence: a question of time’ World Arch. vii, 109-21. LEECH 1982. R. Leech, ‘The Roman interlude in the South- West: the dynamics of economic and social change in Romano-British South Somerset and North Dorset’ in D. Miles (ed.), The Romano-British Countryside (B.A.R. Brit. Ser. 103), 109-67. LE PATOUREL 1968. J. Le Patourel, ‘Documentary evidence and the medieval pottery industry’ Med. Arch. xii, 101-26. MACDONALD 1982. W.L. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire, I. An Introductory Study. (Revised edn., Yale Univ. Press). MEATES 1979. G.W, Meates, The Lullingstone Roman Villa. Vol. 1 The Site (Chichester). MILES 1982. D. Miles, ‘Confusion in the countryside: some comments from the Upper Thames region’ in idem (ed.), The Romano-British Countryside (B.A.R. Brit. Ser. 103), 53-79. MUSGRAVE 1719. Dr. Musgrave, Antiquitates Britanni- Belgicae Praecipue Romanae (Exeter) MuSTY 1973. J. Musty, ‘A preliminary account of a medieval pottery industry at Minety, North Wiltshire’ W.A.M. Ixvii, 79-88. NEAL 1974. D.S. Neal, The Excavation of the Roman Villa in Gadebridge Park, Hemel Hempstead, 1963-8. (Soc. Antiqs. Res. Rept. no. XXXI). PISANI SARTORIO 1976. G. Pisani Sartorio, La Villa di Massenzio sulla Via Appia (Instituto di Studi Romani, I Monumenti Romani VI) PREECE 1980. R.C. Preece, ‘The biostratigraphy and dat- ing of the tufa deposit at the Mesolithic site at Blashen- well, Dorset, England’ Fourn. Archaeol. Sci. 7, 345-62. RIVET 1969. A.L.F. Rivet (ed.), The Roman Villa in Britain (London) SARNOWSKI 1978. T. Sarnowski, Les Representations de Villas sur les Mosaiques Africaines Tardives (Warsaw). SCARTH 1864. H.M. Scarth, Aquae Solis, or notices of Roman Bath (Bath) SILVER 1969. I.A. Silver, ‘The ageing of domestic animals’ in D. Brothwell and E.S. Higgs (eds.), Science and Archae- ology, 283-302. SMITH 1975. D.J. Smith, ‘Roman mosaics in Britain before the fourth century’ in H. Stern and M. LeGlay (eds.), La Mosaique Gréco-Romaine II (Paris), 269-90. STEAD 1976. I.M. Stead, Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa and other Roman sites in North Lincolnshire, 1958-67 (DoE Archl. Repts. no. IX, HMSO) TOYNBEE 1964. J.M.C. Toynbee, Art in Britain under the Romans (Oxford) VINCE 1979. A.G. Vince, ‘The medieval pottery: fabric types’ in B.W. Cunliffe, Excavations in Bath 1950-75 (C.R.A.A.G.S.), 27-38. VINCE 1983. A.G. Vince, “The medieval pottery’ in C.M. Heighway (ed.), The East and North Gates of Gloucester (Western Arch. Trust), 125-31. WEBSTER 1983. G. Webster, ‘The function of Ched- worth Roman Villa’ Trans. Bristol and Glos. Arch. Soc. ci, 5-20. WHEELER 1932. R.E.M. and T.V. Wheeler, Report on the Excavation of the Prehistoric, Roman, and Post-Roman Site in Lydney Park, Gloucestershire (Soc. Antigs. Res. Rept. — no. IX). WILLIAMS 1977. D.F. Williams, ‘The Romano-British black- | EXCAVATIONS AT BOX ROMAN VILLA, 1967-8 burnished industry: an essay in characterization by heavy ‘mineral analysis’ in D.P.S. Peacock (ed.), Pottery and Early Commerce: Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics (London), 163—220. 5] WILSON 1984. R.J.A. Wilson, Piazza Armerina (St. Albans). YOUNG 1977. C.J. Young, The Roman Pottery Industry of the Oxford Region (B.A.R. Brit. Ser. 43). Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 52-56. Preliminary Report on Excavations of the Late Roman Villa at Castle Copse, Great Bedwyn, 1986 By ERIC HOSTETTER, THOMAS N. HOWE and JOHN F. KENFIELD* In the summer of 1986 the Program in Classical Archaeology of Indiana University, Bloomington, conducted the fourth and final season of excavation and survey on the large Romano-British courtyard villa of Castle Copse, Great Bedwyn.' This report, as previous ones, intends primarily to describe the excavations; interpretations of stratigraphy, architecture, artefacts and chronology are tentative and may be revised by full study of the material. As reported in 1986, the main villa appears to be a large courtyard complex with buildings on three sides and a possible screen wall on the fourth, constructed on a levelled platform measuring approximately 90 x 110 m. (Figure 1).” The buildings on the N, W and S wings share the same orientation and have nearly identical principal floor levels. Sector A, the villa N wing Excavation was carried down to the natural sandy clays over most of the remaining open area of the sector (Figures 1-2). The earliest features in the sector are a series of beam slots, a series of postholes with traces of spade cuts for the removal of the posts and a ditch cut into the natural. The beam slots consist of three nearly parallel lines c. 10-15 m. in length, with one discer- nable transverse beam. Compacted surfaces outside the area of the beam slots seemed to distinguish between areas outside the building and the untrodden surfaces underneath it. Significant amounts of clean, * Eric Hostetter — Program in Classical Archaeology/School of Fine Arts, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA. Thomas N. Howe — Art Department, Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas, USA. John F. Kenfield — Department of History of Art, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA. 1. Under the direction of the authors, who are grateful to Dr. G. Wainwright and Mr. D.M. Evans of English Heritage, to Mr. and Mrs. A. Buchanan and Mr. R. Charles, former and present owners of Bedwyn Brail, and to MM. A. and J. Kerr, proprietors of Manor Farm in Great Bedwyn, for kindly granting permission to excavate. Dr. P. Robinson of the Devizes Museum graciously made space available for the material archive, and Ms. E. Cameron and Prof. B. Cunliffe of the Institute of Archaeology of Oxford University generously accepted finds for conservation. For many kinds of efforts and expertise, we thank Mr. A. Wilmott (sector supervisor and pottery analysis), Mr. B. Ault (sector supervisor and metalwork), Ms. K. Gleason and F. Fryer (environmental studies), Prof. M. Parca and Ms. S. dell’Isola (finds processing), Prof. T.V. Buttrey (numismatics), Dr. G. Hillman (botanical analysis) Mrs. M. Guido (beads); Prof. V. high quality carbonized barley seeds recovered in the fill of the beam slots suggests the identification of the structure as a granary. In the postholes to the W (atc. 363.5/522), material dated to the first century A.D. was recovered. In the SW corner of the open area a ditch was discovered, approximately 1.5 m. wide and 1 m. deep, running approximately parallel with the beam slots, and containing early Oare, Savernake and Belgic wares, as well as some Terra Nigra, all dated to c. 50-90 A.D.? No stratigraphic relationship exists between these three features; the beam slot structures and ditch have a different common orientation from all later structures, whether timber or masonry. All of these features were sealed by a layer of gravel soil tentatively interpreted as the makeup of the levelled platform on which the courtyard villa is built. The platform was probably constructed in the mid- to late second century A.D.; earlier pottery contained in the fill was extremely abraded, while later sherds, of the earlier third century, were few and were probably deposited after its completion. Hutchinson (metalwork), Dr. R. Ehrenreich (iron technology), Ms. R.J. Payne (bone objects), Mr. S. Payne (faunal analysis) and, of course, the volunteer excavators. Lastly, our sincere gratitude is again owed Mr Alexander Abraham and the Abraham Foundation for generous support of excavation, study and publication. 2. Earlier literature includes: ‘The Sixth General Meeting’, WAM 6, 1859, 253; J. Ward, ‘Great Bedwyn’, WAM 6, 1860, 261f.; F.C. Warren, ‘Excavations on a Roman site in Brail Wood, Great Bedwyn, in 1936 and 1937’, WAM 48, 1937-39, 318-320; E. Hostetter, ‘Preliminary Report on Excavations at Castle Copse, Great Bedwyn, 1983-4’, WAM 79, 1984, 233-35; E. Hostetter and T.N. Howe, ‘Preliminary Report on Excavations of the Late Roman Villa at Castle Copse, Great Bedwyn, 1985’, WAM 80, 1986, 97-102 and ‘The Romano-British Villa of Castle Copse’, Archaeology 39:5, 1986, 36-43. 3. But fora single sherd of a Highgate poppy head beaker, possibly intrusive, the date would be 50-70 A.D. The identification and dating of these and other wares mentioned in this article are owed to Mr. A. Wilmott, who will publish the pottery from Castle Copse, and to Dr. V. Swan, whose generous assistance is much appreciated. EXCAVATIONS OF THE LATE ROMAN VILLA, GREAT BEDWYN 53 —— ol aS f 3 | 2 | Saye “SBme- OG: ae ish rie fa: ppd ageh y x city <7 "P Af us ‘ \ i 38 \ 2 ~~ / | a0 | an <2 er) Figure 1: Castle Copse, Great Bedwyn. Contour Plan of Building Platform with Excavation Sectors. 54 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 360/530 530 355/520 520 SIS 510 355/505 360 365/505 380/530 380/510 Figure 2: Castle Copse Sector A — 1986 Plan. As reported in 1986, the first features cut into the platform gravel are a series of linear posthole struc- tures in several phases, which ran the length of the sector (from c. 355/519 to c. 380/513).* A terminus post quem for the removal of the last phase of these postholes is given by a coin now known to be an ancient forgery of a silver-plated denarius of Septimius Severus dating to after 198.° A new find is a dense linear concentration of stakeholes discovered south of the postholes and in contiguous alignment 4. WAM, 80, 1986, 97, figure 2. with them. These stakeholes may be associated with the postholes or precede them; they may possibly even precede the laying of the platform gravel. Both the post- and stakeholes appear boundary-like in character. All the masonry buildings in this sector preserve the orientation of the posthole structures which preceded them (Figure 1). The first aisled barn — probably dating to the early third century A.D. from the forms of the Black Burnished ware bowls and the 5S. We thank Prof. T.V. Buttrey, who will publish the coins, for this. identification. EXCAVATIONS OF THE LATE ROMAN VILLA, GREAT BEDWYN coin of Septimius from the latest of the posthole phases — had an earthen floor and timber uprights resting on subterranean greensand footings. Impres- sions of these timbers were partially preserved in the fill of the floor of the later stone building. When the first aisled building was replaced, the timbers were probably sawn off at floor level and left in the ground; their decay caused several points of subsidence in the floor of the succeeding building. The earthen floor of the first aisled building had considerable traces of industrial burning. This surface was later covered by a second thin clay floor, also bearing signs of similar activity. This first aisled building was replaced by a second of almost exactly the same dimensions, but moved c. 5 m. to the SE, probably early in the fourth century, to judge by the forms and fabrics of the associated ‘pottery, particularly the Oxfordshire and New Forest | wares. The second aisled building was more solidly | constructed than the first, with well-laid exterior walls | in herringbone flints, a deep chalk subfloor and hard 'greensand stylobates for the interior supports. The ‘repair or replacement of the exterior walls noted in 1986 seems to have been necessitated by their irregu- lar subsidence into the footings of the interior ‘supports of the first aisled building. | The later architectural history of this second aisled | building remains as reported in 1986. In short, it went through a series of alterations which converted part of ‘jit to luxury accommodations. The building was subdivided into several chambers, hypocausts were ‘inserted, and some floors paved either with tiles or “mosaics; a coin of Constantine I provides a terminus post quem for the remodelling. Later, the hypocausts were filled and a deep series of chalk and mortar floors alternating with signs of burning were built up in the “easternmost room of the nave. These floors produced large assemblages of domestic and wild animal bones, particularly pig foot bones and bird bones. The presence & late fourth to early fifth century Overwey fabric in these layers suggests that the processing of the pig carcasses — if that is in fact indicated — was taking place in the late fourth century at the earliest. Overwey pottery was the ‘latest recognizable ware found, and corresponds to the latest coin from this sector, an unstratified AE 4 of Arcadius (388-402). The terminal date for occupation has yet to be fixed. To the SW, a smaller adjacent building — which itself underwent earlier alterations — was, some time in the fourth century, connected to the second aisled building by a tesselated corridor. inl . . Sector B, the villa W wing excavation in Sector B (Figure 1) was carried only as ‘ar as the main occupation levels of the Roman i | 5p) building. Two new features became apparent. First, a series of earlier masonry walls under the present latest stone building shows that this wing, like the N wing in Sector A, had a complicated history of alterations and additions. These earlier phases cannot at present be dated, but material from this sector includes a sestertius of Hadrian of 119 A.D., five coins of the third century, and a variety of ceramic fabrics from at least the second through to the fourth centuries A.D. Second, a2 < 2 m. evaluation trench in the courtyard (at 339/478) revealed two parallel beam slots, c. 0.60 m. apart, connected by a single cross slot. Like the similarly oriented beam slots in Sector A, these were cut into the natural clay and were sealed beneath the gravel makeup of the courtyard, and so represent the earliest features discovered so far in the W wing. Sector C, the villa S wing No excavation was conducted in Sector C (Figure 1) in 1986, but preliminary examination of the pottery from this wing, ranging in date from c. 50-70 A.D. to the early fifth century A.D., suggests that it was here that pottery was being most used and broken, and that coarser cooking wares — especially Overwey, Oxfordshire, Wessex Grog Tempered and Midlands Calcite Gritted of the later third to early fifth century — are far more common here than in the other wings. Thus, as posited in 1986 on architectural grounds, the S wing might have functioned as a service area to the more luxurious accommodations seen in the W and N wings. Great Bedwyn — Evaluation Trench 1 A single 1 x 10 m. evaluation trench was placed perpendicularly to the E wall surrounding the church of St. Mary, c. 40 m. from the southern corner, with the intention of learning what occupation, if any, existed in that area. Excavation revealed: an upper chalk floor; a flint-founded lower chalk floor bearing a flint and mortar wall preserved to the height of two courses; and, sealed beneath this lower floor, a deep pit whose blackish clay fill contained animal bones, pottery, and charcoal. All the finds from this sector — including pottery, metal objects, coxcomb ridgepole ules — are seemingly of post-Norman conquest date. Discussion The form and, except for the probable beam-slot granary in Sector A, the function of most the earliest umber structures on site is as yet unclear. If the early ditch and the linear post- and stake-hole structures in Sector A served as some kind of boundary, perhaps even as a palisade, then extensive habitation at a very 56 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE early date in what would later become the villa courtyard is implied. This notion is strengthened by the presence of significant amounts of pottery of c. 50-90 A.D. in both the N and W wings, over 100 m. apart. Except for a single Iron Age bead from a late Roman layer, no earlier material has been found, or at least identified. The villa’s N and W wings have provided stronger evidence that the levelled platform seems to have been built for timber structures, probably in the late second century A.D., and that the uniform orient- ation of all the stone structures which succeeded them was due not to a monumental plan for masonry structures, but to a continuation of the orientation of these earlier timber ones. The succeeding masonry complex underwent numerous alterations and additions, reaching its architectural florwit in the fourth century. The latest material recovered includes pottery from the early fifth century A.D. and coinage of Arcadius (388-402), after which time (if not before) it appears to have gone into decline. During at least part of the Roman period, environmental evidence suggests that the ridge of Bedwyn Brail was clear of forest and therefore that the villa had a commanding view of the Bedwyn Valley and the Cunetio-Winchester road. The estate economy was probably a mixture of farming, animal husbandry and hunting. A variety of wild and domes- tic animal bones continued to be recovered, and botanical remains now identified include barley and 6. Cf. WAM 80, 1986, 100f., Figs. 4-5, for description and plans of decline phases. emmer wheat grains, bullace or sloe pips, hazelnut, walnut and other plant species. The stakehole structure erected within the ruined shell of the W wing, and the mud-mortared flint structure constructed in the courtyard suggest continued, if impoverished, occupation on site, poss- ibly after the Roman period.® The cross-valley Bedwyn Dyke, whose trace runs from the hill-fort at Chisbury virtually to the plateau upon which the villa is constructed, is usually considered post-Roman in date and so may further support this idea — even though the villa proper, if not the estate, may have been abandoned by the time of its construction. Thus, the history of the villa at Castle Copse includes the entire period of the Romanization of Britain, from conquest to abandonment, and prob- ably beyond. The reasons for this continuity lie in the desirability of the strategic site, at the head of two major valleys (Ham and Pewsey), overlooking the well-watered and natural NE-SW passage of the Bedwyn valley, and surrounded by excellent arable, grazing and forest land. As the neighbouring Iron Age hillfort at Chisbury which precedes the villa and the Saxon town of Great Bedwyn which succeeded it both demonstrate, these attractions remained constant for the maintenance of a great estate in all periods. Indeed, the illustrious medieval history of Great Bedwyn is undoubtedly, at least in part, a direct legacy of the Roman villa estate of Castle Copse. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 57-62. The Winchester Saints in the Calendar of the Wilton Psalter by WILLIAM SMITH* | In Piam Memoriam Eleanor Isabel Smith The Wilton psalter was written and illuminated at Salisbury between 1240 and 1260,' and was executed _ by the school of the Sarum Illuminator, though it may not represent the work of the Sarum Master himself.’ Like the Amesbury psalter, which dates from the same period and which may be regarded as the finest product of the Sarum school, the Wilton psalter was probably commissioned for a wealthy or high-born lady who took the veil at the abbey during the thirteenth century. Its provenance is indicated by prayers in the litany for the abbess and congregation of St Mary and St Edith.’ A peculiarity of the psalter, however, is that its calendar contains none of the distinctive feasts that would otherwise connect it with Wilton.’ This may help to explain why the psalter was removed from the abbey, probably after the death of its original owner during the thirteenth century. Some fifteen years before the Dissolution it is found in the possession of Ralph Lepton, parson of Alresford and Kings Worthy near Winchester, who gave it to his grand-niece Elizabeth Langrege or Langridge on her entry to Wilton abbey as a nun on 10 October 1523.° While the occurrence of two uncommon Troyes saints in the otherwise more or less standard Sarum calendar of the Amesbury psalter suggests that its original owner may have been French rather than English, perhaps associated with the Fontevraldine house of Foicy in the diocese of Troyes,° no such clue to possession is evident in the calender of the Wilton psalter. The provenance of the Amesbury psalter is indicated by the two entries for St Melor in the * 88 Heather Shaw, Trowbridge, Wilts. BA14 7JT /1. London, Royal College of Physicians MS 409. Described by E.G. Millar, ‘Les manuscrits 4 peintures des biblioth¢ques de Londres’, Bulletin de la société francaise de reproduction des manuscrits a peintures, vol. 4, pt. 1 (Paris, 1914-20), pp. 128-49. See also A. Hollaender, “The Sarum illuminator and his school’, WAM, vol. 50 (1944), pp. 248-52. Hollaender, op. cit., p. 248. Millar, op. cit., p. 135. For the calendar see thid., pp. 129-34. Hollaender, op. cit., p. 249. W. Smith, “The calendar of the Amesbury psalter’, WAM, vol. 78 (1984), pp. 118-19. 7. The May feast, which is assumed to be that of the translation, is entered in blue. aah eN calendar (1 October with translation on 6 May),’ which point fairly conclusively to Amesbury where the relics of the Breton martyr-prince had lain since the tenth century.® By contrast the distinctive Wilton feasts of St Iwi (8 October with translation between 25 February and 11 March)’ and the translation of St Edith (3 November), together perhaps with St Wul- frida, the mother of St Edith (21 September),!° and St Alburga, half-sister of King Egbert of Wessex and founder of the nunnery at Wilton (25 December),!! are omitted from the calendar of the Wilton psalter. The relics of St Iwi, a seventh-century confessor and disciple of St Cuthbert at Lindisfarne who died in Brittany are said to have been purchased by the nuns of Wilton from Poitevin or Breton vagi who visited the abbey during the late tenth century.'? This account has parallels with the Amesbury legend of the translation of St Melor,'* which may date from the same period. In the absence of St Iwi and the translation of St Edith the occurrence of St Edith in the calendar (16 September, in red) and litany (immediately preceding St Edburga)'* is by itself without significance for associating the psalter with Wilton. In common with the local saints Edward the Martyr (18 March), the half-brother of St Edith whose relics were at Shaftesbury, and Aldhelm (25 May), the cult of St Edith was widespread throughout southern England by the end of the eleventh century owing to the influence of the martyrologies and the Old English tract listing the Resting-Places of the Saints in England.'° The dissemination of the use of 8. Smith, op. cit., p. 118. 9. G. Benoit Castelli, ‘Un processional Anglais du X1Véme sitcle’, Ephemerides Liturgicae, vol. 75 (1961), pp. 286-8. 10. This is the probable date of the feast of St Wulfrida (A. Wilmart, ‘La légende de Ste Edith en prose et vers par le moine Goscelin’, An, Boll., vol 56 (1938), p. 275. ll. R. Stanton, A menology of England and Wales (London, 1887), pp. 607-8. 12. W. Smith, ‘A note on the medieval borough seals of Wilton’, Fournal of the Soctety of Archivists, vol. 8, no. 1 (April, 1986), pp. 45-7. 13. Cf. G.H. Doble, ‘Cornish saints’ series, no. 13 (1927), p. 24. 14. Millar, op. cit. (see note 1), p. 135. IS. Cf. F. Liebermann, Die Hetligen Englands (Hanover, 1889), pp 17-18. This work has been supplemented by D.W. Rollason, ‘Lists of saints’ resung places in Anglo-Saxon England’, Anglo Saxon England, vol. 7 (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 61-86 58 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Sarum from the late thirteenth century onwards ensured that her cult had gained all but national recognition by the close of the Middle Ages. The calendar of the Wilton psalter contains a distinct martyrological element, which includes feasts familiar to the pre-Conquest observance but less common in later times. As will be argued, this element derives from an earlier martyrological calen- dar or martyrology of Winchester provenance. Grad- ings of twelve lessons in an original hand for January, but omitted from the remaining months, indicate adaptation of a Benedictine model.!* Exceptional in a calendar from a Benedictine house are the uncoloured entries for St Benedict (21 March with translation on 11 July), which thereby imply low gradings for these feasts. The most significant feasts in the calendar with regard to its source are the distinctive Winches- ter saints Judoc (9 January), Alphege (12 March), Edburga (15 June with translaation on 18 July), Swithun (2 July with translation on 15 July and ordination on 30 October), Hedda (7 July), Grimbald (8 July), Birnstan (4 November), and Birinus (3 December). 7 JUDOC (BHL 4504-15; Propylaeum, pp. 580-1). The son of a Breton king, Judoc renounced his position of wealth and privilege, taking holy orders and settling eventually as a hermit in the place known later as Saint-Josse-sur-Mer in Ponthieu, where he died around 668. His cult was established at Winches- ter after refugees from Saint-Josse brought his relics there, or perhaps the entire body (BHL 4506~9), in 901 or 902.8 The saint was enshrined by St Grimbald in the church of the New Minster where the feast of his translation on 9 January was kept with high rank.!? Observance of the translation was rare outside Winchester and its diocese, though instances can be cited besides Wilton, including Wells, Sherborne and Worcester.”? Adoption of the feast in these and other places appears to have been due to martyrological influence. The feast of the deposition on 13 Decem- ber, which was not kept at Wilton according to the calendar, was more widespread. ALPHEGE (AA.SS. Marti, vol. 2 (1688), pp. 225-8). Bishop of Winchester from 934 to 951, Alphege is said to have been endowed with prophetic 163" VP5-p2153: 17. The calendar evidence for these and other feasts is discussed by Morgan, VP. 18. Ibid., p. 151 and 167. 19. Jbid., p. 151 (cf. also ibid., p. 149 for a high grading in the cathedral priory). 20. EK, vol. 1, pp. 100, 184, 212 and 226. 21.. GPsp: 164. powers and to have ordained St Dunstan and St Ethelwold together to the priesthood.*! He was en- shrined in his cathedral church where his feast on 12 March was dignified in albis, a high grading unique to the priory.’” His namesake, who was also bishop of Winchester, became archbishop of Canterbury in 1005 and was martyred by the Danes at Greenwich on 19 April 1012 (BAHL 526; Propylaeum, pp. 144-5). Though observed at Wilton, the feast of the later Alphege was widespread and need not imply Winchester influence. EDBURGA (BHL 2385-7). Edburga, daughter of Edward the Elder, was a nun of the abbey of St Mary at Winchester, known also as Nunnaminster, which was founded by Alfred and Eahlswith his queen.?? She was renowned for her sanctity and humility, though it is uncertain whether she became abbess.4 After her death in 925 her shrine at the abbey gave rise to a considerable cult, which continued into post-Conquest times. Some of her relics were preser- ved at Pershore abbey,”° being probably taken there during the reign of King Edgar, and the saint was venerated also at Sherborne, Worcester, Westminster, and Malmesbury.*° The feast of the translation on 18 July was uncommon outside Winchester and its diocese, and its observance at Wilton and Worcester was probably due to mar- tyrological influence. Its occurrence in a thirteenth- century diocesan secular calendar from the parish church of Hanley Castle in Worcestershire is not- able.?’ SWITHUN (BHL 7943-9; Propylaeum, p. 266). Bishop of Winchester, Swithun died in 862. His relics were translated by St Ethelwold on 15 July 971 to the recently enlarged Old Minster, and again to another shrine on the same day in 1093 when the Normans rebuilt the cathedral. The feast on 15 July thus celebrates both translations together. Observance of the feast of the translation, and the deposition on 2 July, was widespread, but the ordination of the saint on 30 October was rare outside Winchester where it was ranked highly in the cathedral priory.”° Its entry as a red letter in the Wilton calendar indicates a feast of distinction, though its grading is omitted. The saint was venerated greatly at Sherborne’? which would 22. VP, pp. 147 and 149. 23. VCH Hampshire, vol. 2, p. 122. 24. Cf. ibid., pp. 122 and 126. 25. GP, p. 298. 26. EK, vol. 1, pp. 189 and 217; EBK, vol. 2, pp. 68 and 84. 27. Cambridge University Library MS Kk.2.6. 28. VP, pp. 144 and 150. 29s -CEAGP, p: 179. THE WINCHESTER SAINTS IN THE CALENDAR OF THE WILTON PSALTER 59 account for the ordination in the calendar of the Sherborne missal, albeit with a low grading.*° HEDDA (AA.SS. uli, vol. 2 (1721), pp. 482-3; Propylaeum, p. 275). Little is known of Hedda, bishop of Winchester, who died in 705. Bede descri- bes him as ‘a good, just. man, who performed his duties as bishop guided by a natural love of goodness rather than by what he had read’.*! His episcopate is remembered for his translation of the relics of St Birinus from Dorchester-on-Thames to Winchester, which was also recorded by Bede.** Hedda was laid to rest in Winchester cathedral where his feast on 7 July was kept with high rank*’ and where his relics remain to this day. GRIMBALD (AA.SS. Juli, vol. 2, pp. 651 ff.). A monk of Saint-Bertin, who became dean of the New Minster in Winchester where he died in 901, -Grimbald was venerated greatly both there and at Hyde whither the foundation was moved in 1110.** Previous translations of the saint had occurred in 938 and around 1050. The feast on 8 July was common, but the translation on 3 September, which probably celebrates that in 938, was unique to Hyde and the cathedral priory.*° | BIRNSTAN or Brinstan was bishop of Winchester from 931 to 934. The little that is known about his life is recorded by William of Malmesbury, who relates that Birnstan was a man of singular piety and charity who washed and waited on the poor.*° He was | assiduous in his private devotions, during which he died.*” His memory was neglected for over thirty years following his death until it was revived by St Ethelwold after a vision in which Birnstan was | revealed to him in heaven in glory with St Swithun and St Birinus.** ‘Thereafter’, comments William drily, ‘he was accounted somewhat worthy of vener- ation’.*” His feast on 4 November was rare outside | Winchester where it was ranked highly.*” Besides Wilton there were cults of the saint at Exeter -according to two eleventh-century martyrological -calendars,‘' and at the Benedictine priory of Dunster. *” | 30. J. Wickham Legg, ‘Liturgical notes on the Sherborne missal’, Transactions of the St Paul's ecclestological society, vol. 4 (1900). ) p. 20. 31. Bonus quippe erat uir, ac iustus, et episcopalem uitam siue doc- tram magis insito sibt uirtutum amore quam lectionibus institutus exercebat (Historia ecclestastica, ed. C. Plummer (reprinted Oxtord, 1969), p. 320). 32. Ibid., p. 140. 133. VP, pp. 141, 146, 148-9 and 151. 34. VCH Hampshire, vol. 2, p. 117. 35. VP, pp. 142 and 151. 36. GP, pp. 163-4. 37. Ibid., p. 164. BIRINUS (BHL 1360-4; Propylaeum, pp. 562-3). The relics of Birinus, apostle of Wessex and first bishop of Dorchester who died in 650, were translated to Winchester by Bishop Hedda some forty years later. A second translation occurred in 980 when St Ethelwold moved the relics to a new shrine on 4 September. This translation was dignified by an octave at Winchester cathedral,** which also kept an octave for the feast on 3 December.** Taken with the martyrological content of the calen- dar as a whole, the presence of these feasts, par- ticularly the translation of St Judoc (9 January), Alphege (12 March), Hedda (7 July), translation of St Edburga (18 July), ordination of St Swithun (30 October), and Birnstan (4 November), is strong indi- cation that the source of the Wilton calendar was an earlier martyrological calendar or martyrology of Winchester provenance. There are _ problems, however, in identifying this source. If it was a monas- tc calendar, it is difficult to determine from which of the three Winchester Benedictine houses (the cathed- ral priory, Hyde and Nunnaminster) it originated, since observances characteristic of each are repre- sented here. The difficulty is compounded, moreover, by the adoption by one house of the feasts of another, a mutual assimilation of cults due to immediate locality, and their entry in the respective calendars.” A notable exception is the ordination of St Swithun on 30 October, which at Winchester was unique to the cathedral priory apart from its occurrence in one diocesan secular calendar, that of the psalter of Henry of Blois,*”? who was bishop of Winchester from 1129 to 1171. The other feasts discussed appear also in the Winchester diocesan calendars,*® though the latter seem less likely to have been adapted for Wilton use than their monastic counterparts. The red letter entry for the ordination of St Swithun in the Wilton calendar, the only Winchester observance there to be graded in colour, is a possible indication that its source was an unknown calendar of the cathedral priory where the feast was afforded high status.*” Such evidence is arguably tenuous, however, in view 38. Ibid., pp. 163-4. 39... .ntchil non venerationis deinceps merutt (ibid., p. 164). 40. VP, pp. 144, 147-9 and 152. 41. R.T. Hampson, Mediti aevt kalendarium, 2 vols. in 1 (London, 1841), p. 459; and EK, vol. 1, p. 96. 42. EBK, vol. 1, p. 159. 43. See note 32 44. VP, pp. 143 and 150 45. Ibid., pp. 145-150. 46. Cf. VP, pp. 149-153 47. Ibid., pp. 150 and 166 48. Jbid., pp. 149-52 and references 49. Ibid., pp. 144 and 150 60 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE of the significant absence of colour for the more important feasts of St Swithun on 2 July and 15 July. In the calendar of the Sherborne missal the deposition (2 July) and translation (15 July) of the saint are entered in colour and ranked highly while the ordi- nation receives a grading of three lessons only,” thereby reversing the situation in the Wilton calendar. On the whole, however, a martyrological calendar model as the putative source of the latter is to be preferred,*! though no less a case might be argued for a martyrology also. There is a puzzling anomaly in the Winchester observance of the feasts of St Iwi (8 October) and the rare translation of St Edith (3 November),”* undoub- tedly due to matryrological influence, and their omis- sion from the Wilton calendar where they properly belong. Evidence that both feasts, together with the translation of St Iwi in late February or early March,”? were kept at Wilton is provided by the sanctorale of a now missing fourteenth-century processional from the abbey, of which a nineteenth- century transcript preserved at Solesmes is available only.*4 Yet whether martyrological calendar or mar- tyrology, the same source was drawn upon also for the remaining entries in the Wilton calendar, including the uncommon non-Usuard feasts of Cuthman (8 February), Kieran (5 March), Mildred (13 July, in red), Cuthburga (31 August), and Ethelburga (11 October). Of these Cuthman, whose relics were trans- lated from their resting-place at Steyning in Sussex to the abbey of Fécamp during the eleventh century,” and Cuthburga of Wimborne, could alone be considered local in relation to the diocese of Winches- ter, for the cults of Kieran (Ciaran of Saighir, perhaps entered here in mistake for Piran of Cornwall whose feast was also 5 March),°’ Mildred and Ethelburga were respectively of Celtic, Kentish and Essex origin. Other notable feasts in the Wilton calendar include 50. Legg, op. cit. (see note 30), pp. 28 and 31. ats Ci. VP spe 154: 52. EK, vol. 1, pp. 123, 137, 151, 165 (Iwi), and 166 (Edith). 53.. -See note;9: 54. Castelli, op. cit. (see note 9), pp. 281-326. 55. G.R. and W.D. Stephens, ‘Cuthman, a neglected saint’, Specu- lum, vol. 13 (1938), pp. 448-53. 56. See Morgan’s note, VP, p. 171. 57. G.H. Doble, St Perran, St Keverne and St Kerrian, ‘Cornish Saints’ series, no. 29 (1931). 58. C.H. Talbot, ‘The life of St Wulsin of Sherborne by Goscelin’, Revue Bénédictine, vol. 69 (1959), pp. 68-85. 59. EBK, vol. 1, p. 2, Abbotsbury; for Worcester see The Leofric collectar, pt. 2, ed. E.S. Dewick and W.H. Frere, Henry Bradshaw Society, vol. 56 (1921), p. 589, cols. 5 and 6. 60. AA.SS. Februaru, vol. 1 (1658), pp. 386-94; BHL 8855-7. Wulsin (8 January), Werburg (4 February) and Pater- nus (16 April). Wulsin or Wulfsige became first abbot of Westminster in 980 and bishop of Sherborne in 992, retaining at the same time his abbacy.*® He founded a monastic chapter at Sherborne and improved the church by rebuilding it and increasing its endowment. Besides Westminster, Sherborne and Wilton the saint was venerated at Abbotsbury in Dorset, and Worcester.~” The cult of St Werburg was established at Chester after her relics were translated there late in the ninth or early in the tenth century.°? Devotion to the saint was confined mainly to Mercia, though her cult reached other parts of the country, including the south-west where four churches were dedicated to her.°! The usual date of her feast was 3 February, but at Wilton it was kept on the following day according to the calendar, perhaps moved back to make way for the feast of St Blaise. Werburg was commemorated also by the Victorine canons of Bristol on the evidence of the sanctorale of an incomplete fifteenth-century missal from the abbey of St Augustine. Before becoming bishop of Avranches thirteen years before his death in 564, Paternus was abbot of the monastery at Sissy near Coutances, known later as Saint-Pair in his memory.®? By tradition Paternus died at Eastertide on the same day as his companion St Scubilion, and both were buried together at Sissy. Their relics, together with those of St Senator, were sent from the abbey of St Samson at Dol in Brittany in the tenth century to King Ethelstan, who presented them to Malmesbury abbey where their feast, following Usuard, was celebrated on 23 September.™ At both Malmesbury and Wilton the transitus or passing away of St Paternus was commemorated on 16 April,® a day later than the actual date of the feast. An early sixteenth-century calendar from Malmes- bury ranks the transitus lower than the later feast on 23 September, which is dignified in cappis cum processione 61. In Bristol, Treneglos and Warbstow in Cornwall, and Wem- bury in Devon (F. Arnold Foster, Studies in church dedications (3 vols., London, 1899), vol. 2, p. 378, and vol. 3, pp. 66, 286, 294 and 298. 62. Bristol Public Library MS 2, described by E.G.C.F. Atchley, Transactions of the St Paul’s ecclesiological society, vol. 4 (1900), pp. 277-92. 63. Propylaeum, pp. 139-41. Life by Venantius Fortunatus, ed. B. Krusch, Monumenta Germaniae Historica (auctores antiquissimt), vol. 4, pt. 2 (Berlin, 1885), pp. 33-7 (BHL 6477). 64. GP, pp. 398-400. For the date of the feast see Le martyrologe d’Usuard, subsidia hagiographica no. 40, ed. J.Dubois, Société des Bollandistes (Brussels, 1965), p. 308. 65. The same date was adopted by the Roman martyrology - (Propylaeum, p. 139). 66. An. Boll., vol. 67 (1949), pp. 384-8. . THE WINCHESTER SAINTS IN THE CALENDAR OF THE WILTON PSALTER 61 | and entered in red.°’ This accords with the usual medieval practice, however, for the September observance was by far the more common. The tran- situs only is entered in the Wilton calendar, which here as elsewhere appears to have been faithful to its martyrological source. Through the martyrologies and the dissemination of the Old English tract listing the Resting-Places of the Saints in England,®* the cultic influence of Winchester was widespread by the time of the Con- quest. Before the end of the eleventh century Winchester feasts had found their way into the calen- dars of Exeter, Wells, Worcester, and other churches besides. The imposition of Winchester usage at Canterbury was among the liturgical reforms accom- plished there by Lanfranc following the Conquest.’° Once and for all Lanfranc discontinued the old martyrological observances at Canterbury by abolish- ing the established and traditional calendar of the cathedral priory and substituting for it, with due modification and by his own authority, the current calendar of the church of the capital of a now united England, Winchester.’! Yet far reaching though it was, Lanfranc’s action was perhaps less of an innov- ation than a culmination of devotional practices prob- ably already in existence at Christ Church by the time he achieved office. His reforms, both in this and in other respects, subsequently went beyond the pri- matial see to reshape the discipline and worship of the English church as a whole. Before the close of the cwelfth century the calendar of the church of Winchester as settled at the time of the Conquest had 3 established as the model to which English calendars, diocesan secular no less than monastic, egan to conform.’* When due allowance is made for eal cults and peculiarities, the indisputable found- ition of the diocesan calendars of Salisbury, Hereford ind York as they appear during the thirteenth century s the calendar of the eleventh century church of Winchester.”* Yet notwithstanding the establishment of a stand- d form and, taking into account local variation, content of the calendar, the influence of the mar- rology persisted in English devotional practice. It eft its mark on the York calendar while remaining 7. EBK, vol. 2, pp. 82 and 87. 8. See note 15, b9. Cf. EK, vol. 1, nos. 7, 8, 17, 18 et passim. 0. Gasquet and Bishop, The Bosworth psalter (London, 1908), pp. 27 ff. 1. Jbid., p. 31. 2. Ibid., p. 38. 3. [bid. particularly strong in the calendars of service books, usually psalters, commissioned for private rather than institutional use. There is evidence for this continuing influence throughout the Middle Ages, despite the growing predominance of the Sarum rite, and it appears to be most prominent in the calendars of service books owned by nuns. Besides the Wilton calendar examples of late martyrological calendars include the calendars of two psalters, dating from the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, from the Cistercian nunneries of Pipewell in Northamptonshire’* and Tarrant Keyneston in Dorset.’? Both are plainly non-Cistercian and, like the Wilton calendar, were evidently intended for personal rather than convent- ual use. Acknowledgements. I am deeply indebted to the Benedictines of Downside whose generous hospitality enabled me to write this paper. Thanks are due also to the Rev. Francis Turner SJ, librarian of Stonyhurst College, for kindly allowing me to examine the Tarrant psalter. Abbreviations used in this paper: AA.SS Acta sanctorum, 64 vols., Antwerp, 1643 ff. Analecta Bollandiana, Brussels, 1882 10 BHL Bibliotheca hagiographica Latina anti- quae et mediae aetatis ediderunt Socii Bollandiani, subsidia hagiographica no. 6, 2 vols., Brussels, 1898 and 1901, with supplement, ibid. no. 12, 1911 EBK English Benedictine kalendars after AD 1100, parts 1 and 2, ed. F. Wormald, Henry Bradshaw Society, vols. 77 (1939) and 81 (1946) EK English kalendars before AD 1100, part 1, ed. F. Wormald, Henry Bradshaw Society, vol. 72 (1934) GP Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis pontificum Anglorum libri quin- que, ed. N.E.S.A. Hamilton, Rolls Series, 1870 Propylaeum ad Acta sanctorum Decem- An. Boll. Propylaeum 74. British Library MS Harl. 5765. 75. Stonyhurst College MS 9. A thirteenth-century psalter from Tarrant (Stockholm, National Museum MS B 2010), also with a non-Cistercian calendar, is described by Carl Nordenfalk, Bok mdlningar fran medeltid och rendssans i Nationalmuset samlingar, Arsbok for Statens konstmuseer 26, no. 8 (Stockholm, 1979), pp. 42-8. 62 VP THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE bris ... martyrologum Romanum ediderunt H. Delehaye, P. Peeters er al., Brussels, 1940 N.J. Morgan, ‘Notes on the post Con- quest calendar, litany and mar- tyrology of the cathedral priory of Winchester with a consideration of Winchester diocese calendars of the pre-Sarum period’, The vanishing past, studies of medieval art, liturgy and metrology presented to Christo- pher Hohler, ed. A. Borg and A. Martindale, BAR international series III (1981), pp. 133-71 | Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 63-73. The Early History and Architecture of Bewley Court, Lacock By B.and R. HARVEY* (History) and P.M. SLOCOMBEf (Architecture) An article in WAM vol. 37 (1912) by Harold Brakspear traced the architecture and the later history of Bewley Court; the history was later corrected by C.H. Talbot. The present paper covers the earlier history of the house, and deals particularly with an inventory dated 1418, of Bewley Court and part of Littlecote. There is also a recent opinion of the architecture. Part 1 History by B. & R. HARVEY Bewley lies on the East bank of the River Avon, ‘opposite Lacock. It is not mentioned in Domesday, \which records three local estates: Lacock, Lackham and the smaller Wick Farm. In the later rate books of ‘Lacock parish,! Bewley is in the tithing of Lackham, jand was presumably developed on land cleared from ‘the forest with the blessing of Lackham. It is ‘mentioned in the early charters of Lacock Abbey, which record that by 1264 the street from Lacock had been extended as far as Bewley. In about 1280 the abbess agreed with William Bluet of Lackham to run a watercourse from Bowden to the Abbey, crossing the land of his men of Bewley.? The modern pipeline to the abbey is believed to follow the same course, and ‘crosses the field previously called the Rocks, which adjoins the garden of Bewley Court on the South. _ A series of leases given by the Croke family of Wick Farm between 1329 and 1409 refer to three crofts in Bewley, surrounded by a ditch.’ In the first lease the adjoining property is held by Nicholas Page, and in the last this property has passed to Thomas Calston, who also acquired the crofts. Nicholas Page, who also called himself Nicholas Collard or Nicholas de Beuelegh, had married Alice Croke of Wick Farm in 1316." A lay subsidy list of 1333 appears to confirm our grouping of the holdings in Bewley, and also "146, Winsley, Bradford-on-Avon, Wilts BAIS 2LB ‘FWiltshire Buildings Record, District Library, Sheep St., Devizes, “Wilts SN10 IDL. ‘1. WRO 173/26 to /33. shows Nicholas as one of the two highest taxpayers in the parish.’ He is the man most likely to have been the builder of the original timber-framed house which developed into Bewley Court. A lease of 1388, now at Lacock Abbey but given from Lackham, tells us that Nicholas Collard was succeeded by Henry Cokkes- dene or Collard, (who was alive in 1376), and then by Thomas Trewithigan and Joan. About 1391, the latter put the property into the hands of trustees,° and Thomas Calston acquired it soon afterwards. THOMAS CALSTON The Calston family took their name from the family farm at Calstone near Calne, but since the mid 13th century they had also held the manor of Littlecote, and other property. Through his grandmother, Joan de St. Martin, Thomas could claim descent from Ela, Countess of Salisbury, the foundress of Lacock Abbey, and thus from Henry II. We do not know when Thomas was born, but he started to buy land in Bewley in 1386, so perhaps he came of age then. In this year, too, he received his share of the estate of Sir Laurence de St. Martin, his great-uncle,’ including no doubt the two silver pots with the arms of St. Martin, later mentioned in Thomas’ daughter’s will. Between 1386 and 1409 Calston bought three subst- 2. Wilts Rec. Soc. vol. 33 (1979) Lacock Abbey Charters (169 & S1). 3. PRO E40/6560, Wards 2/94B/97, Anc. Deeds C146/2610. 4. PRO Wards 1/94B/21 5. PRO E179/196/8 6. Brit. Lib. Harleian Man. 1623. 7. Cal. of Fine Rolls 1386 64 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE antial farms and other property in Bewley, Reybridge and Notton.® He seems to have been a capable man of business, pursuing his claims to the manors of deceased relations, and serving as attorney for others. In 1400 he was interested for a time in the ‘Belle Inn’ in Chippenham.’ Small items were not neglected, and in 1397 he shared with others in the rent of a fish stall in Marlborough.'!° He was evidently in Lacock in 1392, when he witnessed an Abbey deed. He started to rebuild and enlarge Collard’s house, and added a chapel. In 1396 the Bishop of Salisbury issued a licence for a year to Thomas and Margery Calston to celebrate Mass in any worthy house. This suggests that building was in progress. (The Calstons had had a chapel at Littlecote since 1341.) In 1399 there is a second licence, but this is to celebrate ‘in the oratory of his house in the parish of Lacock’.!! The house is evidently complete. As he prospered he took up various public offices. In 1399, 1402 and 1403 he was a Commissioner of Array, employed in gathering troops, on the last occasion for the defence of Southampton.’* In 1405 he is described as the Abbess of Lacock’s proctor when he represented her at a visititation at Calne,!* but as this is the only occasion when this office is mentioned it is not clear whether it was a permanent post. In 1408 he was one of a group ordered to inquire into the affairs of the treasury of Salisbury Cathed- ral.!* Two years later he was appointed escheator for Hants and Wilts, and the oath of office which he took, in Norman French, before the Bishop of Salisbury, is still preserved in the Bishop’s Register.!° This was an important office, and one involving much travel. In 1415 he became the king’s chief representative in the county when he was appointed High Sheriff of Wilts. Calston was married three times. By his first wife, Margery, and his third, Marion, he had no surviving children. His second wife, Joan Chelrey of Childrey, Berks, was the mother of his daughter Elizabeth who was born in 1401. Elizabeth was contracted in mar- riage to William Darell at the age of eleven.!° For the contract William paid £300, and Calston agreed to settle Littlecote, his house in ‘Beaule by Lacock’, and other property on the couple: the deed is in French. By 1415 they were married, and Calston settles the manor of Beueleye on Elizabeth.’ It appears that the 8. Harleian Man. 1623, PRO Wards 2/94E/58. 9. WANHS (1908), Tropenell Cartulary, vol. 1, p. 81. 10. Cat. Anc. Deeds C2590. 11. WRO D1/2/6, Register of Richard Mitford, fo. 4 & 140. 12. Cal. Pat. Rolls 1399, 1402 & 1403. 13. Wilts. Rec. Soc. vol. 39 (1984), Register of John Chandler (91). 14. Cal. Pat. Rolls 1408. estate had become a manor, perhaps by agreement with Lackham. It seems certain that Calston was living for much of his time at Bewley rather than at Littlecote. Darell was to pay his £300 at Bewley, and the marriage contract and gift of the manor were dated from Bewley. The parish church for Littlecote was Ramsbury, and in 1412, when the church was dilapi- dated, it was said that the family at Littlecote or their tenants had been accustomed to pay for two candles at Mass, but this had been discontinued for two years.!8 This certainly suggests that the family were absent. An inventory of Calston’s possessions was taken in 1418, presumably at his death.!? In this Bewley is put first, and Littlecote second. The latter includes the chapel and all the service rooms, two rather poor chambers in the house, and a substantial farm. The main part of the house had perhaps been made over to William Darell and Elizabeth, or perhaps let, with a bailiff running the farm. The Bewley inventory is reproduced in the appendix. Bewley Court is still an open hall house, and it is possible to identify the position of Calston’s hall, parlour, great chamber, and parlour chamber. The position of other rooms is conjectural. Heating in the hall is indicated by two andirons, a fire fork and a plate; these were presumably for an open hearth, since the roof timbers are black. There were andirons and an iron fork too in the great chamber, where there is an original chimney. The parlour chamber and the chamber over the chapel also had andirons, but the parlour itself was unheated. There is no mention of fire-irons in the kitchen, but there were seven spits for roasting. The house was comfortably furnished, with some emphasis on handsome beds and wall hangings. Some of the items are described as ‘worn’, not surprising since Calston was well into middle age when he died. The hall presents the traditional picture, with one chair for the lord of the manor, and everyone else sitting on stools or benches. The family ate at the table immediately in front of the parlour partition; two more tables accommodated others. Adjoining was the pantry, with equipment for the table, and a good supply of table linen. The chapel was furnished for Mass, with silver communion vessels. One of the most 15. Cant. & York Soc. vol. 72 (1978), Register of Robt Hallum (1079). 16. Cat. Anc. Deeds C3575. 17. Cal. Close Rolls 1415. 18. Wilts Rec. Soc. Register of John Chandler (361). 19. PRO E154/1/31. THE EARLY HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURE OF BEWLEY COURT, LACOCK 65 attractive rooms must have been the great chamber, with its great red-curtained bed, and coverlet and cushions with the arms of Joan Chelrey, Calston’s second wife. As these consisted of a whirlpool (three red circles) on a white ground, the result must have | been quite striking. A second bed had a yellow -coverlet and blue hangings, reflecting the medieval taste for bright colours. The great chamber was probably used as a reception room. Other bedrooms _ were also well furnished. The chapel chamber was the only room in the house to have a mattress stuffed with wool or straw, instead of a feather bed. Possibly it was used by the priest, rather than family or guest, and was thus of a slightly lower status. A feature of the inventory is the large garderobe or | storeroom, where hangings for another dozen beds were stored. Here, too, were components of more than one suit of armour, a tent for war, pack saddles, axes, lances and crossbows, suggesting a military career. The garderobe also contained several sets of priestly vestments for use in the chapel, and stores of cloth and linen. In the kitchen, there were large cooking pots of up to ten gallons capacity, indicating large-scale catering. | Most of the local farming seems to have been done at Notton, and pigs and goats were kept. But the farm _at Littlecote was much larger, and included a flock of 458 sheep, and a white horse called Alwold. Calston ‘had a splendid collection of silver, but this part of the inventory is damaged. The goods at Bewley were valued at £84, at Littlecote (mostly grain and live- stock) £108, silver and valuables mainly at Bewley £100, and further valuables held by Calston’s widow Marion £47. LATER OWNERS From Calston both Bewley and Littlecote passed to William and Elizabeth Darell. Elizabeth outlived her husband, and died in 1464. Bewley is not mentioned in the list of lands at her I1.P.M.; perhaps it had already been given to her eldest son, Sir George Darell. He served for nine years as Keeper of the Great Wardrobe.’’ In 1472 he leased the manor of Bewley to a local butcher for £10 p.a.*! He was “succeeded in 1474 by his son, Sir Edward Darell, later Chamberlain to Queen Katherine of Aragon. Like his father, Sir Edward seems to have preferred Littlecote to Bewley. He carried out building work at Littlecote, and is the most likely person to have inserted the hall fireplace and altered the hall windows at Bewley. 20. Cal. Pat. Rolls 1461 & 1470. 21. Cat. Anc. Deeds C3138. Three fragmentary court rolls of his time have sur- vived.”” His heir was his grandson, also Sir Edward Darell, who inherited at the age of nine, and on reaching his majority sold Bewley to Sir William Sharington. Acknowledgements. We should like to thank the present owner, Mr. Oliver Ford, for starting us on this fascinating piece of research. We should also like to thank Mr. A. Burnett-Brown for permission to examine documents at Lacock Abbey, and Mr. Kenneth Rogers and his cheerful staff at the County Record Office for their help. A fuller account of the architecture and history of Bewley Court is deposited with the Wiltshire Buildings Record at Devizes Library. APPENDIX The inventory of Thomas Calston. This inventory (P.R.O. E154/1/31) was taken in 1418. It consists of two parchment sheets sewn together to form a single sheet, originally about 54” x 11” (137 x 29 cm.), of which some 8 cm. of the length is missing and a further 10 cm. badly damaged. This occurs at the foot of the front side and the top of the reverse: both missing parts probably refer to rooms at Littlecote. A comparison of the total value of the surviving parts of the inventory with the total stated in the inventory shows that the contents of the missing parts are of little value. In the translation below, for brevity, only the section of the inventory referring to Bewley is given. The original is in Latin, breaking into English where the scribe’s Latin fails. He then used the formula, for instance, ‘Item quoddam necessarium vocatum le fetherbed’; in the translation this is writ- ten ‘le fetherbed’, with the original spelling indicating the presence of the abbreviation. Words appearing in the Glossary are shown by asterisks. Inventory of the goods & chattels lately of Thomas Calston, indented & made by William Kaynell, Henry, vicar of Puryton, and Richard Shayll, administrators of the same goods, on Monday next before the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the sixth year of King Henry, the fifth after the conquest. Beueley Hall 1 worn Dorcer* & | banker* with 2 costers*, price 12d. 3 tables with 2 trestles, 4s.8d. 1 chair with 6 stools, 3s.4d. A ‘plate’* with 2 andirons & 1 fork, 26s.8d. 1 new Dorcer with 4 costers for the same, of sailcloth*, 4 marks. Total £4.9s. 22. PRO SC2/209/65 66 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE The Parler One Dorcer destayned* with 1 banker, 6s.8d. 1 oak foldyngtable, 3s.4d. 1 pomelchayre* with 2 ancient chairs, 2s.8d. 1 board called a cuppebord, 12d. Le foldyngtable, 6s. Total 19s.8d. Pantry 7 cloths called bordcloth, 8s. 2 towells de Werk*, 3s.4d. 2 short towells, 8d. 7 table towells called long savernaps*, 3s.4d. 1 cuppebordcloth with 7 napkyns, 4d. 4 basins with 4 ewers, 8s. 11 candlesticks of laton, 4s. 3 masers with 2 lids, 15s.0d. 7 small pewtrepotts, 3s.4d. 6 small letherpotts, 2s. 1 large Tubb with 3 pairs of small jars & 1 jar containing | gallon, 4s.4d. 2 saws, 3s.5d. 6 ‘standard vessels’, 3s. 1 bredkepe, 6d. A bredwhicche* for keeping bread in, 20d. Total £3.0.s.10d. Chapel 1 missal, 13s.4d. 1 gradual, 6s.8d. 1 set of ferial vestments 3s.4d. 1 chalice with 1 paten, weight 8 oz. 1 pyx for Corpus Christi, weight 53 oz.; price 2s.4d. per ounce. 3 altar towells with ] fruntell, 2s. 1 albastre tablet of the blessed virgin Mary, with other small antique tablets, 2 stoles, 1 paxbred & 2 pewtre candlesticks, 2s.10d. 1 vase for consecrated water, 12d. A small image of St John & 1 thurible, 8s. 1 chest for books & vestments, 2s. 1 set of principal vestments of red colour, 13s.4d. Total £3.16s.8d. The Great Chamber A great red bed, 1 coverlet & the tester of tapestriwerk of the arms of Chelreys, 1 canopy, 3 curtains of red Wursted & 6 ‘little costres’ of red Wursted with 6 gwysshe* of the said arms, 26s.8d. 3 old bankers, 12d. 1 ‘long setele’, 20d. A fetherbed, 2 blankets, 2 pr. of sheets with white faldyng*, 13s.4d. In the small chamber adjoining, 1 coverlet of blod* colour powdered with coneys*, blod colour, with a tester of the same colour, 6s.8d. 1 worn yelew coverlet with the arms of Fourra (?) of Northfolk, 2s. 1 pair of sheets, 2 blankets & a green cloak, 20d. 2 costers of chapletts of rosis, 5s. 3 pillows, 8d. 1 curtin of Card*, of blod colour, 8d. 1 pr. of anndirons with an iron fork, 2s.6d. 1 small chest, 8d. 1 table with the cuppebord, with 2 small forms, 2s.4d. A chest, well bound with iron, for deeds, 13s.4d. Total £3.18s.2d. Chamber over the Chapel 1 carpet* with 1 canopy & 3 curtins of Card, blod & green colour, 4s. 1 worn coverlet of Northfolk* with Okenleves, with | quilt, 1 pr. of blankets, 2 pulwes* & 1 fetherbed of canvas, 8s. 1 coster, destayned, of divers ‘ambis’™* with 2 small bankers, 2s. 1 pr. of anndirons with 1 iron fork, 16d. 2 worn coverlets with | blanket, 1 pr. of sheets & 1 worn mattress, 2s.6d. 1 table called pressebord, 3d. Total 18s. ld. Chapel Chamber 1 carpet, 1 canopy & 3 curtins, green & blod colour, 5s. 1 coster of blod colour Wursted & 1 blod coverlet of tapestriwerk, powdered with Akerns, 2s. 2 sheets & 2 pillows, 2s. 1 pr. of blankets with 1 mattress, 2s.8d. 1 round basin 4d. Total 12s. Od. Garderobe 1 coverlet of blod Wursted with | tester, 4s. 1 pr. of worn sheets, 12d. A small chest, 3 bordcloiths with 1 cuppebord cloith of Denannt* work, 9s. 5 towells de Werk, 5s. 5 bord cloiths of plain work, 6s.8d. 7 savernap towels, 4s.8d. Le tente for war, 13s.4d. 3 cloak bags, 3 cloth sacks, 2 barelys*, 10s. 2 somer sadells, 2s. 1 old missal, 10s. 1 portable breviary*, 26s.8d. 1 bronze mortar with le pestell, 3s.4d. 1 old gradual* with a troper*, 5s. 26 calves’ hides, 2s. 1 old duplett with 1| little sack of wool padding*, 16d. 5 coverlets of Wynchestre work* with 5 testers, 10s. 5 old worn coverlets, 5s. 1 white coverlet with the canopy and 1 tester powdered with hertis hedys & labards hedis*, 10s. 1 red bed, old, embrowdred with stags & the arms of Calston, with 1 carpet & ‘dumsilere’*, 5s. 1 red bed & carpet with 1 worn canopy, 3s.4d. 14 curtains of card with 1 worn canvas, of which 11 are appraised at 5s.6d. & 3 at 3s.4d. I quilt of silk, 13s.4d. 10 towels called savernaps, 4s. I table cloth of parys werk*, 12s. I worn table cloth, 16d. 4 pairs of sheets & 1 worn sheet, 16s.8d. 1 pr. of breganders*’, 60s. 1 pr. of old breganders, 20s. 1 headpiece called a basinet with a vizor, 13s.4d. Another basinet without vizor, with 1 prekynghatt*, 6s.8d. I apalet with ventall of maill*, 2s. 1 pr. of legharnais, 1 pr. of vambrays,* | pr. of rerebrays*, 1 pr. of mail gloves & 3 lance heads, 2s.6d. 1 pr. of sabatons & 1 pr. of vambrays, 5s. | thurible of laton, 2s. 1 cape, 20s. 1 chasuble with green orpheray, | alb, 1 amice with stole & maniple, 13s.4d. 1 chasuble of bordelisandre*, 2s. 1 blod colour chasuble with stole, maniple & parure for 1 alb & 1 amice, 10s. 1 chasuble of black bawdekyn* with green orpheray, stole, maniple & parure for | alb, | amice and a coverlet for the altar front, powdered with flour de lys, 16s. 3 basins with 1 ewer, 10s. Some old pieces of fustian cloth, 20d. 1 aulter cloith & 1 sheet 12d. 1 booklet* of the feast of Corpus Christi, 4d. 1 coverlet, blod, embrowdered with knotts & faucons, 4s. 1 canopy, 1 carpet in the same blod & green colour, paled*’, 4s.6d. 1 coverlet, blod, with carpet of the same colour with conies, 10s. 1 red coster of Wursted with 1 curtain, 4s. A worn curtin of blood colour, 8d. 1 coverlet of Wynchester werk, 3s.4d. 1 coverlet diapered with lyris de m* and roses, 2s. 1 worn coverlet, blod, 10d. 1 worn coverelt of Chalons werk”, 12d. 1 long red coster cut across (incised) in the middle part, 4s. 1 old quilt & 1 old mattress, 2s.8d. 2 canvas mattresses, 6s.8d. 2 badges* called liverey furr, of lambs’ skins, 16d. 1 Dorcer with 1 banker of tapestriwerk, 2s.6d. 1 Dorcer, red & black striped, 5s. 2 bankers, one red & white & the other red & green, 20d. 1 furrure*, part of funys* & part of the skins of black lambs, 14s. 1 cloak, russet & black, 3s. 1 doublet of white fustian, 4s. 1 dozen cloths, striped*, for boys, lls. A parcell of cloth, striped, containing 2 virga*, 2s.6d. 2 parcells of cloth, striped, for gentlemen, containing 4 virga, 6s. 1 parcel of cloth, striped, containing 3 virga & le naill* 6s. 1 parcel of green cloth containing 24 virga, 3s. 1 parcell of green cloth for certain boys, 3s.4d. 1 canopy of blew card, 2s.6d. 1 carpet of the same, 10d. 4 large canvases for beds, 7s. 1 Dorcer destayned, 8s. 4 pewter salts & 3 small pewtre potts, 2s. 1 tyn botell, 2d. 4 bows called arblasts, 3s. 2 Scottish axes, 2 short lances & 2 poll axes, 4s.4d. A pair of bowges* and a covering for a helmet called a basnett, 20d. 2 nets, one a chafnet & the other a tramaill net, 3s.4d. Some hemp, valued at 4d. A chest & some basketts with other small objects in the garderobe, 13s.4d. 1 pair of tyn botells, 12d. 3 prs. of jugs & 1 lether botell, 2s.4d. 1 pr. of trussyng cofre with 1 purse, 12d. 2 small gunnys*, 10d. 1 small gilded copper cross, 3s.4d. 2 parcels of card, 10d. 1 alb with amice & coverlet for the altar front with a towel & 2 curtains for the altar, 3s.4d. 2 cloaks, one of green colour & the other of scarlett hide with grey, 40s. A certain great chest, 6s.8d. Total £30.10s.1d. THE EARLY HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURE OF BEWLEY COURT, LACOCK 67 Parler Chambre 1 white bed powdered with red chapletts of roses, with canopy, carpet of the same, 2 curtins, blod and green card with 1 fetherbed, 2 blankets & 3 pulwes, 24s. 1 pair of anndirons with 1 iron fork, 2s. 1 old coster destayned with 2 old bankers & 2 cushions, 20d. in the latrine room above the parler 1 white coverlet with | carpet, 1 pr. of blankets & 1 small sheet with 1 small chest, 8s. Total 35s.8d. Kitchen 4 bronze pots, the first containing 7 gallons, 7s. the second 4 gallons, 4s. the third 3 gallons, 4s. and the fourth 2 gallons, 2s. 1 bronze vessel called le chafere, containing 1| gallon, 2s. 3 bronze posnetts*, 3 bronze dishes, worn, 2s. 7 iron spits, 3 large & 4 small, 7s.6d. 4 rakkes & hooks of iron, 4s.6d. 2 _ gratings called gredires*, 6d. 1 chafer of laton, 16d. 1 bronze chafer for water, 2s. Certain vessels called pewtre fessells, weight 280 lb., 46s.8d. 2 iron dishes, one called gosepann* _and the other fryingpann with a waferyre with hand (le?), 12d. 1 round basin, 16d. 1 dressyng knyff, 6d. A large bronze pot, containing 10 gallons, 8s. Total £4.16s.4d. | | Brewhouse 1 large cawdron, 3s.4d. 6 large bronze dishes, 26s.8d. 1 | tripod called le brandyre*, 8d. A wooden vessel, 2s. 1 | mustard quern, 20d. A bronze vessel called le gret chafere, ' 10s. Total 44s.4d. | Larder , Some wooden vessels & other objects, 2s. A stone vessel; and elsewhere in the said manor, 23s.4d. Total 25s.4d. ' Stable | 6 aged, worn cart horses, 30s. Granary called Collards ‘1 three-year old bullock, 6s.8d. 5 cows, 40s. Reins, 5s. 2 pr. ‘of wheels, one bound with iron, 6s.8d. 1 barell of tarr & le /anefeld* with other items, here & at Beueley*, Ss.8d. Total lee. | Pig house in the forest 118 pigs, that is 3 boars, 3 sows, 3 two-year old pigs & 9 one-year old pigs, 35s. Total 35s. Goathouse 40 goats, 40s. Total 40s. Natton Corn, by estimation 7 quarters, 32s.8d. Barley, 7 quarters, /35s.8d. New corn, by estim. 4 quarters, 16s. Rye, 5 quarters, 8s.4d. Peas & beans, 10 quarters, 23s.4d. 8 oxen, 8 marcs. 12 bullocks, estimated as 3-year olds, £4. 2 steers, 2-year old & 1 heifer of the same age, 16s.4d. 2 calves, 2s.4d. 1 wagon & 1 cart with all its harness & 1 plough with iron ‘chains, & other items 36s.8d. Total £17.4s. Jewels at Sarum, Beueley & elsewhere \(Badley torn, and much illegible) | j... . 2 jars called quart pots, | salt & lid and 2 bowls called jcaw (?), 5s.6d. 1 plain ‘verus’, 1 prof........ called |posnetts . . . . called a maser & lid with gold feet & 1 small bowl called a maser with feetof........ lid of silver, 8 \chargers, 24 dishes, 12 saucers, | paxbrede spoon (?), 2 salts, 1....with | lid. ... 1 piece, 1 chalice with 1 paten & 4 .... large, by weight....lid.... total £100.6s.8d. GLOSSARY (Ll. = Jatin) Ambis; unknown. Anefeld = anvil. Badges; part of a livery. Banker = bench. Barelys = barrels. Bawdekyn = arich fabric, with warp of gold thread and weft of silk. Beueley; ‘here & at Beueley’ added later. Blod = L. blodius, bright blue. Booklet = L. quaterium, a quire. Bordelisandre = striped silk fabric, originally from Alexandria. Bowges = leather pouch Brandyre = a 3-legged stand to support pots over an open fire. Bredwhicche = basket for bread. Bregander = coat of mail. Card = a cheap fabric, perhaps like muslin, used for linings. Carpet = L. tapeta, usually on an altar, or as a bed cover. Chalonswerk = embroidered cloth from Chalons-sur- Saone. Chelrey; the maiden name of Calston’s second wife. Coneys = L. cuniculi, little rabbits. Coster = side curtain, e.g. of a bed. Denannt; perhaps embroidery from Dinant (or Nantes). Destayned = painted (of a fabric). Dorcer = rear hanging or curtain e.g. behind a chair or altar. Dumsilere; not known. Faldyng = a hanging canopy or valence (or a coarse cloth with nap on both sides). Funys = ‘foin’, fur of martin or polecat. Furrure = trimming or lining of fur. Gosepann; perhaps = goferpann for pancakes. Gradual = book of the music of the Mass. Granary = L. grangia. Gredire = gridiron. Gunnys = (?) guns. Gwysshe = cushions. Hertishedys . . . = harts’ heads & leopards’ heads. Lyris de m. = Madonna lilies (?). Le Naill = measure of cloth, perhaps 2} ins. Northfolk; a kind a fabric. Paled; see striped. Parys werk; Paris cloth was fine white linen; paris stitch (embroidery) of alternately long & short stitches. Plate = a fire back (?) for an open hearth. Pomelchayre — unknown. Posnett = a little basin. Prekynghatt = ulung helmet. Pulwes = pillows. Rerebrays = armour for the upper arms. Sailcloth; L. is probably secl’= sigla = windmill. Sack of wool padding = L. sacula de cadas (?). Savernap = ‘sanap’, a cloth to protect the tablecloth. Striped = ‘paled’, (heraldic) or L. stragulatus. Towell de Werk = tablecloth with embroidery. Troper = book of ‘tropes’, sung before the Gospel at Mass on festivals, Vambrays = armour for the forearm. sail of a ship or 68 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Ventall de maill = vizor of chain mail (?). Virga = a measure of cloth, usually 3 ft. or 20 ft. Wynchester werk = a type of embroidery. Yrehous = smithy (iron house). Part 2 The Early Architecture of Bewley Court, Lacock by P.M. SLOCOMBE Harold Brakspear’s article of 1912 described the house after some repairs and alterations had taken place in 1897 and before he carried out major work for the owner.! His article was accompanied by 9 detailed drawings and 6 photographs which are now almost the only evidence for the earliest stage of the house as many features were removed during the restoration. Brakspear concluded that the earliest house had consisted of a hall facing S, a room over a cellar at the W end, and a two-storied wing at right angles to the hall at the E end. The hall roof, the W gable, and part of the S wall adjoining, together with the chimney of the great chamber on the first floor of the E wing still remained. His opinion was that apart from this chimney the whole house had been timber-framed originally and dated from the 14th century. He further concluded that in the 15th century the hall and E wing were rebuilt in stone, the original hall roof being retained and a new S front being added about 6 feet in front of the old providing space for a staircase alongside the hall leading to the great chamber and, next to the cellar at the W end, a small room with chamber over. ‘Slightly later’ a fireplace was inserted on the N wall of the hall and early in the 16th century the S window of the hall, situated in a square oriel used as a lobby to the great chamber staircase, was altered. These conclusions still broadly stand but the recently discovered early history of the building combined with a fresh look at its features, especially those not described in detail by Brakspear, may enable the development to be more closely dated. Timber-framing The 3 trmber-framed walls at the W end of the house surrounded the parlour and its chamber above. The jettied W end wall and the partition wall between the parlour and the hall can be studied from Brakspear’s photographs and drawings and the S side wall from one drawing. All were removed in the alterations. The W wall jetty was supported on wide, heavy joists with 1. H. Brakspear, ‘Bewley Court, Lacock’, WAM, vol. 37 (1912), pp. 391-399. arched brackets at the corner posts. Above the jetty the wall appears to have consisted of close studding, the studs being broad and widely spaced. A brace is shown between the NW corner post and the first stud. The corner post is not jowled and only slightly thickened at the head. Brakspear’s longitudinal section shows that the S side wall framing remained at first floor level and consisted of 2 door posts and a slightly curved brace from the E post to the chamfered wall-plate. The hall/parlour partition is shown best in a cross section looking W. At ground floor level the N half is divided into 2 tall panels by studs, with a slightly curved brace from the foot of the N post to the summer beam. The N post is set slightly in from the position where it would be expected. At first floor level there is a central post, cross rails to it at mid height and large curved braces from the summer beam up to the tiebeam, either interrupting the rail or more probably lap jointed against it. A partially framed wall still exists on the W side of the great chamber, jettied out internally over the cross passage on stone coving. Where it is exposed next to the porch chamber it is completely, or largely, rebuilt and Brakspear gives no information about it. Roofs The roof truss over the W timber wall was a tiebeam truss without collar infilled with 5 broad studs continuing in line with those of the timber-framed wall below. The truss over the partition wall between the parlour and the hall had a tiebeam and a collar, both slightly cranked, a central post between them and curved braces from the central post down to the tuebeam. The central open truss of the 2 bay hall was restored and remains today. It is closely related to the two-tier cruck roof of Bradford-on-Avon tithe barn but the lower blades being set very high in the walls on decorative stone corbels are technically termed curved principal rafters rather than crucks. As at Bradford THE EARLY HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURE OF BEWLEY COURT, LACOCK 69 the umbers of the lower part of the truss rise beyond the collar to clasp the sides of the upper crucks. These two-tier roofs were used only in stone-walled build- ings? and the sharp angle at the elbow makes it difficult to see how the truss could have originally been used with a timber wall as Brakspear thought. He came to this conclusion because he found similarly decorated windbraces in the hall roof and the roof over the parlour chamber and decided the roofs were therefore contemporary. This is certainly difficult to explain. Perhaps either the windbraces of the earlier tmber hall were re-used in the later stone hall or the parlour end windbraces were originally plain and were decorated to match those of the new hall. A two-storied porch protects the main doorway to the house. The tiny two-bay roof has small, cham- fered windbraces, a clasped ridge piece at the truss and clasped purlins (a type not occurring elsewhere in the house, see Figure 1). | a igure 1. Porch roof. Sketch section of truss from S (Scale approx 1:50) | The roof of the great chamber would have originally been 4 bays long but nearly half a bay is occupied by the stack for the kitchen fireplace. The remaining 1} bays to the N were partitioned off, probably in the 17th century, above ground floor level reducing the great chamber to 2 bays in length and orming a kitchen chamber with loft above. The main trusses of the great chamber are arch-braced collar trusses of medium scantling (see Figure 2). Between hem are light intermediate trusses (see Figure 3) with heir lower and upper rafters subtly shaped to mimic ‘he two-tier truss of the hall. An intermediate truss survives complete in the loft over the kitchen cham- der. It has a tall, narrow collar rather like a windbrace ‘fn size and thickness, pegged between the purlins. The function of the intermediate trusses is to house the upper windbraces. There are two pairs between E. Mercer, English Vernacular Houses (London: HMSO, 1975), pp. LOS—106, » ig i trusses in the upper half of the roof and one pair in the lower half giving a very decorative effect (see Figure 4). From the kitchen chamber loft the E side of the end truss of the hall can be seen. It is a collar and tiebeam truss but the principals have been replaced above collar level. The great chamber roof is fully framed at the S end with an unbraced collar truss embedded in the stone wall. The last bay at the N end has been altered because of the kitchen stack. On the E side of the room the lower section of the arch-bracing to the collar of what was the central truss disappears into the stone wall of the stack of the great chamber fireplace which Brakspear suggested preceded the roof. It is possible that the wall was thickened here at a later date. On the W side of the room the trusses fall short of the partition wall and the wallplate projects over it towards the room. Doorways The 2 earliest doorways are of wood. The one which was in the S wall of the parlour chamber is shown on Brakspear’s longtudinal section and described as 2ft 10in wide with a semicircular head. He drew it with the 2 side pieces of the arch fitting against the dropped centre of the lintel. This doorway no longer exists. Another wooden doorway, from the porch chamber to the gallery over the passage, still exists. He showed it in outline and said it was part of the original timber- framed building. The doorway has its best side towards the porch. The jambs and sides of the arch are in one piece against the dropped centre of the lintel. The moulding of the jambs from the S side comprises small hollow, step, elongated ovolo, fillet, elongated ovolo (return), step. On the S side the mouldings go down to elongated broach stops at the feet of the jambs and on the N side the moulding dies away to a point. There are 12 other medieval doorways or archways at Bewley, all of stone. They can best be shown in tabular form (see p. 73). Windows The earliest windows were wooden and in the W end wall on the first floor. Brakspear described them as a two-light window with ogee heads at the N end (shown in his photograph) and the remains of a similar 3 light window at the S end of the wall. Two two-light trefoil-headed stone windows remain, one to the chamber of the room off the S oriel 70 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE —__ apex hidden Figure 2. Great chamber roof. Central truss from N and apex detail of N truss apex hidden ——upper rafter . —— upper windbrace joint lowerrafter Om Im ee Oft Sft Figure 3. Great chamber roof. Reconstruction of an intermediate truss from N. THE EARLY HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURE OF BEWLEY COURT, LACOCK 71 TV AIX 0 Im 2m 0 5ft lOft Figure 4. Windbrace pattern in each bay of great chamber roof. and one to the porch chamber. There was also a small quatrefoil stair window on the S front which Brak- spear restored. An interesting discovery has been two ‘ragments of the great chamber oriel window which were found in the loft over the kitchen chamber. Brakspear does not mention them and since he -econstructed the window differently it is probable chat he was not aware of them. They show that the oriel had a hollow moulded mullioned and transomed window at the front with flanking walls at 45° angles javing at least two trefoil-headed panels at each side (see Figure 5). The fragments are not large enough to indicate how the head of the window was decorated or whether there were further lights on the side walls. There may well have been several tiers of trefoil headed panels. Fireplaces The earliest fireplace found by Brakspear was one of stone in the parlour chamber which had a simple flat-headed arch carried on elbows. It is no longer at Bewley and may well have been removed to another house. During the alterations the hall fireplace was moved to what had been the W wall of the parlour (now incorporated into the great hall). It has a depressed four-centred head and moulded surround. The relieving arch over it had caused the removal of part of the roll moulding of the N wall of the hall and the stack had partly blocked the E window of the N oriel. The cylindrical chimney to the great chamber fireplace is one of the especially interesting features at Bewley and has a moulded capital. Brakspear found a 16th century fireplace in the room and expected to find remains of the earlier fireplace under the plaster. We do not know if he did but he must have inves- uated since the 16th century fireplace was removed and the early 18th century bolection moulded fireplace from the parlour was put in its place. Each side of the fireplace is a recess which is L shaped like a dove hole and formerly had a door. | | | i { | | j : | Figure 5. Isometric drawing of larger stone from great chamber oriel window | if 72 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Special decoration The 1418 inventory gives an indication of the richness and colour of the furnishings of Bewley at that time. There was no doubt a great deal more architectural decoration than remains now. Brakspear restored the stone screen from the fragments of moulding of the top panel which remain but the rest is conjecture. He also restored from a fragment the crenellation along the S front for which no licence has as yet been found. The outer frame of the porch doorway is par- ticularly elaborate and has brattishing and pinnacles on the top. There is also brattishing to the wall plate in the hall and brattished semi-octagonal corbels support the open truss of the hall. The two sunken panels outlined by roll moulding on each of the N and S walls of the hall probably held wall paintings or hangings. Finally, the hall and parlour windbraces have carved roundels, most containing six-petalled flowers but a few containing Gothic tracery. The size of these roundels varies and so does their positioning on different windbraces. Discussion of the plan and dating of the house The ogee-headed wooden windows, the wide close studding and the arch-bracing in the panels suggest the umber-framed house dated from the first half of the 14th century, perhaps 1325-50. The two timber doorways are likely to be contemporary but the semi-circular head is unusual. Few domestic wooden doorways from before the 15th century survive and most have pointed heads. The cylindrical stone chimney of the great chamber could be an early 14th century feature as Brakspear thought but examples have been found dating from the mid 12th century to the end of the 14th and even occasionally into the Tudor period. The end jetty is also unusual in rural Wiltshire buildings where the jettied crosswing is more commonly found. Mercer? illustrates the typical open hall house with two-storeyed ends of the SE counties with an end jetty though there the roof was hipped. The first floor doorway in the S wall might have led to a staircase turret or to a garderobe (privy). There was a latrine room somewhere over the parlour in 1418. The later plan in stone suggests the S front replaced an earlier aisled construction but no evidence for this can be seen in the drawings of the framing and aisles would not normally be associated with an end jetty. 3, Ibid. pe ll. 4. M. Wood, The English Mediaeval House (London: Phoenix House, 1965), pp. 341-342. Documentary evidence suggests Thomas Calston was building between c. 1392 and 1418. Was this the period when the hall, S front, porch and great chamber were built in stone and the hall, porch and great chamber roofs were constructed? The four- centred arched doorways look later, especially those in square labels, as though the stone structure might have been built in two stages but these arches were beginning to appear at the end of the 14th century. The pointed arch was suitable for tall openings and the four-centred. arch for wide openings and the period was in any case a transitional one between the Decorated and Perpendicular styles. Wood* states that the roll moulding returned to fashion in the second half of the 14th century, boldly cut and flanked by hollow chamfers and cites its use at Wardour Castle in 1393. She says it appears with hollow chamfer and ogee at Dartington Hall, Devon c. 1388-1400. The raised crucks of Bradford-on-Avon tithe barn are thought to date from the early 14th century but the use of curved principals may be a later develop- ment. Those of the barn of Wick Farm, Lacock are usually dated early 15th century. The roofs of the great chamber and the porch at Bewley are quite different from the hall roof at first sight. But the great chamber has similarly proportioned arch-bracing with solid spandrels and similarly shaped and positioned lower windbraces. The ridge piece also is clasped in the same way. The main differences lie in the feet of the principals, the use of upper crucks in the hall and the doubling of the windbraces (with associated intermediate trusses) in the upper part of the great chamber roof. The only other local example of such doubling known to the writer is at Wick Farm, Norton St Philip which has an early 14th century main door- way and was probably built by Hinton Charterhouse.° The porch roof has clasped purlins and a clasped ridge piece, features recorded at 11, Silver Street, Bradford-on-Avon® for which a date between 1350 and 1450 was suggested. It is interesting that the W room in the position often called the cellar under the solar was already called the parlour by 1418 and by its furnishing seems to have been used as the owner’s private dining room. This was a developing tendency in the 14th and 15th centuries. The pantry may have been a division within the parlour or the small room off the S oriel. There is no firm evidence for the position of the chapel. 5. Vernacular Architecture Group, Spring Conference booklet (1986), p. 28 : 6. P. Slocombe, ‘Two Medieval Roofs in West Wiltshire’, WAM, vol. 80 (1986), pp. 173-175. THE EARLY HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURE OF BEWLEY COURT, LACOCK The straight staircase to the great chamber is unusual as Wood has pointed out’. It was an ostentatious feature using a lot of space. The position of the staircase at the W end of the house is lost. The service doorways from the entrance passage are a pair not 3 as in many medieval houses because the kitchen is not separate but incorporated in the crosswing, another growing tendency in the 14th and 15th centuries. The evidence of the roof suggests the itchen was ceiled over in 1418 and so probably already had a fireplace or a smoke bay at the N end. he storeroom called the garderobe in 1418 was most ikely the service room to the S in the crosswing. chnowledgements. I am grateful to Mr Ford for the freedom he has given me to examine the house and to Mr Thomas Brakspear for allowing me to see his grandfather’s original drawings. Wood, (note 4), pp. 331-332 including reproduction of Brak- spear’s plan of the house. 13 TYPES OF DOORWAY AND ARCHWAY S and N oriel arches Room leading off S Oriel 2 lower staircase arches Upper staircase arch Rooms below great chamber N door of passage S door of passage Porch Great chamber oriel TYPE OF ARCH pointed pointed four-centred four-centred in square frame four-centred four-centred four-centred four-centred in square frame pointed MOULDING double hollow (broach stop E side of N oriel) chamfer on inside hollow/ogee hollow/*4 hollow/ roll/hollow ogee/roll/hollow/ roll/ogee hollow (broach stop) hollow double ogee/ hollow/double ogee hollow/ogee Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 74-79. Wiltshire Apothecaries’ Tokens and Their Issuers by T.D. WHITTET* Trade Tokens were issued during the C17 as illegal money by merchants (including apothecaries), at a time when regal small change was scarce. Apothecaries’ Trade Tokens in Wiltshire form an informative body of data about the various individuals who issued them. The merchants included apothecaries from several Wiltshire towns. The paper draws on previous research and provides an updated review of research on Wiltshire trade tokens. Tradesmen’s tokens formed an illegal but tolerated money of necessity privately issued by merchants between 1648 and 1679 when regal small change was scarce or non-existent. The standard work on the subject is ‘77ade tokens issued in the seventeenth century originally published by William Boyne! in 1858, revised by George C. Williamson in two volumes, 1889-91? and reprinted in three volumes by B.A. Seaby Ltd. in 1967. This work is now popularly called ‘Williamson’ and will be referred to as such in this paper. The succession of publications on Wiltshire tokens was started by Akerman (1846)* whose work preceded that of Boyne. ! The Wiltshire section of Williamson’s revision of Boyne’s book was by W. Cunnington and F.M. Willis. C.M. Rowe’s’ work on Salisbury’s tokens undoubtedly stimulated great interest in the background study of the lives and occupations of the local issuers. Through his position of Deputy Treas- urer of Salisbury he made full use of his special knowledge. In 1978 E.G.H. Kempson® published a Wiltshire list with the aim of being as complete as possible and also excluding some two dozen examples which had received false attributions. He included a few biogra- phical notes on some of the issuers but not on the apothecaries. The Wiltshire Record Office has gradually amassed a fine collection of original decuments including wills and inventories and now, under the influence of the late R.B. Pugh, centralisation of Parish Registers is effectively complete under K.H. Rogers. (Mr. Kempson, personal communication, April 1986). These records can provide additional biographical data on token issuers. APOTHECARIES’ TOKENS Williamson? listed only one token of Wiltshire bear- ing the Apothecaries’ arms, that of Elias Ferris of Malmesbury, and one which bears the word apothecary. He also recognised that Edmond Macks (Edmund Mack) was an apothecary. He gave very little informationnn about the issuers. 1. Elias Ferris of Malmesbury O. ELIAS . FERRIS . APOTHECARY —- The Apothecaries’ arms. R. IN . MALMESBVRY . 1669 — HIS HALF PENY. E. F. A. (’d.). Figure 1. There were two successive apothecaries of the issuer’s name, father born c. 1640 and son born 1665. The former, who was the issuer, died intestate, probably in 1699 or 1700 as, on January 3 1700/1 ‘John Ferris of London, . . . silver Wyre drawer, . . . son of Anne Ferris . . . relict of Mr. Elias Ferris late of Malmesbury deceased,’ gave an administration bond for his estate.’ The name of his wife corresponds with the additional initial on the token. An inventory of the goods of ‘Elias Ferris the elder, of Malmesbury, apothecary’ was appraised on ‘the fourteenth day February Anno Dom 1700’ (February 14 1700/1). His premises included ‘Parlour, Kitchen, Buttery, Entry,’ each with a chamber above it, ‘Brewhouse, Old Loft and Cockloft.’ No drugs were listed. The goods amounted to £41 17s. 2d. The name of some of the * — Deceased: late of Woburn Lodge, 8 Lyndhurst Drive, Harpenden, Herts. 1. ‘Tokens issued in the seventeenth century’ by William Boyne. London: J.R. Smith, 1858. 2. ‘Trade tokens issued in the seventeenth century’, revised by G.C. Williamson. Two volumes. London: Elliot Stock. 1889-91. 3. ‘Trade tokens issued in the seventeenth century’, revised by G.C. Williamson. Reprinted in three volumes. London: B.A. Seaby Ltd., 1967. Wiltshire tokens, 1227-1250. 4. Akerman, J.Y., Numismatic Chronicle, VII, 97-115 (1846). 5. ‘Salisburys Local Coinage’, by C.M. Rowe. Salisbury: Tisbury Printing Works, 1966, 56-61. 6. ‘Wiltshire XVIT century tokens’, by E.G.H. Kempson. Salisbury: C.M. Rowe, 1978. f 7. Wiltshire Record Office. Inventory of Elias Ferris, 1700. WILTSHIRE APOTHECARIES’ TOKENS AND THEIR ISSUERS appraisers are difficult to decipher. One is clearly John Burges. The others may be Thomas Russell and Isaac Wasse. The will of the issuer’s son Elias Ferris, apothecary, was made on March 24 1700/1 when he was ‘sick in body but of sound & pfect mind and memory.’ He left £50 each to his sons John and Elias, the latter on reaching the age of twenty-one. His daughter Anne may have displeased him as she was left the proverbial shilling, while two god-children were to receive 5s. each. The residue was left to his wife Joan who was sole executrix. She proved the will in 1701. An inventory was taken on May 12 1701 by Thomas Miller, a witness of the will, William Couch and ‘Charles Wallington. The last-named was probably the lapothecary of that name of Malmesbury, whose son Edward was bound to Thomas Toms, barber-surgeon of London on September 4 1717.? The inventory showed that he had large premises with similar and probably the same rooms as those of his father. In the shop were ‘Druggs, Salve, Biskett, sugar plumbs and ‘other candied things’ valued at £20 and ‘Glass Bottles, Glasses, Gallypotts, boxes, Tobacco and other materi- als or other things’ together with ‘4 spice mortars and estles and also a Counter’. The total value was £173.15s. a considerable sum for those days. Contemporary with the issuer, and probably a elative, was Charles Ferris, Philo-Chymist, who ‘subscribed to C. Packe’s ‘Works of Glauber’ published in 1689.'° W.R.O. Will and inventory of Elias Ferris 1701. ‘Eighteenth century medics’, by P.J. and R.V. Wallis with the assistance of T.D. Whittet. Newcasde upon Tyne: Project for | Historical Biobibliography, 1985, 1159. 0. Wallisses and Whittet, op. cit., 368. 75 MW nae Figure 1. Token of Elias Ferris. Courtesy of the Museum, Devizes. Actual size 2 cm. diameter. One of the issuer’s descendants may have been Henry Ferris, who was bound to William Bloxham, surgeon, etc. of Amesbury, Wilts., on August 25 1790.'° He, in turn, could have been an ancestor of Samuel Ferris, M.D., F.R.S. The latter was born in Wiltshire, apprenticed to Thomas Healey, surgeon- apothecary of Berkhamsted, Herts., and later studied in Edinburgh and London. He became a Licentiate of the College of Physicians 1755, Doctor of Medicine, 1784 and Fellow of the Royal Society, 1797. He practised in London and then in Beaconsfield, wrote several dissertations on medical subjects, and died in 1831.!! The issuer may also have been an ancestor of the apothecary or chemist and druggist Richard Ferris, who joined John Fry and Gibbs of Bristol in about 1812 to form the pharmaceutical manufacturing firm of Fry, Gibbs and Ferris, later Ferris & Co.!* which celebrated its bicentenary in 1981. Bristol is about 18 miles (30 km.) from Malmesbury. 2. Fohn Hancock of Salisbury O. IOHN . HANCOCK . IN . NEW — 1. H. R. SARVM . APOTHECARY — A gaper. (jd.) Figure 2. Williamson? and Rowe? called the device on the reverse ‘The bust of a Turk’ and the latter wrote ‘The oriental head shown on this token was probably the sign at John Hancock’s shop.’ The bust is almost certainly a ‘gaper’, the pharmaceutical symbol of a bust, shown with its tongue out. Such signs were ll. ‘Roll of the Royal College of Physicians of London’, by W. Munk. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1878, 2, 358. 12. ‘Ferris & Co. celebrates 200th. anniversary’. Pharmaceutical Journal, 1971, 206, 13. 76 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Figure 2. Token of John Hancock. Drawn from a photograph of a specimen in the Norweb collection, kindly supplied by Mr. R.H. Thompson. Actual size 1.6 cm. diameter. popular in Holland at the turn of the seventeenth century but less so in England. Tugores!* wrote ‘the earliest gapers had a strong oriental character and generally depicted Moors, Javanese, Arabs and Turks’. William Ball, apothecary of Oxford, had the sign of a Turk filling a coffee-cup but he had a coffee house as well as a pharmacy.'+ Several other apothecaries used signs of heads of various kinds. For example, Thomas Smith, an apothecary, with whom Robert Boyle (1627-91) lived for seventeen years before his death, and who was his executor, had his pharmacy at the sign of the Boyle’s Head in the Strand.'° Other signs with heads used by apothecaries and chemists and druggists included Boerhaave’s Head (Hermann Boerhave, 1668-1738), Glauber’s Head (Johann Rudolph Glauber, 1604-70), Golden Head, Golden Galen’s Head (Galen, ? 131-201), and Lilly’s Head (William Lilly, 1602-81), all in London.'® The token issuer’s sign may well have been known locally as ‘Hancock’s Head.’ The issuer appears certain to have been the apothecary Hancock of New Sarum, who in about 1662, supplied to Robert Cole, innkeeper of Winches- ter, a medicinal water which is said to have cured him of King’s Evil.!7 The will of ‘John Hancock of the City of New Sarum. . . Apothecary’ was made on August 1 1680 when he was ‘in perfect and sound mind and memory . . and calling to mind the uncertainty of life’.!® He left to his son Essex £5 and a silver box with silver and other instruments ‘which are of several sorts apptaining to my pfession and also all my Physick 13. Tugores, M., ‘Dutch Gapers’. Pharmaceutical Journal, 1985, 235,28). 14. ‘Properties of the City of Oxford’, E.H. Salter, 1926, 1, Appendix 2, 264. 15. Madderson, R.E.W., ‘A summary of former accounts of the life and work of Robert Boyle’. Annals of Science, 1957, 13, 107-8. 16. ‘Signboards of Old London shops, by Sir Ambrose Heal. London: B.T. Batsford, 1947, 47-8. books’. It seems likely that Essex carried on his father’s practice. To one daughter Christian Hancock he left £10 and to another Mary Reeves 40s. Presumably she had received her share as a dowry. A third daughter Margaret was left £15 at the age of eighteen or on her marriage, the interest to be used for her education and maintenance. To his wife Martha he left two tenements with appurtenances, situated in Scotts Lane, Sarum, in the occupation of Thomas Walls and William Clements, for life and then to be equally divided between his sons John and James and daughters Elizabeth, Ann and Martha. William Clements or Clemens was a mercer who also issued a token in 1664 in Salisbury. All the rest of his goods and chattels were left to his wife who was sole executrix. He appointed as over- seers his brothers Richard and Charles Hancock, kinsman Thomas Hatchett, brother-in-law Gabriel Ashley, along with Richard Goldston, gent., and cousin Robert Cutler, clothier. The will was proved on July 6 1682. In Martha Hancock’s will of December 15 17081? which was proved on June 6 1709, when she was a widow, she left the mourning-ring which she always wore to her husband’s uncle Thomas Hancock. The latter may have been the person of that name of Westbury, who isued in 1655 a token bearing the device of a cock on the obverse and of a hand on the reverse. John Hancock was probably an ancestor of William Hancock who was admitted to the University of Leyden on September 12 1738, aged 22.”° He became a Bachelor of Medicine of Cambridge in 1741 and practised in Salisbury where he subscribed to a book about the cathedral in 17537! and died in 1798. Henry Cole of Salisbury, whose house was adjacent to that of John Hancock, described as a grocer in Salisbury sub-dean’s presentments, issued in 1653 a token bearing the device of a saracen’s head. 3. Edmond Macks of Salisbury O. EDMOND . MACKS - A mitre. R. OF . SARVM- E. M (4d.). Figure 3. Williamson? quoted from Hatcher’s ‘History of New 17. ‘In support of the efficacy of the Royal touch’, by John Badger. London: G.E. Peachey, 1749, 29. 18. W.R.O. Will of John Hancock, 1682. 19. W.R.O. Will of Martha Hancock, 1709. 20. ‘English speaking students of medicine at the University of Leyden’, by R.W. Innes-Smith. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1932, 108. 21. Wallisses and Whittet, op. cit., 484. WILTSHIRE APOTHECARIES’ TOKENS AND THEIR ISSUERS Sarum’ ‘in reference to the rising of Royalists in the West of England in 1654... Edmund Mack was an apothecary in Salisbury, one of the seven who pleaded guilty of raising war against the government, and was probably pardoned.” Rowe? wrote ‘Edmund Macks (apothecary) took an active part in Penruddock’s Royalist Rising proclaiming Charles II at Salisbury early in 1655. Macks was found guilty of High Treason by a Grand Jury at Salisbury on 13th. April 1655 but there is some doubt as to whether the death sentence was ever carried out. There exist records of local petitions for his reprieve and no record of his execution’. Figure 3. Token of Edmond Macks. Drawn from a sketch kindly supplied by Clare Conybeare, Assistant Curator (Archaeology) of the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum and a plaster cast kindly suppllied by Dr. P.H. Robinson, Curator of the Devizes Museum. Actual size 1.65 cm. diameter. He was evidently reprieved as he lived until 1675. The will of ‘Edmund Mackes of the Citty of New Sarum in the county of Wilts., apothecary’, was made on September 17 1675, he ‘being sicke and weake in body but in perfect mind and memory’.”? He wished to be buried at St. Thomas’s near his father. He appointed as trustees his friends Sir Thomas Mom- pesson, Christopher Gardiner, ironmonger, and kins- man James Ely, all of New Sarum, to look after his estate until his son Edmund reached the age of twenty-five. They were to pay his debts, £50 p.a. to his wife Mary and £60 p.a. to Edmund until twenty- five when he was to receive the ‘rest and residue’ of the income. Mary was left a tenement in West Grimstead, two houses and the income from some leases in New Sarum, together with much furniture, silver, etc. After her death they were to go to Edmund who was also left a house and the income from leases in New Sarum. Mary was also left the furniture in her chamber and ‘The Rest of my estate, Lands, Tenements, goods, i 22. Public Record Office. Will of Edmund Macks. Prob. 11/349- 128. 77 Chattells, ready money, Plate, Household stuffe & other Implements whatsoever not before given or devised.’ Other bequests were £10 each to James Ely and cousin Walter Ireland and £5 each to Christopher Gardiner and the poor of St. Thomas’s parish. Among the witnesses was Francis Hill, possibly an apothecary. The will was proved on December 4 1675, by the trustees who were also the executors. A mitre might seem a strange device for an apothecary but Macks lived in the Mitre chequer of Salisbury. (Mr. Kempson, personal communication). AN ADDITIONAL APOTHECARY‘S TOKEN 4. William Wayte of Malmesbury O. WILLIAM . WAYTE — The Grocers’ arms. R. IN. MAMSBVRY . 1651—W . W. (id.). Figure 4. Williamson? gave no information about the issuer, who was the son of Edmund Wayte, mercer, and his wife Margaret. He married Mary Hobbs on July 5 1657, who was buried on June 11 1661. Despite his use of the Grocers’ arms he appears certain to have been the person mentioned in the minutes of the London Society of Apothecaries on March 3 1667/8 ‘William Waite, son of W.W. of Malmsburie in the countie of Wiltes., apothecarie, psented to be bound to Peter Browne for 8 years’.”? Figure 4. Token of William Wayte. ‘Arust’s impression’. Actual size 1.5 cm. diameter. On October 10 1668 William Wayte was granted a licence to practise surgery by the Bishop of Salisbury. The Waytes may have belonged to a joint gild of mercers, grocers and apothecaries etc. as was the case in many provincial towns. All three generauons may have been apothecaries. The issuer may have been an ancestor of Simon, son of Alice Wayte of Calne, Wilts., who was bound to James Dixon, surgeon, etc., on September 8 1746 and of A.W. Wayte, surgeon-apothecary of Calne, to 23. Court Minute Books. Society of Apothecaries. Guildhall MS 8200/2, f. 113. 78 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE whom William Miles was bound on October 31 1785.24 POSSIBLE APOTHECARIES’ TOKENS Henry Coleman of Marlborough, who issued an undated farthing token bearing on the obverse the device of a pair of scales and on the reverse the initials H. C. E., and had a son Joseph bound to Robert Baskett of the London Society on June 7 1687,”° may have been an apothecary. There were numerous Wiltshire apothecaries called Coleman. On December 16 1683 John Coleman of Bradford was granted an episcopal licence to practise surgery.*° His will was proved in 1692.7” On November 1 1714 Thomas, son of Henry Coleman, mercer of Highworth, was bound to Jonathan Lipyeatt, surgeon-apothecary of Newbury, Berks.”° Although called a mercer, this Henry may also have been an apothecary. Elizabeth Coleman of Mildenhall (13 miles (2.5 km) from Marlborough) who was buried on July 16 1686, may have been the wife of the token issuer. Her Christian name corresponds with the additional initial on the token. Fohn Hele of Sarum, who issued an undated farthing token with the device of a rampant lion on which he was called a grocer, may have been an ancestor, possibly the grandfather, of Henry Hele, M.D. (Utrecht, 1719; Cambridge, 1728). The latter dedicated his thesis to John Hill, J.P., of Wiltshire.*® He practised in Salisbury where he was living when he subscribed to Francis Price’s book on Salisbury Cathedral’? and he died there on June 22 1778. Fonathan Hill of Sarum, who issued in 1668 a half penny token bearing on the reverse a spray of two flowers between the initials I.H.E., may have been the brother of Matthew Hill, apothecary of Salisbury, mentioned as John in the latter’s will proved on September 7 1667.7? Matthew is mentioned on the tombstone, in the church of Stratford Toney, near Salisbury, of his daughter-in-law Elizabeth, wife of his son Richard, alderman of Sarum. The latter was buried there in 1668, aged 28 and Elizabeth in 1715, aged 49. The token issuer may also have been the father of ‘Matthew Hill, son of Jo" of Whitsbury, Co. Wilts., yeoman’, who was bound to Peter Sambrooke of the London Society on May 6 1672.7! Francis Hill, who witnessed the will of Edmond Macks, was probably of the same family. 24. Wallisses and Whittet, op. cit., 1180. 25. Apothecaries’ minutes. MS. 8200/3, f 233. 26. Wallisses and Whittet, op. cit., 232. 27. P.R.O. Will of John Coleman, 1692. 28. Innes-Smith, op. cit., 113. 29. Wallisses and Whittet, op cit., 521. The following may have been descendants:- Thomas, son of Thomas Hill, grocer of New Sarum, who was bound to John Hobbs of the London Society on May 6 1690,” and Thomas Hill, who was bound to John Goldwyer, surgeon of New Sarum, on October 3 1777.°** There were thus numerous apothecaries in the Hill family of Salisbury and Jonathan, the token issuer, may well have been one. William Stevens of Devizes, who issued a farthing token in 1663, bearing the Grocers’ arms, was also called a grocer when his son John was bound to Thomas Shaller of the London Society on August 5 1679.** He may have been an apothecary or grocer- apothecary. TOKENS BEARING DEVICES OFTEN USED BY APOTHECARIES COCK— Thomas Hancock of Westbury (possibly a relative of John of Salisbury), who, as we have seen, issued a token with this device and a_ hand, presumably a pun on his name. James Elhott of Warminster, for an unknown reason used the same devices. Their occupations are not known. CROSS-— Thomas Deighton of Cricklade, mercer, John Clarke of Trowbridge, draper, Paul Methwin of Bradford-on-Avon, glover, and I. Poore of Barnets Cross, Sarum, occupation unknown, issued tokens with various types of crosses. SNAKES-— Thomas Cutler, Sr. of Sarum, issued a token with ‘two snakes entwined’ which Rowe? included in ‘physicians and apothercaries’— (Figure 5.). He wrote of it “The two snakes entwined are presumed to indicate a physician’. Thomas Cutler, Jr. also issued a token, but without a device, (Figure 6.) about which Rowe commented ‘There can be no certainty that Thomas Cutler, Jr, was a physician but his token is Figure 5. Token of Thomas Cutler, Sr. Drawn from an illustration in Rowe’s book. (Note 5). Actual size 1.8 cm. diameter. 30. P.R.O. Will of Mathew Hill, Prob. 11/325-117. 31. Apothecaries minutes. MS. 8200/2, f. 162. 32. Apothecaries minutes. MS. 8200/3, f. 298. 33. Wallisses and Whittet, op. cit., 538. 34. Apothecaries minutes. MS 8200/2, f. 248. WILTSHIRE APOTHECARIES’ TOKENS AND THEIR ISSUERS 79 eh SA re AGS hig? -_ cae - x ee nee ae a Figure 6. Token of Thomas Cutler, fr. Courtesy of the Museum, Devizes. very similar to his father’s and had he not been following the same profession it seems likely that his token would have indicated this’. Another token with the two snakes was issued by G.F. of Salisbury. (Figure 7.) . = a ce : rad ° ’ G oS. ‘Qeooe of ws Ajo ‘©. > é Toangoc? Figure 7. Token of Giles Freeman. Drawn from an illustration in Rowe’s book. Actual size 1.8 cm. diameter. Although the correct device for medicine is the rod of Aesculapius with one serpent, (Figure 8.) the caduceus with two (Figure 9.) has often been used in its place from as early as 1520. The device on these tokens resembles the caduceus except that the serpents face outwards instead of inwards and there is no rod between them. It appears to be the amphis- baena or double-headed serpent of heraldry. Rowe’s> assumption that the issuers might have been physi- cians is therefore understandable but Mr. Kempson has supplied me with ample firm evidence that the Cutlers were clothiers and G.F. (Giles Freeman) a skinner. Why they used this device is unknown. KULL- A token of sarum bears on the obverse the Ficure 9. The Cad . . ° . *wure 7%. te Caduceus. device of a skull and the inscription EDM IN Bang eae: SARVIM and on the reverse the device of a heart and the words ‘If thou believest’. The symbol of a skull fte sed by ; hecaries and th: f the he; Acknowledgements. Much of the research in this paper was carried out as Y ten use y apothecaries and ¢ auc the alt with the aid of a grant from the Wellcome Trust and I express my casionally. Rowe speculated that the issuer might gratitude to the trustees. I am especially grateful to Mr. E.G.H ave been an innkeeper but Mr Kempson has proof Kempson for a great deal of information about several of the issuers, P ; : = 2 especially the Cutlers and Giles Freeman and about the communion that this was a communion token issued by St. token. His advice has led to a revision of the paper. I wish to thank dmund’s church Sarum.° my wife Doreen M. Whittet for drawing Figures 2—S and 7-9 Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 80-90. Maddington Priory: a measured survey and report by RICHARD DEANE% and KIRSTY RODWELLT A recent architectural study of Maddington Priory at Shrewton shows the unusual building to be a C16-C17 stables, with fine mullioned windows ashlar stonework and fine roof trusses. The study examines the evolution of the building, and illustrates the various architectural features. Introduction by RICHARD DEANE Shrewton, on Salisbury Plain, is remarkable in having consisted originally of eight separate hamlets, only some of which are now discernible in varying degrees in the modern village into which they coalesced. The building known at least in recent times as Maddington Priory helps to perpetuate the name of one of these hamlets, while at the same time offering a clue to its origin. Maddington derives from ‘Maidens Tun’, the maidens being the nuns of Amesbury Abbey, who owned an estate here. The building’s acquisition of the name Priory is therefore clearly a reflection of the local memory of this ownership; but it has also served to disguise the actual nature of the building, which is interesting for reasons which turn out almost certainly to have nothing to do with the nunnery. That the Priory came to be so called is not par- uicuarly surprising; its appearance, with stone mul- lioned windows each with two round-headed lights under a hoodmould, and a small bell-turret which existed until the early years of the present century, must have always suggested an origin distinct from and predating the now disused farmyard which it flanks. (Figure 1) When the Salisbury Civic Society became alerted to the building in April 1985 by the publication of a planning application to convert it into a house, it seemed reasonable at first to accept that it must have had some connection with Amesbury Abbey. The abbey’s holdings in Maddington constituted an agricultural grange, supplying produce to the nunnery, so there was no question of any actual residence by nuns, but this did not preclude the possibility that the building had possessed some 1. Surveyed by K.A. Rodwell, publication forthcoming. *11 Ashfield Road, Salisbury, SP2 7EW +24 New King Street, Bath, BA] 2BL residential function in connection with the grange. Pevsner’s acceptance of it as being early Cl6th in date! lent some support to this idea, and we were further encouraged by the discovery of faint but traceable traces of a scheme of painted wall decoration on an area of plaster at the east end of the upper floor of the building. Against this, there was no sign of there ever having been any fireplace. An unpubished report on the Priory by the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments put forward a different view, dating it to around 1600, which would clearly rule out any connection with the Abbey, and suggesting that it had been a stable or cowshed. The latter function at least seemed hard to accept, but it became clear that the weight of opinion favoured a date no earlier than the late Cl6th. By now we were convinced that the building was interesting enough to merit a full-scale survey, before the conversion for which planning permission had now been granted led to the inevitable masking if not disappearance of original features. Finance for a survey came from Salisbury Civic Society, Salisbury District Council and local sources, and the result was the drawings and report which follow, the work of Kirsty Rodwell, who had already carried out a survey of an extremely interesting building of similar date some dozen miles away in the Nadder valley, the so-called ‘Hospice’ at Ansty. With the completion of the survey it was estab- lished, with reasonable certainty, that the Priory had originated as stables of the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. Beyond the scope of the survey, MADDINGTON PRIORY: A MEASURED SURVEY AND REPORT 81 Figure 2. Roof looking westwards from middle bay, showing unused mortices for arched braces in collar 82 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE however, one or two uncertainties did remain. The report describes how some of the roof trusses contain mortices consistent with arched braces between prin- cipal and collar; the fact that such braces were never apparently incorporated in the roof, and more par- ticularly that some of the mortices were commenced but never finished, would seem to indicate a rather abrupt change of plan during construction, implying perhaps a downgrading of the building’s function. (Figure 2) Again on the upper floor level, there is a distinct contrast between the windows at the east end, which have level internal cills, and those at the west end where it is clear that the cills were originally splayed downwards. The only logical explanation for such an arrangement would seemingly be that at the west end there was intended to be no upper floor, and {co m APPTOR Maddington Wilts Figure 3. Location map of Maddington Priory, Shrewton, Wilts. the windows were designed to light the whole height of the building. If this was the case there must again have been an abrupt change of plan, since the floor as we see it, running the complete length of the building, appears to have been in its present state from the outset. Whether the Priory was indeed envisaged originally as having a rather different form and function, and if so what could have led to this being abandoned, can only be the subject of specul- ation. The traces of painted lines and rosettes on the plaster at the upper floor east end also seem curious. As Kirsty Rodwell shows, this end was clearly treated differently, being subdivided presumably to form some sort of living space, but a scheme of painted decoration still seems an unlikely refinement in a MADDINGTON PRIORY: A MEASURED SURVEY AND REPORT | ‘stable building. It would be interesting to learn of any similar cases elsewhere. Two other features indicate that as stables, the Priory was afforded a very distinctive architectural ‘treatment. As the illustrations show, on the long north and south elevations the stone quoins at either ‘end contain between them further blocks of stone ashlar, the rest of the walling being flint. This feature ‘is found on other buildings in the farmyard complex, but outside this group it must be extremely rare. What seems so far to be completely unique to the ‘Priory is a small stone detail to be found on the outside of the windows (Figure 4). At the springing line of both mullion annd jamb, dividing the straight sides from the rounded heads, the stonework breaks forward to form a projection some two inches high, its ‘base flat but with the top splayed. It has been ‘suggested that this represents an unscholarly attempt ‘by the mason to incorporate a classical impost moul- ding, and such an untidy transition from the gothic tradition to the renaissance ideas now supplanting it would certainly be typical of the likely date of the building. Whatever uncertainties may remain about the Priory they are more than matched by those surroun- ding the houses to which, if it was stables, it must have belonged. The care obviously taken over the 83 Figure 4. Detail of window head, showing projecting moulding at springing line (on outside only). design of the Priory suggests a house of some conse- quence, but it no longer exists, and we know little about it. The only real evidence is from maps; a tithe map of 1858 shows it approximately 50 yards east of the Priory, of rather indeterminate plan but of some size, perhaps about 130 feet by 80 feet overall. By 1889 it had disappeared, since an Ordnance Survey map of that date shows nothing on the site. No description, drawing or photograph of the house is known to survive, and the Drax estate, into whose possession it passed around 1720, have no records of it. Its site has been given outline planning permission for a house, and probably only excavation prior to any building work could now tell us anything about it. Architectural Survey by KIRSTY RODWELL ORIGINAL FORM: EXTERIOR The building is rectangular, gabled to west and east, and measuring 16.85 x 5.6m (55'3" x 18’4”) internally with walls 0.75m (2'6”) thick at ground level. The walls are of chalk rubble, faced externally with knap- ped flint and with Chilmark stone dressings. On the exterior there is an ogee-moulded plinth c.0.7m above THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 84 “¢ ainsi] 98 kK 2 Pan ae es (gas See Pa oe Suoljena}yZ jeuse}x3 payjonsjsuooay tra ees Fe PR ee ae == NOLMA3YHS Wie uo}bulppey HINOS 1S3M HLYON isv3 MADDINGTON PRIORY: A MEASURED SURVEY AND REPORT ground level, continuous except where carried to the ground around original doorways. The north wall was otherwise completely plain, but the remaining elev- ations contained windows, all of the same pattern, with pairs of round-headed lights and chamfered mouldings below projecting hood moulds. The aper- ‘tures were glazed and divided by diagonally-set vertical iron bars. There were pairs of windows at first floor level in both the east and west gable walls. The former had a further pair at ground level, now blocked and hidden externally by a cottage. In the lower west wall there is a small original door with a four-centred head and a plain chamfered moulding. The south elevation has four symmetrical ground floor windows, spaced in such a way as to indicate that the principal entrance was in the middle of the facade. This door has been completely obliterated by later alterations and the reconstruction is based on the pattern of the west door with the addition of a hood mould to match the windows. | INTERIOR The interior was two-storeyed; the first floor was carried on five large square-sectioned ceiling girders, four of which are original to the wall construction; the fifth (centre) is a replacement. Their upper edges are morticed for floor joists which, where original, extend to half the depth of the beam and bear lath nails on their undersides, indicating that there was a plastered ceiling between the main beams. Except in the bay at e east end the floor stopped short of the north wall, | \ abutting the wall. The original ceiling girders have chamfered lower edges stopped at the walls and also issing timber upright. There are numerous mortices the underside of the most easterly girder, indicating at there was a umber partition here, which divided the end bay from the rest of the ground floor. Some of e floor joists and also some of the window lintels are e-used, for they bear chamfers and mortices related to their present positions. The walls at ground floor level have been exten- off by a closed roof truss, whose spacing does not correspond to the ceiling girders below. The roof structure is largely original and comprises four trusses With principals pegged to a chamfered tie beam festing on a continuous wall plate. There is a | } 85 cambered collar between the upper and lower purlins, and a pair of oblique struts linking tie beam and principals. The purlins are butted. This form seems to represent a change of plan, as the western truss (Figure 2) has the mortices and peg holes both for a higher collar and for a pair of arched braces. The next truss has mortices for an arched brace in the collar but not the principals, and on the third truss the mortices in the collar are clearly unfinished. It is clear that the trusses are not re-used, for the majority of joints bear carpenters’ marks in sequence (1—1111 from west to east). Externally the roof has its original narrow, coped stone gables and is covered with peg tles, probably the original roofing medium. The closed eastern truss has the same basic form as the rest, but the straight collar was linked to the tie beam by six uprights, one of which is still in position. The underside of the tie beam has mortices for a screen, and abutting the south wall, the rebate and pegged mortices form a door frame; the door would have opened eastwards. The eastern bay was subdivided laterally by a timber partition between the windows, indicated by mortices in the east face of the tie beam and the lintel of the southern window, and by a scar in the plaster. Both rooms in the eastern bay were fully plastered and relatively large areas survive. On the south wall there are traces of red paint forming a rather indeter- minate design of lines and rosettes. The position of the ceiling is indicated by a batten bearing shallow mortices for ceiling joists nailed to the lintel of the southern window. The faces of the rafters and the east side of the partition bear lath nails to the same height and indicate that the ceiling extended right across the bay. The rest of the first floor was open to the roof and there is no evidence to suggest it was ever plastered. LATER ALTERATIONS The principal alteration was the construction of an extension at the west and measuring 9.2 x 6.9m (30’ x 22’6”) externally with walls 0.7m (2'3”) thick. Exter- nally the walls were brick with stone dressings below a hipped roof. The plinth was carried round all three elevations, but otherwise the north and west walls were completely plain. The south elevation reflected the original facade in having a central door with a returned plinth flanked on either side by two-light rectangular windows with chamfered mouldings below a string course. There were three windows of the same pattern at first floor level; two are now much altered, but the splays survive internally. The interior is plain; the walls are faced with chalk rubble and were fully plastered, with a flat plastered 86 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE ceiling to the ground floor. A stair well was construc- ted in the south-east corner with access from the door in the original external west wall. At a later date the original range was turned into a barn and two large opposed doors with brick jambs created in the north and south walls. This necessitated the removal of part of the floor. The windbraces in the middle bay of the roof probably date from this period; they are inserted into the original roof structure. Subsequently both these entrances were blocked and the floor reinstated, and two smaller openings created on the south side. Other alternations are piecemeal blocking, patching and refacing, including most recently, the repair of the east gable after damage by lightning, and externally, the building of cottages and modern farm buildings. FUNCTION AND DATE The arrangement of the interior strongly suggests that the building was constructed as a stable. Despite the differences in the cills of the first floor windows and the change of plan to the form of the roof, the structural evidence makes it clear that the building was always two-storied, for the walls were built around the ceiling girders; they were not inserted afterwards (with the exception of the central girder which is a replacement). Also original are the ceiling joists, the opening in the floor next to the north wall and the mortices on the undersides of the ceiling girders. These can be interpreted as stall divisons and indicate a depth from the north wall of 3m (9’9"). Each bay was probably divided into two stalls 1.4m (4'6”) wide, giving a total of ten. The stalls would abut the featureless north wall, and account for the absence of a window in the west wall at ground floor level. The small west door must have been a subsidiary entrance; access for horses would have been provided by the lost door in the centre of the south elevation. This need have been no larger than the door in the southern extension, which was also built as stabling. The first floor, which except for the east end was unplastered and open to the roof, could have served as a hayloft with direct access via the opening in the floor to mangers below. There is little evidence for the structure of the manger but four sawn-off original timbers of variable dimensions, 1.8m (6’0") above floor level in the north wall may be connected with it. It is possible that there may have been an opening (as there is now) over the original central door to enable hay to be loaded directly into the loft. The east end, partitioned off from the body of the building, and plastered, painted and ceiled at first floor level prob- ably served as living accommodation for grooms. The way in which the partition at the east end falls across one of the ground floor windows indicates that differ- ent criteria governed external appearance and 11 ernal function. The stairs were probably situated at the west end, but there is no direct structural evidence for their position. A comparable if rather larger example (67'6” in length as originally built) of a mid 17th century stable exists at Bloxworth, Dorset (RCHM 1970, 22-8). The main facade has a door with a depressed four-centred head flanked on each side by three-light mullioned windows with hood moulds. There is another door and window of the same pattern in the living acccom- modation at the south end. Internally there are 17th century stalls. At Mapperton, Dorset (RCHM 1952, 154-6) the north stable, which is rather later, c. 1670-80, and classical in detail also has a symmetrical facade of six pedimented windows with a doorway at either end. Both buildings have an attic storey and featureless rear walls. The round-headed windows at Maddington can be paralleled at ‘The Hospice’ Ansty, Wilts,' a building on the Wardour Castle estates. They share other similarities, such as the use of a plinth course returned round the doorways, the grouping of doors and windows onto a show front and a blank rear wall, and the partition of one end internally. However the Ansty building is much larger and was built for a different original purpose, probably as a banqueting hall. It appears to have been constructed by Wardour Castle estate masons c. 1600; the Arundel family acquired the Ansty estate in 1594. If it served in any way as a model for the building at Maddington it suggests an early 17th century date for the latter. Another example of round-headed windows in an early 17th century context occurs at Stafford House, West Stafford, Dorset (RCHM 1970, 265-7), where they are used in single, double and triple lights, with hood moulds, throughout the east elevation. The porch there has a date stone of 1633. An early 17th century date for the Maddington building is suppor- ted by the few other surviving fragments of the former house and garden, some sculpted heads, built into one of the barns, which probably derive from an orna- mental gateway. The brick extension to the stable was added c. 1700. BIBLIOGRAPHY RCHM 1952 Inventory of Historic Monuments in the County of Dorset Vol 1 West Dorset RCHM 1970 Inventory of Historic Monuments in the ~ County of Dorset Vol 2 South-East Dorset 87 MADDINGTON PRIORY: A MEASURED SURVEY AND REPORT “GQ adn] 98K Se LL ee ae Oe eS er en aay SuONeAgja jeusaju; BuNSIxy ee a a ae ae OC Sa ar ne a ea aap) NOLM3YHS Wey uoj}bulppey HLNOS 1Ssv3 Jaquiy Fer] BUOJS ‘SUOI{DJAa4)Y fF ] JIJSD]q 7 a | usapow TT 414g ‘SUOIDIay}y Fj }DM yoUIbIIQ === == pea HLYON 1S3M THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 88 "L adn3 J 98 K Boe aaa 1-5 ai 8 ee ae a= Say == Ty 99. : m3 04 02 0 ol SUOI}EAB|Q JeUJa}U] PajOnsjsuodey NOLMAYHS Wie4 uoj}bulppey| H1NOS I r] i HLYON TTe) Tr too TI | 1isv3i 1S3M r fof 0 vy / a) chamfer South North ROOF TRUSS 1 0 5 a eee Metres Maddington Farm SHREWTON WINDOW DOOR Figure 8. a Saree ae ~~ 89 MADDINGTON PRIORY: A MEASURED SURVEY AND REPORT 0 =—_ SL —————————) 0S 0” 6 ainsi] SUPId a aC: NOLMAYHS Wey uoj}buIppeY ONILSIX] O3LINYLSNOI348 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND-NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 90 “OL 24nd 98 K $21) eee a OL i [ae Am ne 7 suoljena|gq. jeusa}xg Bulsixy 2 —— RR ES NOLMAYHS wes uoj}6uIPpel 0S 04 02 0 OL HLNOS LS3am — JOOP WDg p3¥20;q — UoIDAa}a {SA SUO}}DJa}]D UJapoW =F) SUO1JDJa}}D YIIIg E HH SUOIJDJa4]D BUOYS }}DA youIb9 rx isv]i i + 4. = a by Joop uyog NE ; | ay20 = t + 1 = pay20)q | SEs — 4 i 4 = = + ’ : | SN == —— 4 4 = obyy09 | i t =4 : i: —h = = z| - Sj 1 x J * ee a =F) = =. Ee + = = = ———— - oe ee —— = ie Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 91-110. A Deadlock in 18th-Century Devizes by EDWARD BRADBY* The emerging politics of late C17 and early C18 Devizes form an intriguing chapter in the town’s history. Research on the documentary sources provides a fascinating insight into the emergence of Whigs and Tories, and the party rivalries that developed between them. In his masterly article on Devizes in the Victoria County History of Wiltshire', the late Professor Ralph Pugh gave a brief account of the election disputes in Devizes between 1705 and 1714, and added: ‘the incidents merit further exploration’. This was a challenge which I found irresisuble, and it has led toa long exploration of the sources. Those listed by Pugh in 1975 have since been improved in two ways: first by research undertaken for the History of Parliament Trust;” secondly by the sorting and arrangement of an important collection of papers in the Wiltshire Record Office, which I shall refer to as the Axford papers.? ‘The present article will attempt, first to set out the ‘events more fully than has previously been possible; secondly, to show how a combination of circumstan- ces led to an unusually long and intractable deadlock in local government; and finally, to evaluate the significance of the Devizes events for the local and national history of the time. THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS By 1707, as we shall see, the controversy over the Devizes corporation was generating a massive flow of paper which showed it to be much more than a local squabble. Besides a disputed parliamentary election, ‘here were in that year appeals from the mayor and Durgesses to the Attorney- and Solicitor-General soncerning riots in the market place and in churches, ’ Beech House, Seend, Melksham, Wilts. SN12 6NU VCH Wiltshire X (1975) p. 284 and note 39. In the footnote, W.R.S. x’ should read ‘W.R.S. v’. See the History of Parliament Trust’s article on Devizes in The House of Commons 1660-1690, ed. B.D. Henning (3 vols., London, 1983). The period under review is treated fully in the article on Devizes in the next volume of the History, now in preparation, which [ have been privileged to consult in draft by the kindness of the Trust and of Mr David Hayton, author of the article, cited below as ‘H.O.P. dratt’. The Axtord Papers: WRO G20/1/90, a collection of nearly 100 papers, hereafter cited as A/1, A/2 etc. They came to the Record Office from the Devizes Borough Archives, and internal evidence trials of senior burgesses in the court of Queen’s Bench, in the Bishop of Salisbury’s Consistory Court, and at the Salisbury assizes. There are, however, many indications that trouble had been brewing long before 1707, and we must therefore start with a brief review of borough politics since the Restoration of 1660. At eight of the parliamentary elections between 1660 and 1707, the Devizes returns were challenged by one or more candidates as illegal and referred by the House of Commons to its Committee of Privileges and Elections. In the first of these, in March 1660, the parties were divided on lines reflecting the recent Civil War. When the mayor, one Richard Webb, called for a show of hands, the royalist supporter John Norden had ten more votes than the puritan Robert Aldworth; but without taking a poll Webb sealed the indenture for Aldworth.* Norden challenged the return, but the committee confirmed Aldworth’s election, observing that they had seen no evidence as to whether Norden’s supporters were qualified to vote.° That the real issue was political rather than technical is suggested by the dismissal, in December 1661, of Aldworth from his position as recorder of the borough (which he had held since 1650) and his replacement by the royalist William Yorke. Further pressure from Whitehall in 1662 led to the dismissal of 22 of the 91 members of the corporation, including Richard Webb and his strongly suggests that they originated in the office of Henry Axford, attorney, who was deputy town clerk at the ume under review. The collection was known to B.H. Cunnington, who included long extracts from some of the documents in articles in the Wiltshire Gazette (28 Dec 1933, 4 Jan 1934), later reprinted as a booklet entitled Rrval Mayors in Devizes in the Reign of Queen Anne (copy in WANHS Library). This has long been out of print, and suffers from inadequate editing and a failure to understand the significance of the controversies. 4. Unless otherwise stated, details about parliamentary elections are based on the History of Parliament Trust's material (note 2 above) and the Borough Minutes, WRO G20/1/18 and 19. The third candidate, William Lewis, had been neutral in the war, and, as a property owner in Edington, was generally acceptable 5aeG FJ. viii; 35 107: 92 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE successor as mayor, John Tayler, who, as town clerk in 1660, had been described in a royal letter as ‘notorious for his disaffection to us and our govern- ment’; also the younger John Tayler, who had succeeded his father as town clerk.® At least ten of those dismissed were Dissenters. In both the 1679 elections the grounds of the challenge had to do with the restriction of the fran- chise. The corporation consisted of three orders — the 6. WRO G20/1/18. Following Pugh’s practice, where passages from the Borough Minutes are printed in B.H. Cunnington’s Annals of the Borough of Devizes (2 vols., Devizes, 1925 & 1926), I shall Masters (also known as Capital Burgesses Council- lors), consisting mainly of the mayor and ex-mayors, ‘the twelve’ (usually styled Capital Burgesses of the Common Council), and the Free or Inferior Burgesses; and the question was whether the right to choose their representatives in Parliament lay with the whole corporation (as the Whigs contended) or was limited to the common council, i.e. the two senior orders (the Tory view). About the election of Feb- give that as the source, in this case Cunnington Annals i (2nd__ pagin.) 127, 134, and ii 147-8. References not in Annals are given as ‘Br. Min.’. A DEADLOCK IN 18TH-CENTURY DEVIZES ruary 1679 we only know that a petition went up from ‘the Common Councilmen and inhabitants of Devizes’, protesting against ‘undue and illegal prac- tices used by the Mayor’ in electing Sir Edward Bayntun and Sir Walter Ernle.’ But the election in September of that year became something of a cause célébre, and more details have been preserved. The Court/Tory candidates were the sitting member, Sir Walter Ernle, of Etchilhampton, and George Johnson, of Bowden Park. The mayor and common councillors (i.e. orders I and IJ) wanted to return them, but the Country/Whig candates, Sir Giles Hungerford of East Coulston and John Eyles of Southbroom,® were strongly backed by the free burgesses, and if their votes were counted they commanded a majority. The mayor was in a quan- dary, but finally agreed to return Hungerford and Eyles provided that he was indemnified against poss- ible accusations of having acted irregularly. Accord- ingly John Eyles, who was a wealthy London merchant, signed a bond of indemnity for £2,000. Ernle and Johnson appealed,’ but the petition was never reported, and Devizes was unrepresented in this Parliament. The struggle was repeated at the next election, in February 1681, and this ume Ernle and Johnson were returned, and Eyles and Hungerford appealed, !° again without result (since Parliament was dissolved before the appeal could be heard). The first hint that the new political alignments were creeping into borough politics came in 1683. To understand this and later elections it must be explained that at this period the mayoral election took place in two stages: the corporation met on the Friday ter Whitsun, when the common council chose two of the capital burgesses councillors, naming one of hem as mayor-elect; on the following Michaelmas Day (29 September) another meeting of the corpor- ation was held, at which the mayor-elect was sworn n, and he then held office until the following Michaelmas. On the first of these ‘charter days’ in 1683 (which fell on 1 June), the mayor nominated ohn Child and William Watts; but when it came to dward Pierce to give his vote, he insisted on nom- nating a third candidate, Richard Hiller, which had he effect of eliminating Watts and confining the oting to Child and Hiller, two names which will Gy. ix; 573: Later Sir John Eyles: he was knighted in 1688. CF. ix, 643. 0. CJ. ix, 707. 1. Br. Min.; Pugh, in VCH Wiltshire X (1975) p. 273, following Cunnington Annals i (2nd pagin.) 171, wrongly states that ‘Pierce's candidate won, but for an unknown reason did not 3) figure later in our story on the Tory side. Child went forward as mayor-elect, and was sworn in on Michael- mas Day (1683).!! But at a council meeting towards the end of his mayoralty (16 August 1684) one of the capital burgesses councillors, John Sloper, was ‘amoved and disfranchised’ for various acts in defi- ance of Child’s authority, including refusal to vote for the next mayor, wilfully absenting himself from council meetings, and — when he did attend — shaking his stick in the mayor’s face and calling him ‘a damned impudent Lyer’.!? By this time the Tories were basking in the favour of a monarch whose position had been strengthened by the exposure of the unsuccessful Rye House plot, and who had begun to issue writs of Quo Warranto against many of the corporations, intending to remodel them in the interests of the Court. In November 1684 the borough council decided to fore- stall any such action by voluntarily surrendering their charter, received from Charles I in 1639.'? The new charter, received from the new king, James II, in March 1685, restricted the parliamentary franchise to orders I and II of the corporation, and in the 1685 election Devizes returned Walter Grubbe, of Eastwell Manor, Potterne, a moderate Tory, and Sir John Talbot of Lacock, a strong loyalist and anglican. By 1687 the political climate had changed, and James II was starting to remodel the corporations again in order to secure the repeal of the Penal and Test Acts: he hoped that this policy would win him the support of the Dissenters and open the way to bringing Roman Catholics into positions of power. In the first half of 1688 three royal mandates were received, each removing a number of burgesses and replacing them by others, the end result being to replace all but six of the council. The new council had among its members at least 15 who can be identified as Dissenters, including the new mayor, Edward Hope junior, a well-to-do clothier and prominent in the congreg- ations generally known at that time as Independents; also his brother Richard Hope, who had _ been appointed town clerk in 1683, and who will figure prominently in later events on the Whig side.'* A few months earlier, James had called for reports from the Lords Lieutenant and from special agents, concerning the political colour of the constituencies take up office’. In fact the votes were: Child 13, Hiller 12, Cunnington having overlooked twelve votes on the previous page of the minutes 12. Cunnington Annals i (2nd pagin.) 173 13. Jbid., 1741 14. Ibid. 172 94 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE and the men who could be relied on to support the repeal of the Test Act. The answers concerning Devizes reported (April 1688) that ‘the Election is in the boddy corporate, who are soe regulated, that they will undoubtedly choose Sr. John Iles and Edward Hope (their present Mayor) who are both right’, or, in the words of another report, ‘very honest and fitt persons to serve His Majesty’.'° But the parliament James hoped for never materialized, and by the end of 1688 he had fled to France in the wake of William of Orange’s invasion. In a last-minute attempt to stem the tide of feeling against him, James had abolished the new charters which he had forced on the bor- oughs, and Devizes, like others, was allowed to revert to its old constitution and to much the same membership as before the purges. The result was that when it came to the election of the ‘Convention’ Parliament, in January 1689, Devizes returned Walter Grubbe again and Sir William Pynsent of Urchfont, a moderate Whig. Edward Hope seems to have disap- peared from the scene, but Sir John Eyles again contested the seat, together with another prominent Whig, William Trenchard. Eyles and Trenchard pet- tioned, on the same grounds as Eyles had urged in 1679, that the mayor should have polled the votes of the free burgesses. On this occasion the parliamentary committee, after examining the borough charters and minute books, decided that Devizes was a ‘Corpor- ation by Prescription’, and that the right of electing M.P.s was vested in ‘the Mayor and Burgesses as a select number’ (i.e. orders I and IT). They accordingly ratified the election of Pynsent and Grubbe.!° This was a surprising decision, since it was only the charter of 1685 which specifically restricted the fran- chise to the two upper orders of burgess, and that charter had already been annulled. The petitioners referred to a charter of Edward III and returns in the reigns of Henry V and Mary, but were apparently unable to cite a more recent instance, apart from the disputed return of 1679.'’ It is probable that the committee’s decision was more influenced by the politics of the moment than by charters and precedents. At all events, no attempt was made in subsequent elections during the period we are considering to exclude the free burgesses from the 1S. WAM 18, p. 359 f. 16. CF. x, 10, 56-7. 17. They did not cite returns of 1654 and 1656, for which the voters’ names were given in the Borough Minutes, clearly showing free burgesses as voting. For possible reasons see the author’s note in WAM 79, p. 241. 18. T.H.B. Oldfield, The Representative History of Great Britain (London, 1816), vol.5, p. 157. 19. C.F. x, 351; James Waylen, Chronicles of the Devizes (London, franchise, and by 1826, when Oldfield published his classic work on the history of parliamentary repre- sentation, their right to vote was unchallenged.!® The next election, in March 1690, was also challen- ged, but on rather different grounds. Walter Grubbe’s election was undisputed, and he polled 55 votes from a council of about 60. Sir John Eyles had retired from public life, but there was another strong Whig candi- date in the person of John Methuen, a member of the powerful clothier family of Bradford on Avon. Against him was ranged Sir Thomas Fowle, a London banker. He was supported by the mayor, Richard Hiller, and the recorder, Charles Danvers. However, the town clerk, Richard Hope, supported Methuen, and when the latter had received 36 votes to Fowle’s 23, Hope declared the poll closed. Hiller overruled him, and in his absence caused eight more votes to be polled for Fowle, by free burgesses who (according to the Whigs) had been elected under the 1685 charter (now defunct) and were not resident in the borough. !? A scrutiny was called for, which led to the striking out of 19 voters on the grounds that they had either not been duly sworn as burgesses or had not signed the ‘Declaration of the Test’.2? This disqualification would mainly hit the Dissenters, and so it is no surprise to find that it deprived Methuen of 14 of his votes, but Fowle of only 5, leaving Fowle with a majority. The outcome was another double return: the mayor returned Grubbe and Fowle, using his own seal, while the town clerk and Whig burgesses returned Grubbe and Methuen, using the corpor- ation seal. The house seated Fowle: Methuen peti- tioned: the committee decided against him, but the house overturned this recommendation, by 157 votes to 149, and in December 1690 amended the return so as to seat Methuen.?! Once again it must have been brought home to the burgesses of Devizes that their disputes were being settled by the views of the prevailing party at Westminster rather than by a dispassionate view of the provisions of their charter. The evidence given to the parliamentary committee reveals further details of the local factions. The disqualification of voters was questioned by two ex- mayors, Francis Paradice and John Rogers, who 1839), 261 f. . Among the names of Wiltshire gentry elected burgesses in 1685-7 are the following: Henry and Robert Bayntun Esqs, William Brewer Esq, the Hon. Henry Bertie, Dauntsey Brounker, gent., Walter Grubbe Esq, James Herbert Esq, Richard Lewis Esq, Sir Gilbert Talbot, Sherrington Talbot Esq, and Charles Tucker Esq. 20. The Borough Minutes frequently record the oaths and declar- ation verbatim, e.g. Cunnington Annals i (2nd pagin.) 133-4. ZA Cfig %5.399514285 521,523. A DEADLOCK IN 18TH-CENTURY DEVIZES alleged that the recorder had declared that free burgesses were not obliged to take the oaths. The recorder denied this, and two of the Tory supporters among the common councillors, Richard Bundy Franklin and Francis Sadleir, deposed that the free burgesses had all been given notice that they must take the oaths or be disqualified, and that additional sittings of quarter sessions had been held to enable them to do so. Francis Paradice countered by saying that five alleged to have not subscribed to the Test Declaration had in fact ‘taken the oaths and their money; but not being able to write, had desired that their hands (i.e. marks) might be put to the Declar- ation’, which reminds us that not all the voters were literate.?? The next election, in 1695, brought a more formid- able Tory contender into the lists. This was Sir Francis Child, the wealthy London goldsmith and founder of Child’s bank. He was the son of a Wiltshire clothier from Heddington, and his brother, John Child, (the mayor who figured in the dispute with Sloper in 1684) was again mayor of Devizes in 1694 and 1695. John Child commanded great influence locally by holding the office of Receiver General for Wiltshire. This meant that he was responsible for collecting the land tax on behalf of the central govern- ment, and — as we shall see later — was able to get many people beholden to him by lending them money. In 1695 Sir Francis Child was defeated by Sir Edward Ernle, of Etchilhampton, and John Methuen. He petitioned against Methuen, alleging ‘undue prac- tices’ by Methuen’s agents, but his petition was never ‘eported on by the committee.’* Before the next election, in 1698, Sir Francis Child had worked up his nfluence locally, and had come to an arrangement with John Methuen, which resulted in their dividing he representation of the borough between them from 1698 till 1705.7 Further evidence of the divisions in the borough council during John Child’s mayorality is provided by he expulsion of an ex-mayor, Grave Morris, in Ictober 1694, on the grounds that he had failed to be resent on Michaelmas Day to swear in John Child as tis successor. The corporation voted to defend ‘at the 2. Waylen, Chronicles, 264. : 3. CJ. xi, 356. Child: W.P. Ward, The English Land Tax in’ the | 18th Century (Oxford, 1953), p. 12, 53; VCH Wiltshire V (1957), p. 227; D.N.B.. 4. They did not always hold the seat in person: in 1701 Francis Merewether took Methuen’s place, and in 1702 John Child II took over from his father Sir Francis, who was elected to a London seat. When John Child committed suicide in 1703, Francis Merewether was again brought in to fill the gap until the general clection of 1705. 95 cost of the Chamber’ any legal actions arising from the expulsion, and Francis Sadleir, an attorney and free burgess, was later paid for defending the action brought by Morris against Child and others. Morris was restored to his position as a capital burgess councillor following a warrant of mandamus issued by the court of King’s Bench. A year later, however, the dispute was still smouldering, for the council, in February 1696, set up a committee ‘to consider of ways and means for determining the controversies at law’ between Messrs Child, Nicholas, Hiller and Charles Flower on the one part and Mr Morris on the other.”° In 1697, perhaps at the instigation of Child’s party, the corporation decided not to appoint any more free burgesses until their number had fallen by natural wastage to 20 or less, thus ensuring that they could never outvote the common councilmen in any future election.*° The number had fallen to below the new maximum in 1706, and it was not until then that any vacancies were filled. Our survey of the period 1660-1706 has shown parliamentary elections polarising local voters into two antagonistic parties, and this polarisation begin- ning to creep into borough politics. To the man in the street the prevailing impression must have been one of instability in the balance of power, whether between Crown and Parliament, Church and Dissent, or Tory and Whig, accompanied by a cynical appraisal of the extent to which local concerns, even when entrenched in royal charters, were dependent on the fluctuations of political power at Westminster. From 1705 onwards a flood of light is thrown on the local scene by the Axford papers,’’ and these will be the main source for what follows. While many of the facts were undisputed, it should in fairness be remembered that this collection generally represents the view of one of the two parties. It almost certainly originated in the office of Henry Axford, the attorney who had been elected to the common council in 1706 and held the office of deputy town clerk by 1707.°° He was a prominent member of the party which supported Richard Hope, John Eyles, and James Sutton, and he was employed to fight legal acuons in London on their 25. Cunnington Annals, i (2nd pagin.), 192-3, 195, 200. Grave Morris’s politics may be inferred from his will (WRO Cons Sarum. A.D. 1703), which names as trustees Benjamin Street Senior and Henry Axford, both prominent members of the Whig faction in the later disputes 26. Cunnington, op. cit., 195-6 é/ Note 3 above 28. Br. Min., 20 Apr 1706, 19 Apr 1707 96 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE behalf.’? By the same token, the borough minutes, which were presumably drafted and kept by the town clerk (Richard Hope) and his deputy (Axford), are in no way impartial, and consistently represent the Hope-Eyles-Sutton line as the official one: indeed, they give no hint of the existence of a rival party electing rival mayors. While we shall attempt to show, from such evidence as we have, that the other side had a case, and certainly regarded themselves as the legitimate corporation, it will make for clarity if we use the terminology of the Axford papers, regarding the Hope supporters as the official corporation and the Child supporters as rebels or pretenders. A fur- ther justification for this is that the Hope supporters had the use of the official minute book, and that the royal warrant by which the mayor was sworn in as J.P. was regularly delivered to them.” It should also be stressed that although the terms ‘Whig’ and ‘Tory’ were in use by this time to describe alignments in Parliament, they do not appear to have been current in borough politics, and do not occur in any of the minutes or documents to which we shall refer. However, in order to avoid the tedium of long descriptive phrases, it seems legitimate to use the labels also in a borough context, and we shall therefore refer to the supporters of Hope, Eyles, and Sutton as Whigs and the supporters of Hiller, Bundy Franklin, and Child as Tories. In the run-up to the general election of May 1705, the pact between the Whig John Methuen and the Tory Sir Francis Child was threatened by the intervention of a powerful new Whig candidate. This was Josiah Diston, a wealthy Blackwell Hall factor,*! and a Dissenter. In spite of efforts by Methuen, the Childs set up a Tory front with Thomas Richmond Webb, who had been recorder since 1694 and had recently broken his former Whig connections, while Methuen and Diston made common cause on the Whig side. With the prospect of both seats going to one or other party, the senior councillors began to take stock of their own strengths, and found that the Whig and Tory votes were likely to be closely bal- anced. While electing no new free burgesses, they had (whether deliberately or not) pursued a like policy in regard to their own numbers, and since 1697 no additions had been made to the common council 29. A/69, A/70; Cunnington, op. cit, 203. Henry Axford was also a County Coroner for Wiltshire from 1698 to 1727: PRO C 202/98/2, C 202/114A/2. He was buried at St John’s church in 1729. 30. The original parchment slips with the wording of the oaths used in every year from 1708 to 1715 have survived: A/65, A/66, A/77, A/84, A/88-92. except for the election of Francis Sadleir to order II in 1703, and even that — as we shall see — was challenged as irregular. The result was that by 1705 the capital burgesses councillors numbered only 8 instead of the 12 provided for in the charter, and the capital burgesses of the common council 19 instead of 24. Moreover several of the common councilmen were ‘old and infirm’ (e.g. Richard Watton, who had first served as mayor in 1670), or no longer resident in the borough, like Jonathan Filkes.7? There was thus a danger that even with the free burgesses limited to 20 the point might soon be reached when they could wield an undesirable weight in a parliamentary elec- tion, while for mayoral elections (which were confined to the common council) a few absences or deaths might be enough to change the balance of power. There was therefore much to be said for filling some of the vacancies in the common council, and in 1705, as the general election came close, this was discussed. The Whig mayor, Benjamin Street, was willing to proceed, but was urged by the Tories John Child and his son-in-law Robert Nicholas to defer any elections to the council until after the general election, in order not to prejudice the chances of Child’s brother Sir Francis. This was agreed; but when the election produced the desired result in the return of Sir Francis Child and John Methuen (with Diston and Webb nowhere), the Tories refused to cooperate in filling the vacancies. In October 1705 the new mayor, the Whig James Sutton, renewed the pressure, offering to share the vacancies between the parties. Child at first agreed, but then again went back on his word (hoping, according to Sutton, that his ‘entire friend’ Hiller would be the next mayor) and lobbied a number of councillors not to attend council meetings, thus preventing the Whigs from getting the necessary majority for elections.*? Faced with this stalemate, Sutton took legal advice, which was that he should summon the council, and if any members absented themselves, they should be deemed virtually present, so empowering those actu- ally attending to proceed to a vote. Accordingly he summoned the council for 12: December (1705), but when only 13 members appeared adjourned the meet- ing, hoping that the absentees ‘would come to a better temper another time’. He called the council together 31. Blackwell Hall was the London clearing house for cloth sales, and the factors acted as agents for a number of clothiers. 32. H.O.P. draft; A/12. ; 33. A/4; Soc. Antiqu., Jackson MSS V, 179. A DEADLOCK IN 18TH-CENTURY DEVIZES again on 20 April 1706. By this time their numbers had been reduced by a death to 26, and, with the Tories absenting themselves, there were present only the mayor and ten capital burgesses. This time they went ahead on their own and elected eight new capital burgesses, of whom seven were sworn in then or later.** At two further meetings, on 24 April and 15 May, the 11 or 12 old members, fortified by the votes of the new, made further elections and swearings, which left them confident of commanding 20 votes at the forthcoming election of the next mayor. John Child and his friends boycotted all three meetings, and brought pressure to bear on several waverers to follow suit. Although Child had recently been removed from his lucrative post of Receiver General for Wiltshire, many people still owed him money, enabling him to threaten them with arrest and gaol for debt, a threat which was actually carried out in the case of one of the senior common councilmen, Jer- emiah Williams. Four others managed to escape commitment to either party on 20 April by lying low in ale-houses; in one case it 1s mentioned that they were drinking ‘groaning ale’, and in another that the ale-house was ‘near the borders of the town, to colour their absence as being out of town’.* When the council assembled on the customary Whitsun charter-day (which this year fell on 17 May) there was an almost full muster of 25 old members and the eight recently elected. The customary two candidates were Richard Hope, the Whig town clerk,*° and Richard Hiller, the Tory, who had been mayor already in 1698 (following in the footsteps of his father of the same name, mayor in 1664, 1671, 1676 and 1689). When it was put to the vote, there were 19 for Hope (11 old members and 8 new), and 12 for Hiller. Among those voting for Hiller was Thomas Richmond Webb, the borough recorder and unsuccessful candidate at the previous general elec- tion, who had not been present at the earlier meet- ings. According to a Whig witness, he ‘now forsook his old friends and fell in with Mr Child’.*” When mayor Sutton had declared Hope as mayor-elect, and had departed with his supporters, Child and his 34. A/12, A/63, A/83; Br. Min.; for some reason the eighth man, Thomas Massey, continued to be listed as a free burgess. Details of attendance at council meetings are derived partly trom the Axtord papers, partly from the Borough Minute Book (WRO G/20/1/19), which from 28 Sep. 1705 to 7 Oct. 1710 indicates attendance by a dot against each name. Where the dots can be checked by lists in the Axford papers, they correspond closely; see especially A/72, where we have autographs. I have therefore assumed that they give the deputy town clerk’s records of attendance, made either contemporancously or at least by 1710. Dy), supporters, including Webb, stayed behind, and, claiming to be a valid council, elected and swore in eight common councilmen and two free burgesses. The presence of Webb in the rebel group was import- ant, since the charter repeatedly specified that busi- ness should be conducted by the mayor, the recorder (or in his absence his deputy) and the capital burgesses, and it was generally accepted that no elections could take place without the presence of the recorder or his deputy.*® There were now two rival councils, each claiming legitimacy. The borough records contain the usual minutes of the proceedings of the official council. We also have copies of some of the minutes of the rebel council: they met on 27 September (1706), presided over by Thomas Webb the recorder, and elected constables, bailiffs and sub-bailiffs for the ensuing year. On the same day the official council met under mayor Sutton, and elected their nominees for the same offices. On Michaelmas Day the full council (with only one absentee, the non-resident Jonathan Filkes, presented themselves in the Guildhall to swear in the new mayor. Mayor Sutton ordered the deputy town clerk to call the roll, while at the same time Nicholas Adee, on the instructions of the recorder, called the rebels’ version of the roll. Sutton then administered the oaths to Richard Hope and delivered to him the insignia of office, after which the old and new mayors departed with their supporters to church (it being a Sunday). Meanwhile Francis Sadleir had, despite protestations by Sutton, purported to administer the oaths to Hiller, and when the official party had left, the rebels stayed behind, and, with Hiller presiding, transacted further business, swearing in the officers elected earlier and also Richard Bundy Franklin as a capital burgess councillor and eight newcomers as common councilmen. On 4 October both official and rebel councils held separate meetings and elected different men to the customary minor offices — serge- ants at mace, searchers of fish and flesh, searchers of leather, and ale-taster.°” The rival elections of 1706 led to a number of lawsuits, in which each side endeavoured to prove 35. A/4, A/6, A/12, A/63, A/83. 36. Richard Hope had been elected to the common council in 1684. His full tide was ‘Steward and Clerk of the Courts and Clerk of the Sessions of the Peace’: Br. Min.; VCH Wiltshire X (1975), p. 271, 274. 37. Br. Min.; A/12. On 6 Apr 1706 John Merewether, M.B., noted in his diary that he met with Mr Sutton (mayor), Serjeant Webb (Recorder), and Mr Hope (Town Clerk) at the Crown Inn, about letting the cheese market to Thomas Massey: WRO 2220. 38. Charter: WRO G20/1/1; VCH Wiltshire X (1975), p. 270-1. 39. Br. Min.; A/18, A/23, A/83. 98 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE that the other’s elections were invalid. Quo Warranto applications were moved in the court of Queen’s Bench against Hiller in the Michaelmas term and in the Hilary term against Hope: the former was granted, the latter refused, and Hope was declared to be at least de facto mayor. Similar actions were aimed at the right of ‘new’ councillors elected by either side to act, and these dragged on through many adjourn- ments and without ever achieving a clear-cut result.*° In December 1706 a parliamentary by-election had to be held, owing to the death (in July) of John Meth- uen. Methuen’s son Paul was keen to stand, but the local Whigs were afraid that the Whig vote would be split and so let in the Tory Webb. After some bargaining, they closed ranks behind Josiah Diston as their favoured candidate, with the result that when mayor Hope took the poll, Diston had 36 votes (23 ‘old’ and 13 ‘new’ members), while Webb could only claim 26 (himself and 16 ‘old’ with nine of his ‘new’ members). The vote was challenged, and Hope adjourned the proceedings until 4 o’clock, offering to hear any submissions in the interim. Webb did not take up this offer, but when the official return was made in favour of Diston, he challenged it on the ground that Hiller, not Hope, was the rightful mayor, to whom the precept should have been given; three weeks later he withdrew his petition, perhaps in consequence of the rejection of the Quo Warranto application against Hope. This skirmish had resulted in a decisive victory for the Whigs, especially as the Tories had not taken the line suggested by Webb’s petition, but had participated in the by-election meet- ing under Hope’s chairmanship.*! The Whigs lost no time in exploiting their advan- tage. They elected their new M.P. as a borough J.P. and capital burgess councillor. Then, at a series of meetings in March and April 1707, they took action against John Child and Robert Nicholas, summoning them to appear before the council to explain their non-attendance, and — when they failed to appear — disfranchising them. They also voted to deprive Nicholas of his commission as a J.P., and attempted to remove Webb from the recordership. In his place they elected John Scrope Esq as recorder and J.P.; but this move probably failed to secure the approval of the Crown; for although Scrope is named as recorder in the borough minutes for the rest of 1707, 40. A/27; Soc. Antiqu., Jackson MSS, V, 179. 41. H.O.P. draft; C.F. xv;,221,; 2705 A/12. 42. Br. Min. 43. As common councilmen: James Sutton and Stephen Street; as capital burgesses councillors: Charles Flower, Richard Hope, Edward Watton. Webb’s name returns to replace his from March 1708.4” Meanwhile the rebel council had retaliated by meeting in the Weavers’ Hall on 21 April, when they summoned Richard Hope to appear before them on Friday after Whitsun to show why he should not be ‘amoved from his office of Towne Clerke’. They had also summoned five Whig burgesses, and — when they refused to attend — ordered them to be ‘disfranchised and amoved from their present offices’.** They fur- ther appointed one William Gardner to receive the market tolls for their use, and indemnified him from all suits for so doing.“ This was tantamount to a declaration of war, and the sequel was not long delayed. On Thursday 24 April (1707) the weekly market was being held in the market-place, as it had been from time immemorial, and this involved the payment of tolls to the corpor- ation on the sale of corn and other commodities. On this Thursday there was a confrontation, which soon developed into a riot, and for once we have each side’s version of the events, since both appealed to the Government for redress. The official version 1s contained in four documents: a letter from the mayor and burgesses to the Earl of Sunderland, Secretary of State, dated 26 April; the presentments of the grand juries for the county and borough, given at the quarter sessions in Devizes on 24 and 25 April; and a letter from the J.P.s at quarter sessions.*° Here is an extract from the mayor and burgesses’ letter:- ‘That a party of men (factious and disafected to her Majties Government) inhabiting within the said Burrough and headed by one John Child, late Receiver Generall for the said County, Have for Two Yeares last past and upwards, given and yet give such disturbance and uneasines to the Govern- ment of this Burrough, and have made and occa- sioned soe many uproars, tumults, Ryotts and Insurrections within the same, and have drawne and inveigled soe many into the faction and ren- dered themselves soe formidable, that the Govern- ment of this Burrough are not able to maintaine theire authority and keep the peace there. And particularly on the foure and Twentieth day of this instant April (being a markett day) in the ume of the sitting of the Court of Generall Quarter Sessions of the peace for the said County in the Woolhall 44. A/I18. 45. A/19-22. The originals of A/20 and A/22 are in BL Add.MSS 61607, £.32 and f.30. | i | A 46. DEADLOCK IN 18TH-CENTURY DEVIZES within this Burrough, and neare the said Court A most notorious Ryott was comitted by the said John Child and his party in the open Markettplace there in manner following (viz): The Mayor of this Burrough in his formalityes, acompanyed by Josiah Diston, Esq., Justice of the peace, and Member of Parliament for the said Burrough, and other majes- trates of this Burrough, and alsoe by severall Justices of the peace for the said County (one of whome is a Member of Parliament), attended by the Constables, Bayliffs, and other Inferior officers of this Burrough, went in a solemne manner to the Cross in the Markettplace there, and caused Her Majties proclamation for observing — the Thanksgiving on the first day of May next to be read,” and imediately after the doeing thereof the said Mayor went thro’ the Corne Markett and in peaceable manner told the farmers there that they ought to pay the Toll of the Corne there unto one Roger Chivers, who is entituled thereto by Lease from this Corporation under theire Common Seale. Whereupon the said John Child, with a great multitude of his faction then and there present, in a tumultuous manner came and forbid the paying such Toll to the said Chivers, and imediatly made great noises, clamours and outcryes, some of them shakeing theire Hatts in the aire, and at the said Mayor and Justices, and rudely thrust the said Mayor and other persons aforesaid that accom- panyed him from place to place, and some of the said faction uttered very hard expressions as ““Why don’t wee kicke the Gutts of them out’, others “Take a sword and run them thro’ the Gutts”. Whereupon the said mayor and others of the Gentlemen whoe accompanied him withdrew a little out of the Crowd, and stood to observe who were the Actors in the said Ryott, and observeing one John Peirce to be very buisy therein, the said Mayor and Mr. Diston ordered the said Constables and other officers to take the said Peirce and bring him before them to Answer his acting in the said Ryott, and the said officers did accordingly take him. But severall of the said Ryoters imediately assaulted and beate down the said officers and rescued the said Peirce out of theire custody, and one of them wrung the Towne Alarum Bell and cryed out ““Murder” and “Fire”, Insomuch that the said Mayor and Gentlemen and others that accom- panyed him and his said officers were forced to quitt the said Markett Place. And the said Child To celebrate the Act of Union with Scotland. 99 and his faction hooped and hallowed them as they went away in token of victory.’ From one of the presentments we learn a further detail, that several of the rioters stood on the sacks of corn ‘holding and shakeing their Hatts in the Air’ and ‘Cryed ‘““How and Hyde’, being a watchword for raiseing Tumults and Ryotts’. Sir Richard How and Robert Hyde had represented the county as Knights of the Shire since 1702, and would continue to do so until 1722, standing for high-church Toryism; but I have not met any other evidence of their names being used as a Tory rallying cry. The mayor and burgesses’ letter also complains that Child’s party had several umes thrown ‘great stones and brickbats’ through the Guildhall windows while the council was in session. The rebels’ account of the incident is given in the copy of a letter to the Secretary of State dated 20 September 1707, and claiming to have been signed by ‘Richard Hillier, Mayor, and 67 others, including several country gentlemen and farmers that constantly use the market’. After a preamble, it reads as follows: ‘For some tmme past there has been a contest at law as to the election of the Mayor and Common Councilmen, and two persons have acted as Mayor since Michaelmas last, and have also both acted as beadle and claim toll from those selling corn in the market, to the great disturbance of buyers and sellers. On April 24th last, after a general thanksgiving for the Union had been quietly proc- laimed, George Duckett, William Pynsent, John Eyles, and Josiah Diston, Justices of the Peace for the County, but not concerned in the government of the Borough, in abuse of their authority went to several of the petitioners and others and demanded toll, using menaces to such as would not pay it to the person they nominated. Mr. Duckett, on being civilly desired by Mr. John Child, a magistrate of the Borough, not to disturb the market or interpose in the affairs of the Borough, drew his sword almost out of his scabbard at him; and all the said Justices caused a tumult in the market, which, upon their going out, was quiet. Nineteen of the petitioners have been indicted for a riot on their evidence, and have been represented as enemies to the govern- ment. At the last Assizes Mr. Justice Gold declared that the meeting was not riotous, but lawful; yet the jury found five of them guilty. Many of them have suffered imprisonments and oppressions at the 100 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE hands of the said Justices. Wherefore they pray for consideration’.*” On receiving the grand juries’ presentments, Lord Sunderland consulted the Crown law officers, and on 7 May wrote to the mayor and Mr Diston that the Queen approved their conduct in endeavouring to suppress the riot, and had ordered the Attorney- and Solicitor-General to prosecute the rioters.** The sequel was a prosecution at the September assizes, when Thomas Gifford and others were found guilty of being concerned in a riot ‘in opposition to the authority of Mr Hope the late Mayor’.*? Further actions were brought against both parties, some of which were heard at the Hilary assizes, and it appears that the juries decided that the absentee councillors in April 1706 had stayed away ‘voluntarily and without reasonable cause’.~° The strong support given by the Government to Diston and Eyles at this juncture is illustrated by a message sent by Lord Sunderland to Diston on 29 May, in answer to the latter’s complaint about another riot on the 21st: he advises that ‘Mr. Hope, your Mayor’ should summon the Justices for a special sessions and send for the sheriff to raise the posse of the county, with a view to committing the rioters to the county gaol to await trial. Diston is to assure the mayor that he ‘will not want all the assistance and encouragement the Government can afford him to quell and punish such notorious and_ insolent Proceedings’.*! But although the Whigs had won the first round, there was no lessening of the party strife, which now focussed on the choice of the next mayor. On the charter day (6 June 1707) the official minutes record that John Eyles was elected, first as a capital burgess councillor, and then as mayor for 1707-8.°* The minutes of a meeting held on the same day by the rebel council copy exactly the standard form of the borough minutes. Starting with the rebel version of the complete list of burgesses, headed by ‘Richard Hillier, gent., Mayor’ and “Thomas Webb Esq., Recorder’, they record (in the customary Latin) the choice of Richard Bundy Franklin, gent., as the next mayor (the other candidate being Richard Watton, a member of the other party). The rebels also followed 47. Hist. MSS Comm. Portland MSS VIII, 352. 48. A/20; PRO, S.P. 44/106, f. 58. 49. Evidence by Henry Axford in an affidavit of 25 Oct. 1707: A/48; cp. A/36. 50. From the draft of a petition by the mayor and burgesses to the Lord Chancellor, between 6 June and 19 Sept 1707: A/27. 51. BL Add. MSS 61653, f. 106. up their action of 21 April by dismissing Richard Hope from his office of town clerk, and elected and swore burgesses to the three orders of the corporation. On 24 July the official council elected and swore three more common councilmen.** On the Michaelmas charter day events followed a course almost identical with those of the previous year: the official council (claimed to be the mayor and 21 burgesses) swore in John Eyles Esq as mayor and J.P., and delivered to him ‘the Maces and other Ensignes of Mayoralty’, while the rebel council, meeting — according to the Whigs — ‘in an obscure place’, pretended to elect and swear Richard Bundy Franklin as mayor. They could not swear him in as J.P., since no commission had been received to that effect. This was no accident, for the draft survives of an appeal to the Lord Chancellor by mayor Hope, John Eyles, Josiah Diston, and ‘the greater part of the burgesses’, warning him of the pretensions of Bundy Franklin and urging that he should not be granted a commission as an additional Justice of the Peace.™* The struggle between the rival councils reached its climax on 5 October (1707), the Sunday following the mayor-making. As was customary, the new mayor, John Eyles, went to St Mary’s church at 10 a.m. ‘in his formalities’, accompanied by the sergeants at mace and other officers and his brethren. When he arrived he found Richard Bundy Franklin installed in the mayor’s pew, where he had been for two hours already. According to the Whig councillors, Mr Eyles ‘desired him to make room for him’, and when Bundy Franklin refused, the officers ‘gently removed him’, and Eyles sat down. Whereupon Bundy Franklin, encouraged by his supporters, ‘rudely crowded in and indecently stood before the Mayor all the tme of Divine service’. Josiah Diston, attending as borough M.P. and J.P., ‘tried to appease the tumult, but was hissed, scoffed at, and thrusted about’, and told that a J.P. had nothing to do in the church. Among those taking part in the mélée were a saddler named John Foreman, described as ‘a lusty young fellow’, who was said to have assaulted one of the constables, Richard Brooks, ‘nearly pulling his clothes off. Another accused of assaulting Brooks was John Cook, a churchwarden of St Mary’s, and Brooks testified that John Child had called him ‘pickpocket, sorry 52. This was almost certainly John Eyles, son and heir of the (Sir) John of Southbroom who had been returned for Parliament in 1679 (d. 1703). His memorial in St John’s church states that he died in 1752 aged 75. For the family, see J. Waylen, History of Devizes (pub. anon., London, 1859) p. 370 f. 53. A/23, A/83. 54. Br. Min.; A/27, A/32. A DEADLOCK IN 18TH-CENTURY DEVIZES raskall and pittiful little fellow’. In the afternoon, when the mayor went to St John’s Church for evensong, the scene was repeated. Anticipating trou- ble, one of the churchwardens had fastened the door to the mayor’s pew, but Bundy Franklin ‘caused William Node to open it by force and thrust himself in’. When Eyles tried to take his place, Bundy Franklin hindered him ‘by taking hold of the Bal- listers of the seat before him and thrusting forward his feet, which the Mayor perceiving endeavoured to get behind him, and Bundy Franklin thereupon threw himself back, got his head between the Mayor’s legs, lifted him up, and had it not been for some other persons at hand, had thrown the Mayor into the next seat’.>> On the following day (6 October) Eyles and Diston presided at the quarter sessions, and the grand jury for the borough reported Bundy Franklin and two of his supporters for the disturbance in St Mary’s and three more for laying hands on the constables. While they were sitting in. the Guildhall, Webb and Nicholas, in another place, were holding what their opponents denounced as illegal quarter sessions (as, with Hiller, they had done twice before), at which they reported Eyles and his officers.°° On the same day the ‘minister’ (rector) of Devizes went over to Salisbury to report the disturbances to the Bishop, and on the Tuesday the Bishop referred the matter to Lord Sunderland, describing it as ‘a great tumult. . . between the two Mayors, both disputing for the Mayor’s seat in Church’. He reported that ‘it was managed with much heat and noise and put the congregation in a great fright, but God be thanked no harm was done’. He had ordered the minister not to open the church doors on the following Sunday unless he had assurances that the disputes would not be repeated. Lord Sunderland consulted the Attorney- and Solicitor-General, and their reply, dated 23 October, ruled that Eyles was to be regarded as de facto mayor, adding that the shutting of the church was a wrong step: the proper course was for the Magistrates to ‘put into execution the methods pre- scribed by the Statutes for suppressing riots, routs and unlawful assemblies’. He himself wrote to Sir | James Ashe on the 28th, requesting him and the other local J.P.s to ‘use all lawfull and proper methods for preserving the peace of that Borough till the matters > 57 in dispute are decided by due course of law’. | 55. /A/32, A/38, A/40, A/44, A/49. 56. A/26, A/30, A/53. 57. BL Add. MSS 61607, f£.65, 98; the latter was copied as A/45; PRO S.P. 44/106, £.125 10] The incidents led to a fresh spate of litigation. Bundy Franklin complained that he had been badly bruised; to which his opponents replied that he had not only ‘taken the sacrament’ at St Mary’s, but had drunk punch that evening at the house of Mr Need- ham the surgeon without complaining of any injury. Bundy Franklin countered by saying that he did not feel his bruises till the next day.°* On Saturday 25 October several Whig councillors were in company with Bundy Franklin, and showed him a copy of the law officers’ report to Lord Sunderland. One of them, the attorney John Locke, then asked Bundy Franklin for an asssurance not to repeat his usurpation of the mayor’s pew; but he refused, saying that he would sit in the pew on the morrow if he found it empty. In fact, on Sunday 26 October Eyles did find his rival in the mayor’s seat in St Mary’s. On this occasion, however, when Bundy Franklin refused to quit, ‘saying the seat was his’, Eyles withdrew.°? Although Eyles’s election as mayor had been backed by the Government, the Tories still persisted in absenting themselves from council meetings: at the first meeting after his election (3 October 1707) Eyles could only muster 14 common councilmen, and al- though his supporters claimed that this was a majority of the ‘old and unquestionable members’, this would sull be challenged by the other party, and did not give the Whigs the clear mandate that they needed. Accordingly, no further meetings were summoned for more than five months, and during this period the Whigs made a determined effort to get a firm ruling in their favour from the court of Queen’s Bench. They offered to submit the matter to a determination by the Lord Chief Justice in chambers, but this was refused by the Tories’ counsel, and instead it was decided to make it depend on test cases, one against Eyles and another against Bundy Franklin, to be heard in the Hilary term 1708.°° It appears that this attempt too failed, for in March they tried another tack. After a council meeting on 13 March (attended by 17 common councilmen, all Whigs), a petition was addressed to the law officers of the Crown, asking the Queen to issue a writ for a fresh election of a mayor for the remainder of the mayoral year. The writ was duly issued on 16 April, and a council meeting called for the 24th. As, however, only 12 of the ‘old’ members appeared, no business was transacted, and although the council met again on 1, 4, and 5 May, no 58. A/SO, A/S1, A/S3; WRO D/1/41 (libels), 7 Oct. 1708 59. A/SS. 60. Br. Min.: A/83; Soc. Antiqu., Jackson MSS V 179 102 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE attempt was made to hold the mayoral election until 25 May.°! By then there had been an important shift in the local balance of power: for at the meeting on 5 May (1708) the corporation voted for their M.P.s in the general election, and for the first time returned two Whigs, Josiah Diston and Paul Methuen. The man- oeuvres in the run-up to this election reveal the prevalence of bribery and corruption which must have underlain all the party struggles of these years, but which can usually only be guessed at. Briefly, the position was that Diston and Methuen had been assured of the backing of the Whig councillors, 23 of whom (including three free burgesses) had in the previous October given Diston a written undertaking to this effect. John Child, whose brother Sir Francis had been frightened off by Diston’s money, tried to persuade Henry St John to stand with Thomas Richmond Webb in the Tory interest. Sir James Long, M.P. for Chippenham, wrote to St John, after a secret meeting with ‘the Duke of Beaufort’s gen- tlemen’: ‘I find five votes wanting, which your friends think may be purchased for about £400’. Of the 24 common councilmen, divided equally between Child and Diston, he suggested that ‘£500 will buy one of Mr Diston’s friends and make a majority for Mr Child, who can, with such a majority, elect a Mayor and as many burgesses, living in or out of the borough, as they please; and by that means secure the election of members to serve in Parliament for ever’. The bribing of the five votes would be risky, but ‘as to the £500, that will not be bribery within the power of the House of Commons, it being only to elect a Mayor, which must be done Friday in next Whitsun week’ (i.e. 25 May). He warned St John that there were still ‘great differences between both parties and great sums of money spent by their representatives in law-suits and otherwise’, and advised him, if he proceeded, to let Sir Francis Child share the expense. However, another friend told St John that ‘the low churchmen are so firmly united that I believe no money will prevail on them to do anything in pre- judice to their party’, and that ‘if you give five hundred pounds for a common councilman, Diston will give a thousand, and out-bribe you on all occa- sions’. He believed that Sir Francis Child and Mr Diston had spent £3,000 a year ‘in law and bribes’ 61. A/61, A/83; BL Add. MSS 61607, f. 184, 205. 62. A/42, A/43; C.F. xvi, 22; H.O.P. draft; Hist. MSS Comm. Portland MSS IV, 486, 175. Webb’s petition was listed for hearing on 28 April, but Parliament was prorogued on the 21st. 63. Br. Min.; A/46, A/63, A/83. John Eyles was also absent on 25 May, though he presided at the swearing in of his successor on since the last election. So Webb stood alone, and was defeated. He petitioned on the grounds that the Queen’s writ had voided Eyles’s election as mayor, so that — the mayoralty being vacant — he himself, as recorder, was the proper chief officer and should have had the precept. He and his supporters had demanded this at the time, and when Eyles refused had absented themselves from the election meeting.© Encouraged, no doubt, by their success in the parliamentary election, the official council (21 in number) met again on 25 May and carried out the instructions of the writ by electing a new mayor and other officers to serve until the following Michaelmas eve. The man chosen as mayor was Benjamin Street, a Whig who had been mayor already in 1696 and 1704, and who was described in an affidavit of October 1707 as ‘aged and feeble’. But the Tory councillors again stayed away, and tried to nullify the election by entering a caveat, as we learn from a petition to the Lord Chancellor by Street and the Whig burgesses on 23 June. So, although Street acted for the rest of the mayoral year, and presided when James Sutton was elected and sworn in as the next mayor (Michaelmas 1708), the new election had failed to produce the hoped-for unanimity.°? Though there is no evidence that the Tories this time put up a champion for mayor, they continued to boycott the council meetings. They also probably continued to hold rival council meetings, for we learn from a Whig brief of about this time that Child and his party now pretended to set up one William Long as common councilman, though he had not attended a meeting since 1689 and was living in Bath.°* The official minutes from April 1706 to May 1710 are overlaid with a tangled web of elections, re-elections, taking of oaths, and expulsions, the same individuals being often elected and re-elected on a number of occasions, doubtless in the hope of producing evi- dence which would convince the courts of their legitimacy; and it seems likely that similar tactics were being pursued by the rebels, although none of the relevant minutes have survived.® The lawsuits were sull dragging on, and in January 1709 Richard Hope successfully appealed to Lord Sunderland for a nolle prosequ to end the actions which (in spite of several rulings in his favour) were pending, challenging the legality of his election as mayor in 1706. His case was 28 May. After that he seems to have taken little or no part in borough politics. 64. A/63. 65. The surviving transcripts of rebel minutes (A/18, A/23) are of 1706 (27 & 29 Sept, 4 Oct) and 1707 (21 Apr, 6 June). A DEADLOCK IN 18TH-CENTURY DEVIZES 103 POW U treud {AB vipat od wi our Sorc Ad bases fence witosé wads ere ie. out | subsele } gina ss favéurca tp a té ot HE Sou'bs partes tee ad Moy res 7 tack be ty sutuu 7 to ie « qroutecs uy —~ Ino Datery or oftBr nu Aieuty fen Zo eg fo aus nial UuSus a a awe bund ofire rs, for BD Sard Burreugh ie wht Lot readily owty ou our pants |i’ durte ucouieer ad Hed Subbu weot Ree Merk Mey Molt Haw HSE DU LINE'S cur toukd hie | Chu ay of SE Eurty S709 - z = in, Steet mayer aS SKe: nT Re rf. WwW Quaat vl RIE & gl 2 Hen L24 fatal j : a4 fe E¥eonas Fired 11 00% J ; Ow A Sattar tai nb 3 hate: wor eG : Lokp a Howaw Vu a. ihe res ~n — a Ge hin. Jord Nh: 6." 9 ae ae fo Won, (2 faa stl Bvwh tow ki t® Bure _/ : Jas, giles ee Keg’ if, Figure 2. Declaration by the Whig Burgesses that they will submit to the Queen’s writ, December 1709. (WRO: G20/1/90/97) 104 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE helped by the fact that his 1706 rival, Richard Hiller, had died in March 1708. Similar nolle prosequi injunc- tions were issued in January 1710 in respect of three councillors elected in Hope’s mayoralty.% As the time drew near to elect a mayor for 1709-10, another attempt was made to get a full council: a mandamus, dated 26 May 1709, was issued in the Queen’s name, stating that some of the burgesses had complained that there were 11 vacancies on the common council, due to death, and that the mayor and burgesses had been negligent in not filling them. They were therefore required to do so forthwith. The writ was received by the official council on 22 June, with the Tories still absent. On 29 July, after consul- ting the court of Queen’s Bench as to whether those present were justified in acting, they sent their reply, signed by James Sutton as mayor and by 20 common councilmen (all Whigs). They admitted that there had been 1] vacancies, naming the deceased members, but declared that these had been filled by the election of 11 common councilmen, naming those who had in fact been elected between 1689 and 1700 and were still alive. In this way they avoided any reference to the disputed elections in 1706.°’ In the meantime they had met on the usual charter-day (this year 17 June) and had chosen Benjamin Street once more for mayor. On this occasion the Tory councillors were present, even including the rarely seen Jonathan Filkes. In August 1709 the political squabbles again erupted into violence. Early in that month one Henry Bishop was in the Bridewell, having been committed by order of the mayor for rioting. In the middle of the night of 3-4 August the watchmen set by the official constables (Sawyer and Brooks) were assaulted near the prison by two men in vizards; these handed tools through the grating of the door to Bishop, who was able to break out and escape. The mayor and const- ables appealed to Lord Sunderland, who caused a notice to be placed in the London Gazette, offering £20 reward for evidence leading to the arrest of the two masked men. Bishop, tempted by the reward, turned Queen’s evidence and named his rescuers as William Segar and Thomas Worsdell. In another incident, on 12 August, George Blanchard was res- cued from the custody of the bailiffs by some of the mob. The Crown therefore brought an action in the 66. BL Add. MSS 61608, f. 108; 61609, f. 117; PRO S.P. 44/108, f. 2, 18; A/83. 67. A/71. 68. BL Add. MSS 61607, f. 126; 61609, f. 43; London Gazette nos. 4590 & 4591 (20 & 22 Sept. 1709); PRO S.P. 44/108,f. 151; WANHS Lib., Cuttings II 24: this is a detailed article by Edward Kite, clearly based on documentary sources besides court of Queen’s Bench against eight men for causing these ‘riots’. Three of them, William Segar, Thomas Worsdell, and John Wyatt, were supporters of Child who had been concerned in the riots of 1707, and according to Bishop’s evidence (taken before Eyles) Segar and Worsdell were in 1709 the ‘constables’ appointed by the rebel council. The case appears to have been dropped, partly because of doubt about the admissibility of Bishop’s testimony (as a consenting party to the assault and chief actor in the break-out), and partly — as the Devizes antiquary Edward Kite plausibly surmised — because of fears that it would resurrect questions about the legitimacy of mayor Sutton and his officers. On Michaelmas Day (1709) Benjamin Street was duly sworn in as mayor. But at a council meeting on the following day the Tories were again absent, and the political struggle continued. The official council held no fewer than 16 meetings between 17 June and the end of October, and their minutes conunue the bewildering series of elections and re-elections. In September they were engaged in a suit in Chancery to get the former chamberlains (the Tories Richard Gaisford and Samuel Powell) to render their accounts, and on 6 October they dismissed them from their office and caused the common cryer to make it known that rents should in future be paid to the new chamberlains.°’ Renewed attempts were also made to disfranchise John Child and Robert Nicholas. Several of the warrants survive, and one, dated 2 September 1709, reveals something of the political atmosphere: signed by Richard Hope, as ‘Clerke of the Common Council and all other Courts of the said Borough’, it confirms that Child has been ‘amoved’ from the council for not attending the meetings himself and persuading others to follow suit. On the back the sub-bailiff, Roger Dorchester, has written that he tried to deliver it on 8 September, but that Child would not accept it, ‘telling me I might keep it and wipe my Breech’.”° No meetings of the official council are recorded from 29 October 1709 till 26 May 1710, and during November 1709 a number of Whig burgesses (headed not by the mayor but by Richard Watton) petitioned the Government once again for a writ of mandamus for a fresh election of mayor and other officers, thus those listed above; but he does not name them, and they have so far eluded search. Segar and Wyatt were named in connection with the riot in the market-place in April 1707, Worsdell in the church riot of October: A/21, A/38, A/40. 69. A/83; Cunnington Annals i (2nd pagin.) 205-6; il, 157. The accounts were not finally examined and allowed unul 1722. 70. A/74, A/83. A DEADLOCK IN 18TH-CENTURY DEVIZES ui & : Bows? , 2B aweer Pyry J A ” {Goad jobenl £2 GD 50 Rex Be > ah wo ka/an's 29 Pre pA i Pe: Kini”. CA Dene Gp for Beg eee SB oe BD Raft Dalam Caf Pw on” apc ; Figure 3. Endorsements by the bailiffs on a warrant against John Child, September 1709. (WRO: G20/1/90/74) repeating the pattern of 1707-8. The request was passed to the law officers on 2 December, and on the. 10th the Whig councillors solemnly signified their willingness to submit to the writ, one document being signed by the mayor, officers, and 11 ‘Chief Burgesses’, and another by the 10 ‘new members’ elected in 1706 and 1707.’! Nothing more is heard of the proposed writ, and it looks as if the Tories did not wish to press the matter to a fresh vote. At all events Benjamin Street served his full term as mayor without interruption, and when a by-election had to be held (28 December 1709) beause of Paul Methuen’s appointment to a place on the Admiralty Board, he was re-elected without opposition. Although the borough minutes, as usual, give no hint of it, the mayoral election and swearing of May and September 1710 again produced two rival mayors, the official one being once again the Whig clothier James Sutton, and the rebel the Tory John Child.’ A week later came the general election, at _ which each party had strong candidates and pressed 71. A/78, A/79, A/80; B.L. Add. MSS 61609, f. 73. 72. H.O.P. draft; C.J. xvi, 407, where the petition of Sir Francis Child and Mr Serjeant Webb describes John Child as ‘the legal Mayor’, 73. Ibid.; Post Boy, 10-12 Oct. 1710; Post Man, 7-10 Oct. 1710. their case with all the wealth and influence at their disposal. The Tory candidates were Sir Francis Child (who had been defeated for his London seat in 1708) and Thomas Richmond Webb, challenging the sitting Whig members, Josiah Diston and Paul Methuen. Each party made a return, the Tories (by John Child) claiming a majority by 21 votes to 20 in favour of each of their candidates, the Whigs (by Sutton) 30 to 17 for each of theirs.’* The sheriff forwarded both returns, though styling Child’s as an ‘undue return’, and both sides petitioned. The resulting enquiry, in December 1710, led to allegations which shed a lurid light on the background of bribery and intimidation. They include the following:”* — That on the night before the election Paul Methuen’s uncle, Anthony Methuen, sent a silver tankard to the daughter of one of the voters, Ambrose Paradice;”° she refused it, but her father took it, and afterwards voted the other way. — That Sir Francis Child’s partner, Mr Rogers, 74. Waylen, History, 360; WANHS Lib., Cuttings IT 24 (cp note 68 above); BL Loan 29/321, Dyer’s letter of 19 Dec. 1710; H.O.P. draft. 75. Paradice was a free burgess of over 20 years standing. 106 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE had paid all the charges of two voters, one of whom, named Watts,’ had three pints of sack with him on the election day, and paid nothing. — That other voters had been promised places worth £60 a year as Bridewell Keeper, Surveyor of Window Lights, and Distributor of Stamped Paper and Parchment; and one had also been lent £150. — That a voter had been offered £120 for his vote, and his son promised a scholarship at New College, Oxford, while being threatened that if he failed to comply he would be deprived of the ‘farm’ of the Cheese Market, worth £14 p.a.’” — That Stephen Street (a common councilman and son of the Whig ex-mayor) had been ‘committed for sham treason’ and his father told that if he did not vote right his son would be hanged. — That two free burgesses were ‘secured and kept under guard’ for 24 hours until carried to the poll. Each side also challenged the legitimacy of some of the other side’s voters. The Whigs objected to Webb, Child, Nicholas, and William Long, ‘Chief Burgesses’, and also to John Merewether, an eminent physician and free burgess, on the grounds that he was a ‘non-juror’. The Tories, for their part, challen- ged ten voters, including Diston, James Sutton Junior, and the constables Sawyer and Brooks, all of whom: had been elected in or after April 1706. Parliament, where there was now a large Tory major- ity, led by Harley and St John, decided in favour of Child and Webb by a majority of 120. According to the Tory Dyer’s newsletter, when the news reached Devizes, ‘the Bells fell a Ringing and an Universal Joy appeared throughout the Towne. The Mobile drest up Mr. Diston in Effigy and carryed him round the Towne Shouting and Huzzaing and at last Threw him into a Bonfire and burnt him as a Martyr to the dying Whigg Cause’.”* Surprisingly, there is no evidence that the Tories contested the mayoral elections in the remaining years of Queen Anne’s reign (1711-14), and the office passed from one to another of the old band of Whigs.’’ In the general election of 1713 there was again a disputed return. The Tories Robert Child (son of Sir Francis) and John Nicholas (son of Robert) had 76. John Watts was a free burgess. 77. Perhaps Thomas Massey: see notes 34 & 37 above. 78. BL Loan 29/321, Dyer’s letter of 23 Dec. 1710. 79. 1711: Benjamin Street; 1712: James Sutton; 1713: Edward Watton; 1714: Charles Flower. The Borough Minutes are not conclusive, since, as we have seen, they gave no hint of double a majority over the Whigs, Diston and John Eyles’s brother Francis. The decision of the Commons in 1710 was used to confine the poll to the ‘old’ (i.e. pre-1706) burgesses.8? Webb again stood as a third Tory candidate, but received no votes. Eyles and Diston lodged a petition on the grounds of ‘undue practices’, but before it could be considered the Queen was dead and the accession of George I had begun a long period of Whig ascendancy. Diston and Eyles were returned unopposed in the general election of 1715, and Devizes continued to return Whigs to [epbsiin throughout the reigns of George I and I.” THE CAUSES OF THE DEADLOCK It is time to review the factors which made such a prolonged deadlock in borough politics possible, in spite of the detailed provisions of a written constit- ution. Thanks to briefs drawn up in connection with the various law-suits, this is well documented. It was common ground that by the charter of Charles I (1639), the common council consisted of a mayor, recorder, and 36 capital burgesses, and that it was this common council which annually elected the mayor and other borough officers, and also any new burgesses, by majority vote. The question then arose, how was the majority to, be defined, and the court of Queen’s Bench ruled (in November 1707) that it meant ‘nothing less than a majority of the number for the time being’, i.e. a majority of the whole membership, and not merely of those present at a particular meeting. The charter also provided for a deputy recorder to act in the absence of the recorder, and in 1706 the recorder, Thomas Richmond Webb, who was frequently absent, had appointed Benjamin Street as his deputy. The Whigs claimed that, in the absence of the recorder, Street could vote twice, once as deputy recorder, and again in his own right. They also challenged the inclusion in the list of councillors of two members: one was Jonathan Filkes, formerly a capital burgess, who had been living ‘in London or elsewhere abroad’ for about 20 years, and in all that time had never attended a meeting; the other was the attorney, Francis Sadleir, who claimed to have been elected in 1703, but whose election (so the Whigs argued) had been made in the absence of the recorder returns in the earlier years. But if the Tories had put up rival mayors in these years there would surely have been evidence of further disputes, and probably law-suits. 80. H.O.P. draft. The borough minutes make no mention of a contest, and report that Eyles and Diston were returned. 81. C.F. xvii, 486; Waylen, History, 546. A DEADLOCK IN 18TH-CENTURY DEVIZES and despite the protests of several members, and was therefore invalid.*? Now owing to the failure to fill vacancies, noted earlier, the membership of the common council had, by 20 April 1706, been reduced from 36 to 26, if Filkes and Sadleir were counted, or 24 if they were not. The position at the crucial meeting on 20 April was listed in a Whig brief as follows:- CAPITAL BURGESSES COUNCILLORS ABSENT Robert Nicholas Esq Mr John Child PRESENT Mr James Sutton, Mayor Thomas Webb Esq, Recorder, by his Deputy, Mr Street Mr Richard Watton Mr Benjamin Street Mr Mathew Figgins Mr Richard Hiller CAPITAL BURGESSES OF THE COMMON COUNCIL PRESENT Mr Richard Hope Edward Watton Charles Flower Gabriel Butcher Jeremiah Williams ABSENT Richard Bundy Stephen Hillman John Tane John Fry Richard Gaisford John Allen Richard Vince Samuel Powell Henry Flower Richard Smith Richard White 12 present in Council (if Mr. 12 unquestionable members wilfully absent, besides Filkes and Sadleir.*? Street being a member thereof can be legally Deputy Recorder) From the above lists it can be seen that, although the Whigs had been advised by counsel to act, treating the absentees as ‘wilfully absent’, their claim to be a majority of the common council was somewhat shaky. It required the reduction of the total to 24 by the omission of Filkes and Sadleir, the counting of the recorder as present in the person of his deputy, and the omission of him from the list of absentees; furthermore, since even so the potential votes would be equal (12-12), it required recourse to an additional casting vote by the mayor. At the next meeting, on 24 April, the Whigs’ 82. WRO G20/1/1; Soc. Antiqu., Jackson MSS V 179; A/12, A/63. Ironically, Jonathan Filkes is found in 1709 complaining that he has been dismissed from his post as Surveyor of Customs in the Isle of Wight because of the claims on his time resulting from his Devizes councillorship: Cal. Treas. Bks. XXIII 437. 83. A/6. 84. Ibid; Fry: A/4. 85. The Borough Minutes record swearing of new common council- men as follows: 20 Apr.: Edward Errwood, James Sutton Jun., 107 position was strengthened by the additional presence of John Fry, who claimed to have been kept away by Child’s threats on the 20th. Thus, even if the votes of the five new common councillors sworn in at the previous meeting were ignored, and only the ‘old’ members counted, they could now claim (on the same assumptions as before regarding the recorder) to have 13 voters present, with 11 absent, amounting to a majority of the total membership of 24. Even if Filkes and Sadleir were allowed, bringing the total to 26, there would be (on the assumptions as before) 13 ‘old’ members present and 13 absent, and the mayor’s casting vote would again decide it.** When it came to the disputed mayoral election on 17 May 1706, Filkes was the only member of the common council absent, and the recorder was present in person. The new members elected and sworn at recent meetings now numbered eight.*° If they were counted, there was a total of 31 votes (the two candidates not voting), of which 19 were for Hope and 12 for Hiller (including the recorder and Sadleir). But if, as the Tories argued, the votes of the eight new members were invalid and only those of the ‘old’ members counted, then there were only 11 for Hope and 12 for Hiller. Four months later, the Tories’ case was still stronger; for they claimed to have held a properly constituted council meeting on 27 September, consisting of the recorder and 12 ‘old’ members (including Sadleir), and another on 29 September, after the claimed ‘swearing’ of Hiller as mayor, at which he and the 12 ‘old’ members elected 10 more councilmen and swore in 8 of them.*° They could thus credit themselves with the support of 20 old and new members (i.e. the candidate and 19 votes) to set against the Whigs’ 19. Thus it is clear that, while each side had some strong points in its favour, neither had a cast-iron case regarding the election of councillors in April 1706 and the mayoral election and swearing in May and September of that year. It followed that any action taken thereafter by the votes of the councillors and mayor so elected was equally open to challenge, and this explains the failure of the repeated attempts to get a firm ruling, and the frequent efforts to legitimise some members by fresh election and swearing, and to disfranchise others. Stephen Street, Henry Axford, William Powell; 24 Apr.: James Davis, John Hollis; 1S May: John Locke. 86. A/18, A/23. The eight sworn were: Francis Paradice, Benjamin Richards, Thomas Stone, John Powell Jun., Peter Clarke, Nicholas Adee, Richard Paradice, John Sainsbury. The other two claimed by the rebels —- James Sutton Jun. and Stephen Street — had previously been sworn by the official council (note 85), and there is no evidence that they wavered in their support for the Whig side thereafter. It looks like a ury-on 108 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE WHAT WAS IT ALL ABOUT? What were the issues which led the two parties to feud so bitterly for control of the borough government in these years? Personal quarrels no doubt played their part; but the duration and tenacity of the struggle suggests some deeper underlying causes. Before considering what these may have been, we must try to form some picture of the men who made up the corporation, and in particular its common council. Robert Nicholas, whom we have seen as one of the leaders of the Tory faction, was a member of an old Wiltshire family owning property in Roundway. The list of free burgesses is headed by Sir John Talbot, of Lacock Abbey; he had been borough M.P. in 1685, but had retired from public life four years later, and there is no indication that he concerned himself actively in borough affairs. Apart from these names, the landed gentry are conspicuous by their absence, and the members designated ‘Esquire’ are wealthy merchants and bankers accepted for political reasons, like Child, Diston, Eyles, and John Methuen. The professions are represented by John Merewether M.B. (a free burgess) and by three attorneys — Henry Axford and John Locke on the Whig side, and Francis Sadleir on the Tory. The two James Suttons and the two Streets — Benjamin and Stephen — were well-to-do clothiers and prominent for the Whigs, and there were at least three other clothiers, also Whigs. Scattered pieces of evidence identify a yeoman, a fuller, and a drugget-maker. The rest were mainly prosperous tradesmen: they included at least four grocers, an apothecary, a baker, a barber, a carpenter, a chandler, a gunsmith, a pewterer, a saddler, and a tailor. Such evidence as there is does not suggest that the Whig-Tory divide corresponded to any split along social or (except for the clothiers) occupational lines.*’ The two great issues which dominated the con- troversies of the time were the religious (high-church Anglicanism vs Dissent) and the political-economic (Stuart vs Hanoverian, absolutism vs democratic con- trol, peaceful isolationism vs foreign wars and entan- glements). That religious affiliations did play a part in determing men’s stances in Devizes at this period is not in doubt. A number of ministers of religion, ejected after the Act of Uniformity (1661), had con- gregated in Devizes and were active in fostering 87. Evidence of occupations: Br. Min.; wills; PRO KB 28 & 29; W.R.S. XVII; A/37, A/40, A/49. 88. VCH Wiltshire III (1956) 108; X (1975) 297. The House of Commons, 1715-54, ed. R. Sedgwick (3 vols., London, 1970) s.v. Diston. ‘independent’ groups of worshippers there; among their congregations were the Eyles and Sutton families, Edward and Richard Hope, and (later) Josiah Diston, all prominent on the Whig front.** On the Tory side, it may be noted that Richard Hiller senior in 1694 left money to the two parish churches to endow gifts of cloth and bread for the poor. John Tane was a churchwarden of St Mary’s, and among those signing the church accounts were Richard Bundy (Franklin), Stephen Hillman, and Robert Nicholas. Bundy Franklin’s son, Richard Bundy, became a D.D. and chaplain to George II.*” We saw earlier how the Court had attempted to break the influence of the Dissenters in corporation affairs by the purge of 1662; and when James II had reversed his policy in 1687-8, the returns made by the Lord Lieutenant contained the interesting comment that if the poll for the Knights of the Shire could be moved from Wilton to Devizes ‘all the Dissenters will come in, and carry it as they please with a little help.” On the other hand it is clear that, in spite of occasional attacks, notably against Quakers, the climate at Devizes at this period was on the whole tolerant. The dissenting groups had for the most part not yet broken completely from the established Church, and none of the accusations which the Whig and Tory groups flung at each other in the mayoral dispute related to ecclesiastical policy or usage. It is significant that a summary of the legal proceedings against burgesses elected in 1706 noted that ‘all the new members which were made, on both sides, are constant conformists to the Church of England’.?! We may conclude that, while Dissenters could usually be found on the Whig side and high-churchmen on the Tory, the local power-struggle was not fought on religious issues. To find the real significance of the local divisions, we must turn to the political and economic fields. We can discount the dynastic issue: there is no evidence of any Jacobite influence in Devizes at this period. Nor was the extension of democratic control a motive: although the free burgesses had survived the attempts made from 1679 to 1689 to deny their right to the franchise, they then quietly allowed themselves to be first limited and then reduced to a small honorary body; and it is not until the 1820s that one can detect any fervour for extending the vote in Devizes — a state 89. Hiller: VCH Wiltshire X (1975) 313; Tane etc.: WRO 189/2; Bundy-Franklin: WAM 49, p. 225. 90. WAM 18, p. 359 f. 91. Soc. Antiqu., Jackson MSS V 179; E. Bradby, the Book of Devizes (Buckingham, 1985) p. 73-4. A DEADLOCK IN I8TH-CENTURY DEVIZES of affairs which could doubtless be illustrated from many other boroughs in the 18th century.”? The question of who should control the House of Commons was, however, a matter of great interest locally as well as nationally, and there can be little doubt that the parliamentary elections were the real goal of the local power-struggle. In the unstable conditions after the Restoration, control of the House of Commons had emerged as the essential asset, whether for the King and the Court party, or for any group wishing to defeat the Court’s policies; and Borough Members offered one of the most hopeful means towards securing it. It is true that the electorate in Devizes had not been reduced to the ludicrous position of a ‘Rotten Borough’ like Old Sarum, where ten electors chose two M.P.s;?* but even an electorate of 50-60, reduced perhaps to 36 if the free burgesses could be excluded, offered a tempting prospect to anyone able to wield influence, and their right to send up two M.P.s was unques- tioned. Thus it was natural that, as national parties began to form, they should concentrate much of their effort on securing the representation of the boroughs. The Triennial Act of 1694, which lasted until 1716, meant the certainty of a general election at least every three years; and in fact Devizes returned M.P.s 14 times between those years, which meant that man- oeuvring for power was virtually continuous. In this situation there was ample scope for bribery, corrup- tion, and intimidation, and, as we have seen, these were weapons widely tolerated and used. One result was to put parliamentary candidature beyond the means of the ordinary squire or professional man, and to introduce into the borough scene men like Sir John Eyles, who had made a fortune in the slave trade, and was Lord Mayor of London in 1688, or Sir Francis Child, the rich London goldsmith and banker. It doubtless helped that both of these had good local credenuals, Eyles being the son of a Devizes wool- stapler and Child the son of a Heddington clothier.”* Devizes at this ime was still an important centre for the cloth trade, and this no doubt made it a specially attractive prospect to them, as also to Josiah Diston, the Blackwell Hall factor, and the Methuens of Bradford. Thus, while in earlier Restoration umes the borough had often been represented in Parliament by local squires like Sir Walter Ernle and Walter Grubbe, by 1700 the candidates were always wealthy 92. Ibid., p. 9S f. The number of free burgesses had fallen to 15 by 1720, to 4 by 1740, and from 1750 to 1830 was never more than two, 93. VCH Wiltshire VI (1962) 67. 109 men or their protégés. A professional man like the recorder, Thomas Richmond Webb, Serjeant at Law, of Rodbourne Cheyney, son of an army colonel and brother of general John Richmond Webb, had no chance of being elected unless in the shadow of a wealthy candidate from outside.”° In these conditions, there were obviously valuable prizes to be won, both by candidates and by voters, in a successful election campaign: the candidate could hope to spend his money efficiently on a fairly small number of voters; if he was elected he would have opportunities of patronage which would help to secure his seat and — if he was active in trade or banking — would open up fresh channels of profit for himself. Correspondingly, the councillors could hope that if their man was elected to Parliament he would represent their commercial interests both generally, in matters of taxation and foreign policy, and in par- ucular, for example by helping to market their cloth. Now in elections of borough M.P.s, the office of mayor acquired a particular importance: not only could the mayor virtually control the filling of vac- ancies in the council, but it was to him that the writ authorizing an election was delivered, he presided at the election, and he made the return over the corpor- ation seal. The importance of the mayor was enhanced if — as in the case of Devizes — there was any dispute about the interpretation of a charter or the ute of individual members to act. Devizes in the reign of Queen Anne thus presents a clear picture of the way in which national party- politics impinged on borough politics. While at Westminster the Whig and Tory factions were crystallising, becoming more conscious of their separ- ate identities, and slowly evolving some organisation, at the same time on the local front groupings which had probably begun to form as a result of personal animosities, trade rivalries, or religious differences, gradually came to reflect the Whig and Tory policies. The council being about equally divided between the two parties, the struggle between them narrowed into a war for the mayoralty, and the chance combination of circumstances reviewed earlier led to that war being continued for four years without a decisive outcome. Seen in historical perspective, the struggle whose course we have been tracing seems to have been the last flicker of political life from a corporation which had once aspired to be the leading town in Wiltshire, 94. VCH Wiltshire V (1957) 227; The House of Commons, 1660-90, s.v. Eyles. 95. Webb: D.N.B. 110 with its royal castle and flourishing trade in wool and agricultural products. For the rest of the 18th century, Devizes sent up members, mostly drawn from a few wealthy families, who invariably suppor- ted the dominant party, Whigs until 1765, thereafter Tories.°° There were no more disputed election returns, local or parliamentary, and it was not until the years of agitation leading to the Reform Bill of 1832 that the walls of the Guildhall again echoed to 96. Waylen, History, 546. THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE hotly contested arguments about who should control the corporation and so, through the borough M.P.s, have a say in settling great national issues. Acknowledgements. Thanks are due to David Hayton, of the History of Parliament Trust, and Kenneth Rogers, County Archi- vist, for valuable advice and help. | _ Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 111-122. j Insectivores in Wiltshire: Hedgehog by MARION BROWNE* The paper surveys the occurrence of the hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus in Wiltshire, using data from early records and from systematic survey over the years 1976-85. Methods of data collection are described, the records are set out and various aspects of distribution, biology and behaviour are discussed. INTRODUCTION The hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus is one of the most familiar British mammals, instantly recognized by its dorsal covering of spines in place of hairs and often seen, in spite of its nocturnal activity, because of its - commensal habit. It is the only representative of the family Erinacidae in Britain. Distribution records published by the Mammal Society (Corbet 1971) showed the hedgehog to be widely distributed in Britain, especially in the south, and the distribution map in the Provisional Atlas of the Mammals of the British Isles (Arnold 1978) showed near complete coverage, on a 10 km basis, of the southern counties. Yet in Wiltshire, prior to 1976, records of the species were sparse and, before the 1970s, almost non-existent. During 1976 mammal recording in the county was established on a firmer _ base, recording sheets were printed and circulated, -and records were actively sought using all available recording techniques, with the aim of bringing the distribution map up to date and of adding to the data already held. This paper, one of a series dealing with the distribution and status of mammals in Wiltshire (Dillon and Browne 1975; Browne 1983; Dillon and Browne 1984; Browne 1985; Browne 1986) summarizes known incidence and distribution of E. europaeus in Wiltshire up to the end of 1985 and presents available information on aspects of its biology and behaviour. METHOD A provisional distribution map was established from information extracted from the national Biological Records Centre and from known local sources, pub- lished and manuscript (Dillon and Noad 1980; Dillon 1984) up to 1976. The information was slight and the provisional distribuuon map showed far from complete coverage of the county. Records were * Latimer Lodge, West Kington, Chippenham, Wilts. SN14 7JJ therefore sought throughout Wiltshire from members of natural history and conservation — societies, Women’s Institutes and other organizations; skeletal remains were studied and identified; short articles were published in the local press and in the bulletins and reports of local societies; and people were ques- tioned during conversations, from which transcripts were made and records extracted. At the beginning of 1985, requests for records were circulated to everyone who had ever previously submitted records of hedgehogs, with a special appeal for information from certain areas of the county which were still under- recorded. Evidence was sought on the presence of hedgehogs from sightings and field signs, with information on location, map reference, habitat, time, date, diet, breeding, mortality and predation. Physical characteristics for the purpose of identifi- cation presented no problems; the hedgehog, with its spiny pelage, is unmistakable. The hair on its back and on the top of its head is replaced by a coat of spines, pale brown with dark bands near the tips. The face and the belly are covered sparsely with rather coarse brown hair. The legs are covered with dark brown leathery skin with few hairs and the feet are plantigrade with five digits on the fore and the rear. The muzzle is long and the tooth rows are continuous, with relatively few teeth, the cusps pointed. Live sightings and dead animals provide acceptable evidence, as do field signs such as droppings, tracks, nests, calls and skeletal material. The droppings are typically cigar shaped, approxi- mately 55 mm in length and up to 15 mm in diameter, firm and compressed, blackish, usually showing insect They are deposited apparently randomly and not covered or buried in any way. Tracks and footprints have been studied in detail, remains. 112 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE as have the feet of live and dead hedgehogs. The number and pattern of toe and foot pads are shown in Figure I. ~~ left fore left hind Figure 1. Hedgehog: foot and toe pads, approximately 2:3. 30 mm Nests are more or less spherical, average about 250 mm in diameter, and are composed of various grasses, leaves and other materials. They are normally at ground level and concealed under bushes, spreading plants, hedges, brushwood piles or rubbish heaps. They are used for daytime sleep, for breeding and for hibernation. Hedgehogs are quite noisy as they move around at night, snorting and snuffing as they search for food, munching, scrunching and lip-smacking as they eat it. Pairs can be located by the hissing sound made prior to mating, sleeping hedgehogs make a wheezy hiss if they are disturbed in their nests, and they sometimes make louder deterrent sounds if attacked or threatened. Skeletal material, particularly skulls and jaw bones, may be encountered in the field and used for identifi- cation. Diagnostic features are shown in Figure 2. RESULTS By the end of 1985, 1566 records were received. The minimum number of individual animals deduced from the evidence was 1738. upper sockets lower molars All records were added to the existing distribution map. Known distribution of the hedgehog in Wiltshire at 31 December 1985 is shown in Figure 3. The map is plotted on a 1 km grid but, for clarity, only the 10 km grid is shown. Basic details of the records were published in annual Mammal Reports (Browne 1977-85). 29 per cent of the records were of live hedgehogs. Most were single animals, but there were five pairs, nine females with young, and 10 litters of infants and juveniles of various ages from the soft spine stage to fully spined found when their mothers were absent. For the purpose of comparative quantification of the records, when exact numbers were not stated, ‘several’ and ‘occasional’ were deemed to be five and litter size was deemed to be three, this being the average size of litters recorded in the county. There were two records of unusually coloured hedgehogs, a silver-grey at Clarendon in 1953 and an albino near Landford in 1983. 69 per cent of the records were of dead hedgehogs. Again, for the purpose of comparative quantification, ‘several’ and ‘a few’ were deemed to be five, ‘many’ and ‘frequent’ to be 10. Some were chance finds, the cause of death being unknown; the majority were road casualties, including one killed on a_ pedestrian crossing in Chippenham; four were drowned, two in swimming pools and two in garden ponds; and four were killed by predators. Two per cent of the records were of field signs. The nature of record is shown in Figure 4. The majority of field sign records were of dropp- ings. There was one record of tracks and there were 13 records of nests, all but one in support of other evidence. Various nest materials were used including grass, leaves of spindle Euonymus europaeus, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, oak Quercus robur, willow Salix sp., ash Fraxinus excelsior, mullein Verbascum sp., j @ Ws i lower sockets a 3 [s: left lower jaw Figure 2. Skull, jawbones and teeth of hedgehog, approximately 2:3. i, incisor; c, canine; p, premolar; m, molar. INSECTIVORES IN WILTSHIRE: HEDGEHOG Figure 3. Hedgehog: known distribution in Wiltshire 113 114 20 30 40 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 50 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 4. Nature and number of records and percentage representation. conifer twigs and litter including Thwa globosa and Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, the large ‘elephant ear’ leaves of Bergenia cordifolia, two sheets of 50 mm thick foam rubber, a plastic bag and a toilet roll. The nests were all at or just below ground level and supported or confined in various ways to keep thern compact; one was in a scrape under waste vegetation, another was under a corrugated metal sheet and approached via a grass-lined passage, one was under a bush against a house wall, one between a holly trunk and a dry stone wall, one under a low conifer on a rockery and one was under a bergenia plant with a plastic bag drawn in to form a waterproof cover. There was a nest in a garage, one in a garden shed, one under a stack of firewood in a wood-shed and one behind a lavatory pedestal on an upper floor of a house in Salisbury. There were also two hedgehogs found hibernating in compost heaps and two seen emerging from a rubbish heap composed of shrub prunings. Four contributors located hedgehogs by the sounds they made. Not all the sounds were described in detail, but several were heard by the author while watching hedgehogs and these were recorded in writ- ten descriptions as well as on tape. Two pairs were observed, one on 22 May 1983 on pasture and one on 3 July 1985 emerging from a rubbish heap into an orchard; each of these pairs spent more than an hour circling each other in a slow and rather hesitant ritual, with long bouts of hissing and shorter periods of huffing and occasional snorting. On 1 June 1980, while two orphan badger cubs were being exercised in the garden, a persistent harsh roar was heard, loud enough to carry some distance; the cubs were found cautiously investigating a hedgehog, which was 20 30 0 10 droppings tracks nests calls 40 backed up in a defensive position with its head up and its mouth open, emitting a loud roar which was effective in deterring the cubs. Hedgehogs have also been heard to make a low wheezy hiss if disturbed in their nests. No records of skeletal material were received. The number and proportion of field sign records are shown in Figure 5. Hedgehogs were found in a variety of habitats for which the descriptive terminology used by con- tributors was diverse and has therefore been stand- ardized. 1183 were seen on roads, 70 of them live and 1113 dead. While a road may traverse any type of habitat it is not itself a habitat in the accepted sense; the grid references of all records of hedgehogs seen on roads were therefore checked against the 1:50,000 Ordnance Survey maps of the county and each record was assigned to the habitat type through which the road passed. Habitats fell into three main categories in terms of cover. These were ‘open’, ‘closed’ and ‘artificial and commensal’. Of the ‘open’ habitats ‘farmland’ denotes mixed arable and grassland, with hedges and small woods; ‘river valley’ denotes low lying ground, mainly water meadows; ‘waste’ denotes unused areas of agricultural and industrial dereliction; ‘downland’ and ‘parkland’ are self explanatory. The ‘closed’ habitat ‘woodland’ includes deciduous woodland, mixed woodland which is mainly decidu- ous, and old coppice. This category has been used only when specifically mentioned in a record or when woodland covered at least 80 per cent of the 1 km square in which a hedgehog was recorded. There were no records from coniferous woodland. 50 60 70 80 90 ~=100 Figure 5. Sign: number of records and percentage representation INSECTIVORES IN WILTSHIRE: HEDGEHOG In the ‘artificial and commensal’ category, ‘estate’ denotes housing estates, industrial estates and Minis- try of Defence establishments with areas of grass, bushes and trees between buildings; ‘town’ and ‘vill- age’ are self explanatory. 212 hedgehogs were recorded in gardens in towns, estates and villages, and are shown within these ‘artificial and commensal’ categories in the habitat data, which are presented in Figure 6. There were also 12 records of hedgehogs using buildings, either for hibernation or occasionally to rear litters of infants. Three were seen in hen houses, two of them asleep on eggs and one killing a hen. Several lived under a duck house in Nettleton, three hibernated under a shed at Woolley, two in garages in Trowbridge and West Kington, and one was found in a toilet paper nest on an upper floor of a house in the cathedral close in Salisbury. Five infants were reared in a box in a house porch in Devizes, three in a nest in a garden shed at Amesbury, and four reared in a coal shed in Nettleton emerged through a cat hole when 0 farmland downland open parkland river valley waste closed woodland town artificial and estate commensal village 115 idea of seasonal activity. These data, presented in Figure 7, are based on live and dead hedgehogs. No attempt was made to analyse seasonal activity on an annual basis, the number of records varying so much from year to year that it would be unrealistic to compare them with each other. The monthly totals in Figure 7 are therefore aggregates for all years. Several contributors recorded hedgehogs foraging, but unfortunately there were no observations of the food items taken. A hedgehog at Landford was reported killing a hen, but it was not stated whether or not the hen was subsequently eaten or whether she was sitting on eggs, which might have been the hedgehog’s true objective. Again, although two hedgehogs were found sitting or sleeping on eggs in hen houses, they were not seen to break or eat any eggs and there was no mention of broken eggshells. There were, on the other hand, a number of cases of hedgehogs eating food provided by humans. Eight contributors fed hedgehogs on bread and milk, some regularly and for several years running; in two cases, 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 6. Habitat: number of records and percentage representation. they were fully spined. These were all assigned to the ‘artificial and commensal’ category and are included in the data presented in Figure 6. Unusual behaviour was observed on a playing field at Salisbury, where a hedgehog was watched moving round and round in circles which diminished grad- ually until it reached the centre, when it walked away. Hedgehogs have also been seen active in full daylight; these included eight juveniles. 1630 records of hedgehogs, approximately 92 per cent of the total number, were dated accurately to a month and from these it was possible to gain some saucers were shared with cats, one hedgehog entering a shed via a cat door to share the cats’ food. There were six records of hedgehogs feeding under bird tables on fallen scraps including stale toast and chicken bones, one raided a dustbin in Quemerford, one ate a picnic lunch (no details supplied) at Woolley, and one joined a tea party in the garden at Whaddon. Captive hedgehogs have been fed by the author on slugs and it was found that they would take as many as could be collected; the minimum require- ment for one night was 30 slugs. They also ate very small snails but not large ones and seemed quite 116 20 30 40 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 50 60 70 80 90. 100 January February March April May June July August September October November December Figure 7. Seasonal activity: number of records and percentage representation. content for their natural diet to be supplemented with unned dog food and a little soaked bread. As well as food, hedgehogs also need a supply of drinking water and have been observed drinking at bird baths, garden ponds and a drain. Breeding pairs were observed on four occasions — 16 May 1976 at Winterbourne Monkton; 22 May 1983 and 3 July 1985 at West Kington where, on both occasions, they were watched circling each other in a slow ritual manner with a hissing accompaniment for well over an hour; and a pair at Cricklade on 9 August 1985. Two pregnant females were recorded, one live at Southcott on 10 July 1977, one dead at Alderbury on 8 August 1982. Females with litters and numerous young hedgehogs without their mothers were recorded. The terminology used by contribitors to describe young hedgehogs was diverse and has been standardized as far as possible when the age of the youngsters was known or could be deduced. The term ‘infant’ is used to define babies up to about three weeks old, still in the nest and unweaned. The term ‘juvenile’ is used for youngsters more than three weeks old, fully spined and beginning to leave the nest but not necessarily completely independent of their mothers. Six females with litters were noted — one with the infants at Sundays Hili on 1 June 1985; one dead at Lavington on 6 June 1938, her three juveniles rescued; one killed at Avebury on 30 June 1976, her five infants died three days later; one in her nest with five infants at Bradford-on-Avon on 4 July 1981; one with juveniles in a Nettleton garden on 22 July 1979; a female with two juveniles on 24 October 1976 at West Kington; and a female and one juvenile dead at Southcott on 6 December 1977. These were all live unless otherwise stated and they are given in a monthly, not a yearly, progression. Seven litters were found when the mothers were absent. Three soft-spined infants, dragged out of a nest and injured by a dog at West Kington on 11 June 1985, did not survive; four born in a shed at Nettleton were first seen, fully spined, on 15 June 1981; one was found in a nest at Redlynch on 23 July 1984; there were litters in Salisbury in August 1965 and at Amesbury in August 1981; a nest containing four infants was found at Porton on 22 October 1966 and a litter of soft-spined infants in Salisbury in late November 1965. Also 42 independent juveniles were recorded. Of these, 32 were live, seven were dead, one died later and one had a hind leg so badly broken that it had to be put down. Eight of them were active in full daylight. Numbers of breeding pairs, pregnant females, individual infants and juveniles, and the months in which they were recorded, are shown in Figure 8. Hedgehogs have been found in situations which would have proved fatal had they not been rescued. Three, at Sopworth, West Kington and Southcott, were entangled in fruit netting, two so completely that the netting had to be cut away in order to free them. One was rescued from a cattle grid, three from garden pools and one from a trap set for mink. Two at West Kington were found so badly injured that they had to be put down; one of them had its belly ripped open, | INSECTIVORES IN WILTSHIRE: HEDGEHOG month J F M A mating pairs pregnant females infants juveniles l 117 Mime aueatAtenSe Orc N D 2 r 1 ied ll 6 6 Ae 3 3 1 16°60 66. 3° 3... 5 Figure 8. Breeding: number of records. probably by wire, and the other had a severely fractured leg, the cause being unknown. In Novem- ber 1983 one fell into a grain pit on a West Kington farm, was carried 6 m in an elevator cup and finally wedged in the chute to the grain dryer; it was rescued when the resulting blockage was investigated. 1206 hedgehogs were found dead. Some were chance finds, the cause of death being unknown. More than 90 per cent were killed on roads. Four were drowned, two in garden ponds and two in swimming pools, and four were killed by predators. The incidence of mortality is shown in Figure 9. Of the four hedgehogs killed by predators, three 0 10 20 30 respectively blue, red and brown on the maps, and numbered; ‘lane’ denotes a minor road, coloured yellow and unnumbered; ‘street’ denotes any road within a built-up area or town or village, usually controlled by a 30 miles per hour speed limit; ‘track’ denotes a narrow unmetalled way across open country or through woodland, usually shown in white on the maps. 1064 road casualty records were dated accurately to a month; these data are presented in Figure 11. These, and the data prdsented in Figure 10, are aggregates for all the years represented in the records. 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 casual find dead on road drowned predators Figure 9. Mortality: number of records and percentage representation. were infants which were dragged out of their nest and injured by a dog in West Kington, dying later in spite of efforts to save them. The fourth was an adult at Sopworth; this animal was described as being ‘pawed’ by a horse, if such a term can be used of horses — the hedgehog was in fact being pounded by the horse’s hoof and it was later found dead. Empty skins were recorded and some of them were attributed to badgers, but in no case was the cause of death known for certain. Road deaths formed such a large proportion of all hedgehog records that they were analysed further. Many contributors cited a road number or mentioned the type of road on which a hedgehog was killed. In other cases it was possible to determine the grade of road by checking grid references against the Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 maps of the county. It was thus possible to assign 1082 road casualty records to the road grades on which they occurred; these data are presented in figure 10. ‘M’, ‘A’ and ‘B’ denote motorway, major and secondary roads coloured DISCUSSION The hedgehog is found to be widely distributed in Wiltshire. On a 10 km square basis, distribution is near complete and the 1 km representation shows the species to be present in most country areas as well as in towns and villages. Under-represented areas of the county, such as the south west corner, reflect a local shortage of recorders and not necessarily a lack of hedgehogs. Almost a third of the records were of live hedgehogs. The animal’s nocturnal activity, which might make observation difficult, is more than offset by its commensal habit and a large number of con- tributors saw hedgehogs in their own gardens. Additionally, hedgehogs are popular animals whose commensal habits are actively encouraged by people who regularly put out food for them. Only two hedgehogs of unusual appearance are known to have been recorded in Wiltshire; one was a silver-grey, seen at Clarendon in 1953, and the other was an albino, seen at Landford in 1983. The inci- 118 0 10 20 30 40 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 50 60 70 80 90 100 lane track street | Figure 10. Road casualties: number and percentage representation. 100 January February March April May June July August September October November December Figure 11. Road casualties: number and percentage representation. dence of albinism is probably low, although partial and complete albinos have been recorded (Morris 1977). Burton (1973), although he watched hundreds of hedgehogs over a period of about 20 years, never saw even a partial albino although Morris (1983) says that some hedgehogs have patches of white spines and that it is quite common for a few spines to be all white, these being perhaps inherited characteristics. Road casualties and casual finds of dead hedgehogs comprised nearly 70 per cent of all the records. Again, considering the general interest in hedgehogs and their distinctive appearance, this is not too surprising, particularly as the skins remain visible long after they are flat and dry. Morris (1983) suggests that, because of their distinctive appearance, people may be more conscious of them than of other, perhaps smaller and less easily recognised, species and therefore tend to remember them. Among field sign records, droppings featured most often. They are deposited prominently and apparently randomly, often on lawns or other open grassland and, being distinctive in appearance, are easy to recognise. Burton (1973) suggests that they could be confused with the droppings of small domestic cats, being similar in size, except for the high proportion of insect remains in their content; observation of domes- tic cats, however, shows that they invariably dig holes and bury their faeces, thus generally ruling out any possible confusion. Observations of a captive male hedgehog yielded evidence that hedgehogs leave their nests to defecate, even during brief arousais from hibernation. Initially the hedgehog, kept in a square cage with its nest in one corner, scratched as if trying to get out when it wanted to defecate. It was therefore transferred to a long narrow cage with its nest at one end. Thereafter it defecated at the end as far as possible from its nest, returned to the nest immediately and no longer INSECTIVORES IN WILTSHIRE: HEDGEHOG scratched to get out (author’s data). This would account for hedgehog droppings not being found in concentrations. Tracks featured in one record only. They are often difficult to interpret and, with live and dead sightings so readily available, it is hardly surprising that they are not often cited as evidence of the presence of hedgehogs. Nests were mentioned in 13 records, all but one in support of live sightings. Composition of eight of the nests was described in some detail, no two were exactly similar and the choice of materials seemed highly idiosyncratic, giving the impression that the hedgehogs had used anything readily available that could be dragged in. A variety of different leaves was used, including bergenia ‘elephant’s ears’ which dry to a consistency rather like papier maché to make a good waterproof nest. This nest was further protected by the addittion of a plastic bag which was drawn in rather like a tarpaulin over the top of the nest and under the shelter plant, also bergenia, though it would be impossible to say whether this was by design or whether it was random use of handy material. Two other hedgehogs were also known to use discarded human materials; one made a cavity between two layers of foam rubber in a corner of a garage, the other wrapped itself in layers of paper from a toilet roll on an upper floor of a house. More ordinary materials included a variety of leaves, twigs and litter from conifers, and grass. All the nests were supported in some way, under plants or waste vegetation, among tree roots, or between trees and dry stone walls or shrubs and house walls; even the toilet paper nest was wedged behind a lavatory pedestal. The method of nest building is to assemble sufficient materials at the chosen site and then to turn round and round inside until a chamber is formed (Morris 1983). It follows that some restraint is necessary to prevent the materi- als from falling apart while the hedgehog revolves inside, hence the need for some form of cover to provide support. In addition to the types of cover already described, hedgehogs in Wiltshire have been noted using wood stacks, compost and rubbish heaps and, in one case, a corrugated metal sheet, all of which would provide adequate nest support. Hedgehogs are efficient climbers and quite capable of reaching the upper floors of a house, either by ascending the staircase or by climbing an outside wall (Morris 1983). Given their highly original characters and the frequency with which they enter buildings, it is not too outlandish for a hedgehog to turn up inside a house where, finding convenient, if unusual, material, it makes itself a nest. 119 Hedgehogs are found in almost every type of habitat, providing that there is some cover. The Wiltshire records show them to be most common in villages, where gardens give nest support and shelter, and in areas of mixed farmland, with hedgerows and small woods again offering suitable nest sites. Few were recorded in river valleys, in parkland or on open downland where there is seldom any shelter, and only one was recorded on the uplands of the Ministry of Defence artillery ranges on Salisbury Plain, where cover is sparse and the coarse tussocky grass might be difficult terrain for hedgehogs to travel over. Hedgehogs are, however, relatively easy to record in ‘artificial’ and ‘commensal’ habitats and other areas of human activity such as ‘farmland’, a factor which may relate to their apparent absence from, for example, ‘downland’ where opportunities for observation are comparatively scarce. Morris (1983) stresses the hedgehog’s dependence on nest sites, particularly for winter nests, which are all-important for survival through hibernation, and suggests that availability of nest sites and materials is crucial and a major factor in determining distribution and habitat choice. The habitat data (Figure 6) show that areas of mixed farmland are extensively colonized by hedgehogs, but an even greater dependence on commensal habitats is also revealed. Modern farming practice tends towards the removal of hedges, scrub patches and small woods to create large arable fields, at the same time reducing the number of suitable hedgehog nest sites, whereas gardens provide plenty of nest cover in shrubberies, rockeries, rubbish and compost heaps. One surprising result, revealed by the habitat data, was the comparatively low incidence of hedgehogs in woodland, although this finding was supported by Burton (1973), who stated that hedgehogs were rarely found in dense woodland. However, the evidence of hedgehogs in woodland in Wiltshire was undoubtedly distorted by the different circadian rhythms of hedehogs and their observers; most contributors of records are diurnally active and are therefore seldom present in woodland nocturnally when hedgehogs are abroad. Hedgehogs, always enigmatic, sometimes indulge in unusual behaviour for which no explanation can be found. Their habit of anointing themselves with their own saliva, for example, remains a mystery (Morris 1977): self-anointing has not been observed in Wiltshire. But it is not unknown for hedgehogs to run in circles and Burton (1973) says that they may run clockwise or anticlockwise, the circles varying in diameter from about 0.5 m to about 13.5 m; one of his captive hedgehogs took to running in circles until it 120 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE died and it was assumed that it might have had a brain disorder. It is, however, worth noting that hedgehogs circle each other during courtship and the circling behaviour may therefore have a sexual connotation. The circling hedgehog at Salisbury was recorded in June, a month quite in keeping with pre-mating behaviour. It is the only record of its kind for Wiltshire, but by no means an isolated case among hedgehogs generally. Of the eight juveniles that were active diurnally, three were in a West Kington garden during June 1985 and one was in Bradford-on-Avon during July 1985. They were seen regularly, either moving around or lying on lawns or between rows of raspberry canes. It was an exceptionally wet period, with heavy rain for days on end during June and July, and it seemed unlikely therefore that they were having difficulty in finding food, there were plenty of worms and slugs easily available. It did, however, seem possible that their nests had become soaked. One of the West Kington juveniles was found dead, but the other two were kept in captivity and fed by the author until the weather improved, when they were released. The data presented in Figure 7 show that there is always some activity even during the winter, although activity levels in January and February are very low. Most hedgehogs begin to hibernate in November, having accumulated fat reserves during October, but hibernation is not continuous and it is normal for them to wake periodically (Morris 1983), usually remaining in the nest but occasionally venturing out during milder spells to find food. By April most hedgehogs are active again and building up their energy ready for mating and rearing broods from May onwards. Young hedgehogs become active from July onwards and population numbers reach a peak in August. Although second litters may be born as late as September or even October, these youngsters have little chance of survival as there is no time for them to accumulate the fat reserves necessary to survive hiber- nation (Morris 1983). Juvenile or ‘small’ hedgehogs account for a number of winter activity records in Wiltshire; these little animals, having no fat reserves, are forced to continue to feed whenever possible. The way in which populations build up during the summer, peak in August and decline thereafter is accurately reflected in the data shown in Figure 7. Hedgehogs feed by trundling about over grassland, picking up whatever food they come across. In this way they consume a varied diet of beetles, caterpil- lars, earthworms, slugs, earwigs, millipedes, eggs and nestlings of ground nesting birds, probably some small mammals such as nestlings of mice and voles, as well as carrion (Morris 1983). Several observations of hedgehogs killing and eating adders are quoted by Burton (1973), who also describes them in hen houses, one sleeping in a corner without molesting birds or eggs and in one case a hen sitting on a hedgehog and some eggs. Burton also describes attacks on a chicken and on young seagulls. It seems to be the case that some hedgehogs learn to open eggs, perhaps breaking one accidentally and acquiring a taste for it, while others do not. In Wiltshire, the hedgehogs found in hen houses do not seem to have been egg breakers as there was no mention of broken shells or runny egg in the nests; they may just have been exploiting the shelter and nest material so readily available in this type of shed. Unfortunately, although a number of contributors observed hedgehogs for- aging, no-one noted what food items they were eating; this is a recurring problem with field studies of nocturnal animals. On the other hand, there were plenty of records of hedgehogs eating food provided by humans; they are well known to like bread and milk, and there were several observations of them picking up scraps under bird tables, mostly bread. Hedgehogs also do well on tinned dog food; one juvenile, found during October weighing only 200 g, was fed by the author on dog food mixed with soaked bread and vitamin supplement, doubled its weight in ten days and continued to take food until a spell of cold weather in January, when it was able to hibernate. Male hedgehogs are said to be fecund from early April to late August and pregnant females are found from May to October (Morris 1977). Burton (1973) gives 13 October as the latest date known for parturi- tion. The gestation period seems to be variable, usually about 31 — 35 days (Morris 1977) and most births are in June and July. Some later litters are also born in September and October, although the late youngsters have little chance of survival, as already described. There were very few breeding records in Wiltshire but, as shown in Figure 8, all fell well within the accepted date limits. The one exception was the Salisbury brood, a litter of infants at the soft-spine stage found in late November; this would indicate a parturition date in mid-November, at least one month later than Burton’s latest date of 13 October. Of all the records received, 69 per cent were of dead hedgehogs and, of all those found dead, more than 90 per cent were road casualties. The reason for so many road deaths is usually attributed to the hedgehog’s habit of rolling up as a protective measure. Burton (1973) noted that, prior to rolling up, the first thing a INSECTIVORES IN WILTSHIRE: HEDGEHOG hedgehog does is to raise the spines on its head, then the body spines, and then to lower the head; this means that it is hit before it has time to roll up, thus accounting for the large number of road casualties with head injuries. Whether hedgehogs are hit head on or rolled up, undoubtedly a large proportion of all hedgehogs recorded are on roads. Many of them are already dead and most are presumably travelling from one part of their territory to another. On several occasions, however, live hedgehogs have been found, after dark, apparently asleep on roads; there was no sign of them being stunned, as by glancing blows, for when moved to the verge they walked off, apparently unharmed; it seemed possible that the metalled surface held some warmth and was therefore a com- fortable, if risky, place to rest. Unfortunately, whether they roll up or not, their reaction to traffic seems to be to keep still rather than to run away and this places them in grave danger. Only one motorway crosses Wiltshire and the density and speed of the traffic does not allow tme for mammal recording whilst travelling. The small number of hedgehogs recorded on M4 and included in the ‘M’ category is therefore unlikely to be repre- sentative of the true situation. The statistics (Figure 10) show that nearly 50 per cent of Wiltshire road deaths occur on ‘A’ roads; these are four lane single or dual carriageways which carry a heavy load of daytime traffic. At might, however, when hedgehogs are active, the traffic load is greatly reduced and, with speed limits (60 miles per hour on single carriageway, 70 miles per hour on dual carriageway) in operation, it is difficult to believe that any competent driver should be unable to avoid a hedgehog, either by steering to one side or by strad- dling it. This scepticism is intensified by the number | of hedgehogs seen squashed against nearside kerbs; there can be few occasions at night when all four lanes driver can are in use and it is hard to understand how a careful run over a hedgehog in normal circumstances. ‘B’ roads, lanes and tracks carry a much lower density of traffic than do ‘A’ roads. They are narrower but, although this allows less room for vehicles to manoevre, it means less road for hedgehogs to cross. Traffic speed is usually lower on minor roads and, taking this into account, it is not too surprising to find that there are fewer casualties on minor roads than on major ones. However, if all five road types are taken together they account for 81.5 per cent of all hedgehog road casualties. All five road types traverse the ‘open’ habitat categories except ‘tracks’, some of which are within the ‘closed’ category ‘woodland’; the NZ) habitat statistics (Figure 6), however, show that only 33 per cent of all hedgehog records were attributed to the ‘open’ and ‘woodland’ categories. All ‘street’ casualties were attributed to the ‘arti- ficial and commensal’ habitats of towns, estates and villages, where 30 miles per hour speed limits usually operate and where most of the streets are lit. These habitat categories are shown to support the greatest number of hedgehogs, 67 per cent of all records (Figure 6) and might therefore be expected to produce the greatest number of road casualties. Yet this is not the case, as shown in Figure 10; only 18.5 per cent of road casualties occur in built-up areas. Certain factors need considering in relation to this result; for exam- ple, drivers in these areas should be driving slowly and be prepared for pedestrians, even after dark (it is difficult to accept as accidental a hedgehog killed on a pedestrian crossing); many town gardens are walled, making access to roads less easy for hedgehogs; and many householders feed hedgehogs, which might prevent them from travelling far to forage. Whatever the reason, town is certainly a safer place than country for hedgehogs and the assumption, sometimes made, that the number of dead hedgehogs reflects accurately the number of live ones present is refuted by the Wiltshire statistics. The idea that the number of road deaths reflects total population numbers can also be tested against seasonal activity; in theory, if the foregoing assump- tion is correct, there should be a correlation between monthly road casualties (Figure 11) and seasonal activity (Figure 7). If the two sets of figures are compared, they both build gradually up, reach peaks in August and then decline, but there is a noticeable drop in the road casualty figure for June which is not reflected in the seasonal activity total for the same month. The suggestion, sometimes made, that inex- perienced juveniles get run over, thus adding to the spring casualty figures and distorting the statistics for April and May, is countered by Morris (1983) poin- ting out that few young hedgehogs leave the nest before July and that most of the spring casualties are males, who are at that Ume moving around in search of mates. Although most Wiltshire casualties were not sexed, there were certainly more in May than in June. It seems possible that, since most infants are born in or after June (Figure 8), the breeding females are tied to their nestlings at that time, not travelling far from their nests and thus not contributing to road casualty numbers. Morris (1983) also points out that one of the difficulties of analysing road casualty figures is that the road traffic has to be studied as well. Road traffic 122 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE in Wiltshire has not been studied in any detail, but undoubtedly summer weather brings out the holiday motorists; the peak holiday period for motorists is in August, which coincides with the peak tume for hedgehog activity, so it is not surprising to find that it should also be the peak month for hedgehog road casualties. Four hedgehogs were drowned, two in swimming pools and two in garden ponds. Hedgehogs swim well (Burton 1976) but swimming pools, with vertical sides and often overhanging edges, are obvious hazards for many animal species whether or not they can swim. Many garden ponds have slippery sides and over- hanging edges and hedgehogs may be dependent on them for drinking water; unless provided with a shallow end or an escape route of some sort, any hedgehog which falls in can do nothing but swim untl it is exhausted. In spite of a number of predators that do occa- sionally kill hedgehogs, their spines are usually adequate protection and the only known victims in Wiltshire were three infants which were pulled out of their nest by a dog. A fourth, adult, hedgehog died after being pounded by a horse, an event which scarcely qualifies as predation in the generally accepted meaning of the term. Empty skins were recorded, and sometimes attributed to badgers, but in none of these cases was the cause of death actually known. Morris (1977) gives foxes, badgers and dogs taking a few young or sickly animals, with polecats and tawny ow!s as occasional predators; there are currently no polecats in Wiltshire, but there are feral ferrets, which might acquire the knack of hedgehog killing, although no such case has ever been reported in the county. Burton (1973) adds stoats, weasels and magpies as ocasional predators. Domestic cats are well known to predate on animals larger than hedgehogs, but there has never been the slightest evidence of cats even trying to interfere with them; available evidence points to the opposite conclusion, that hedgehogs will share food dishes with cats, that they will use cat flaps to enter buildings and that the two species co-exist without conflict. Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank Patrick J. Dillon for advice and help, and for reading the typescript; H.R. Arnold for access to the National Biological Records Centre; the Salisbury and District Natural History Society for access to records and observa- tons published in their bulletins; the Wiltshire Gazette and Herald and the Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation for publishing short articles; and all contributors of records. Contributors. Mrs G.P. Alford; Miss J. Allen; N. Allen; Sir Christo- pher Andrewes; H. Antrobus; Miss M.F. Archer; J.N. d’Arcy; Countess Badeni; A.R. Baker; Mrs R.G. Barnes; Mrs A.E. Barnitt; P.D. Barnitt; Mrs J. Stopford Beale; A.R. Beazer; Mrs D. Bell; H.F. Bennett; C. Bindon; K.J. Bradley; J.R. Brown; Mrs M. Browne; Miss C. Burke; Miss J. Burton; J.A. Burton; E.J.M. Buxton; Mrs Capjon; J.A. Carman; B.D. Castle; P.E. Castle; N.L. Chadwick; J. Charnaud; H.J. Chivers; Mrs Z. Chivers; Miss M.E. Compton; Mrs A. Corbett; Mrs E. Cowley; Miss S.A. Cross; Mrs S. Cunnningham; E.C. Deadman; Miss G. Delamain; Mrs E. Derrick; Mrs J.E. Dillon; P.J. Dillon; A.E. Downer; H. Edmunds; S.B. Edwards; Captain H. Ennion; R.F. File; Miss D. Forbes; Miss K.G. Forbes; Mr and Mrs G.M. Foxwell; Miss J. French; M. Fuller; R.D. Fussell; Mrs J. E. Gaffney; Mrs S.M. Gibbon; Miss B. Gillam; M.J. Gould; T.A.K. Gow; Mrs D. Graiff; I.J. Gray; R.A. Greenaway; Mrs V. Greeena- way; R. Griffiths; P.R. Hamilton-Leggett; Mrs J. Harrison; J.C. Hawksley; Mrs J.Heath; Mrs C. Seccombe Hett; D. Horton; G.A. Howe; F. Humphrys; Mrs E. Hunter; Mrs K. Jenkins; J.A. Johnson; Mrs J. Jordan; Miss J. Kedge; Miss J. King; O.A.W. Kite; J.W. Lambert; S. Lane; Mr and Mrs D. Lovelock; Miss J. Mantock; Marlborough College Natural History Society; C.C. McFadyen; Mrs J. Melsom; Mrs J. Moffat; Dr. P. Morris; Mrs J. Morrison; M.H. Murphy; National Game Census; P.E. Newbery; P.N. Newton; R. Newton; Mrs K. Nicol; J.S. Notman; Dr. J.E. Oliver; G.S. Oxford; D.B. Paynter; R.E. Penny; R. Roberts; Mrs M. Robinson; J.C. Rolls; Miss S.F. Rooke; Salisbury and District Natural History Society; D. Saunders; M. H. Shannon; Mrs H. Shortt; Mr and Mrs E.P. Stephens; J.A. Stevenson; Mrs A. Summers; Mrs J. Swan- borough; R.G. Symes; W.G. Teagle; Mrs S. Thombon; Mrs S.M. Thomson; Mrs M. Thorne; B. Timbrell; A.M. Tittensor; Mr and Mrs F. Tolfree; Mrs P. Turnbull; R. Turner; Mrs P.M. Twiney; S. Vatcher; L.D. Walker; Miss J.M. Ward; Mrs P.A. Ward; P. Waring; B.C.H. Warren; J.I. Webb; P. Weeks; Miss S. Wernham; Miss T. White; Miss V. Wild; Miss S. Williams; Wiltshire Archae- ological and Natural History Society; Mrs S.H. Wood; N.E. Wynn; Miss J. Yates. BIBLIOGRAPHY ARNOLD, H.R. (ed.), Provisional Atlas of the Mammals of the British [sles Huntingdon: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. BROWNE, M., 1977-85. Mammal Reports, Wilts. Nat. Hist. Mag., 72, 30-39; 73, 32-40; 74. 38-41; 75, 34-40 and Wilts. Arch. & Nat. Hist. Soc. Annual Report 1981, 39-44; 1982, 57-61; 1983, xxii-xxvili; 1984, xxii-xxvill; 1985, XXViI-XXXIil. ; BROWNE, M., 1983. The water vole in Wiltshire, WAM 77, 123-37. BROWNE, M., 1985. Small rodents in Wiltshire: dormouse, WAM 79, 206-13. BROWNE, M., 1986. Insectivores in Wiltshire: shrews, WAM 80, 197-210. BURTON, M., 1973. Guide to the Mammals of Britain and Europe (Oxford: Elsevier Phaidon). BURTON, M., 1976. The Hedgehog (London: Corgi). CORBET., G.B., 1971. Provisional distribution maps of Brit- ish Mammals, Mammal Rev., I, (4/5), 95-142. DILLON, P.J., 1984, Natural history manuscrpts in Devizes Museum, WAM, 78, 105-13. DILLON, P.J., and BROWNE. M., 1975. Habitat selection and nest ecology of the harvest mouse Micromys minutus (Pallas), Wilts. Nat. Hist. Mag. 70, 3-9. DILLON, P.J., and BROWNE, M., 1984. Small rodents in Wiltshire: voles and mice, WAM 78, 94-104. DILLON, P.J., and NOAD, P., 1980. A catalogue of the Natural History Library of the Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society, Part I, printed works, Wilts. Nat. Hist. Mag. 75, 2-19. MORRIS, P.A., 1977. Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus in G.B. Corbet & H.N. Southern (eds.) The Handbook of British Mammals, 2nd. ed., (Oxford: Blackwell), 28-36. MORRIS, P.A., 1983. Hedgehogs (Weybridge: Whittet Books). Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 123-139. by C. STEPHEN BRIGGS* In 1859, the Wiltshire Archaeological Society visited Silbury Hill, Avebury and West Kennet. Preserved in a scrapbook at the British Museum, a sketch of the outing shows members of the society exploring the Hill. | Among the miscellaneous antiquarian manuscripts housed in the Department of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities at the British Museum is a large guardbook, into which are pasted a number of interesting illustrations. Some are prints from well-known published repositories; others are original drawings, not otherwise known to science. | The writer first noticed it in 1970, while temporarily employed in the Museum. At that time, it was hidden away in the Medieval and Later Depart- ment, where it had lain since the time it was British and Medieval Antiquities, and when Christopher Hawkes had been Assistant Keeper in charge of the sub-Department of British Antiquities before the Second World War. Hawkes’s connection with this MS is clearly indicated by the characteristic hand- writing which is borne upon a white label stuck on the outside front cover. It appears likely from its label and from annotations within the volume, that he was its compiler. Anyhow, someone had obviously collected stray material, then lying loose around the Museum, to paste into it in order to save it from being lost or damaged. It is entitled Drawings of Chambered Bar- rows and some Antiquities. Christopher Hawkes kindly informs me that he no longer remembers this par- ucular compilation, though feels it less likely his work than that of T.D. Kendrick, who had introduced the rows of red box-files which now characterize the shelves of both Medieval and Prehistoric and Romano-British Departments. Since the re-discovery of the volume, a couple of useful drawings have been published from it. One, by William Greenwell, is of Ganton Wold Barrow (Kinnes 1977); the other, by William Watson, the Derbyshire surveyor, gives a contemporary illustr- *Pwildrainilwyn, Trefenter, Llangwyryfon, nr Aberystwyth, Dyfed. Notes The Wiltshire Archaeological Society at Silbury Hill in 1859 ation of the Arras barrow group in 1816, around the ume of the excavations (Stead 1979: 7-8). The manu- script compilation deserves to be better known so that further material might usefully be extracted from it and published. There is a strong core of material from Wiltshire, which includes Lugbury, Littleton Drew; West Kennet, (a water colour sketch by Lukis); the Devil’s Den, Clatford Bottom; a copy of Aubrey’s sketch of Winterbourne Monkton, beakers from the same site in 1855; and miscellaneous material on Avebury and Stonehenge. One item of interest which caught the writer’s eye, however, is the pencil drawing, roughly framed 35 by 23 cms, entitled (outside the frame) Meeting of the Wilts Archaeological Society at Silbury Hill, Sept 29, 1859, (Figure 1). This is a unique contemporary record of an antiquarian social gathering. It shows a serpentine column of Lowry-like match- suck figures ascending the mound from an amazing assortment of awaiting carriages, waggons and horse- traps. They total over 100 people — about one-third of the membership complement of the society at that tume. Among them is a coach carrying the advertise- ment ‘Castle and Ball Marlborough’, at that time owned by one Jeremiah Hammond (H. Welfare, pers. comm.). Hammond apparently ran coaches to Salis- bury, Swindon and Hungerford and seems to have been a patron of the society. Although not a great deal of archaeology is to be learned from the illustration of the mound itself, the main picture is flanked at the top corners on the left by the ‘DEVIL’S DEN, CLATFORD-BOTTOM’, and on the right by a ‘LARGE STONE AT AVEBURY’. There is no indication of who drew it, but it is possibly by the Rev. A.C. Smith, who lectured on Silbury later that day. The occasion of this gathering had been the Society’s Sixth General Meeting, whose proceedings were reported in WAM. A three-day event, presided 124 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Br) z| Figure 1. Meeting of the Wilts Archaeological Society at Silbury Hill, Sept 29, 1859. (Photograph courtesy of the British Museum.) over by G. Poulett Scrope, MP, it included several dinners, one provided by the aforementioned hotelier Mr Hammond, to which were liberally added venison and fruit sent by the Marquis of Ailesbury. A variety of papers were read and a broad spectrum, temporal as well as geographical, of sites were visited between 27 and 29 September. Silbury came on the last day, after West Kennet, where Dr Thurnam of Devizes ‘under the friendly roof of a cart-shed (the wind being rather boisterous) gave an account of this burial place; as well as of the results of his discoveries in thirty other barrows opened by him during the last five years’. Shortly after four o’clock that afternoon, the event was brought to a conclusion at ‘pic-nic dinner’ in Avebury schoolroom, which had been ‘prettily decorated’ for the occasion. ‘Before finally separating, the Rev. A.C. Smith, vicar of Yatesbury, read an interesting Paper on the subject of Silbury Hill, in which he very strongly advocated the Sepulchral side of this disputed question. After having made deserved acknowledgement to Mr. Poulett Scrope for his Presi- dential labours, the company took their leave’ (Anon.: 1859-60). Acknowledgements. The writer gratefully acknowledges assistance in studying this MS. from Mrs Lesley Webster, Dr I. Longworth and Dr S. Needham. Humphrey Welfare kindly offered encouragement and provided the printed account of the meeting, and Prof. Christo- pher Hawkes commented upon more recent historical aspects of the MS compilation. BIBLIOGRAPHY KINNES, I. 1977. British barrows: a unique visual record?, Antiquity 51:52-4. STEAD, I. 1979. The Arras Culture (York: Yorkshire Philo- sophical Society). NOTES oy Ee. LUCKETT* ‘In 1972 plans, submitted to the County Planning Department, for the erection of houses in the field adjacent to Manor Farm, Bratton, were referred to the County Archaeological Officer for comment. As a result, with the co-operation of the developers, a small excavation was arranged as the site was in close proximity to previously recorded finds. This was undertaken by the writer at weekends from December 1974 to November 1975 when the developer was ready to commence. THE SITE Bratton is a springline village in the Vale of Pewsey lying astride the B 3098, 5 km east of Westbury, and 15 km east of the Iron Age Hillfort — Bratton Castle which has a Neolithic Long Barrow in its interior. The village lies mainly on the Upper Greensand with some areas of Lower Chalk in the higher parts. To the north it descends to the Gault. The site, to the west of the village centre, consisted of about 3 hectares of pasture on the Upper Greensand which is a sandy-clay | soil, coloured grey/green with glauconite and | containing boulders of indurated sandstone known as “‘doggers’ or ‘burr stones’ (NERC 1962.52; Barron 1976.92). An area of some 70 sq m was selected for investigation, its position being determined by an | apparent bank running east-west, parallel to the main road 3 m to the south, and having a small depression on its south side. The nearest buildings — Manor Farm — were in the north-west corner. PREVIOUS DISCOVERIES Roman sherds were found in a field 45 m to the north of the church which is some 750 m to the south of the site (VCH 1957.46). In 1930, in the vicarage field, was found a skeleton with sherds of RB pottery (Cun- nington 1930.216). In 1957, across the B3098 and some 200 m east, an extended skeleton was found with nails suggesting a coffin burial, plus sherds of coarse brownish/grey ware and small Samian sherds (Annable 1960.403). A sherd of Savernake ware was found in 1967 in a field 50 m N of the church — probably the same field described as the Vicarage field (Luckett 1968.21). THE EXCAVATION A trench 2 m wide was taken out by JCB from a point *Scotts Farm, Bratton, Westbury, Wilts, BA13 4RD Manor Farm, Bratton. ST 91255132 125 1.5 m south of the slight depression. This trench ran north for 12 m. At 1 m below the surface at the start greensand was reached and the machine moved for- ward at this level. It cut through darker soil until at 12 m greensand reappeared. An area 12 m to the east was then stripped of topsoil leaving the rest to hand excavation. The trench section showed that the green- sand sloped down to the north and removal of the darker soils disclosed the presence of two doggers lying lengthwise west-east in a line. The first find — a barbarous radiate — was found in the dark soil with sherds of IA and RB pottery. From the JCB spoil were recovered RB sherds and Savernake sherds. The east side of the trench was taken out for a width of 1 m and length of 7 m. A 1 m baulk was left and a further 2 m trench excavated; another 1 m baulk was left and finally an area 7 m x 7 m, already stripped of topsoil, was taken down by hand. Overall there had been much disturbance by tree roots. A modern rubbish pit was cut into the S end of the 2 m section. Many cowbones were found on the JCB spoil-heap — these were apparently from a recent burial of a diseased animal. A small flat-bottomed ditch was found to run e/w and marked by a line of doggers. The ditch fill was black and silty showing the effect of leaching down of humus from the rich topsoil, and, although at first assumed to be a separate layer, it was soon apparent that the lighter soil above graded into it with no real demarcation. The sherds and other finds were mingled in date and the indication was of disturbance throughout. The presence of tree roots from a line of beech trees cut down some 15 or so years earlier accounted for some disturbance. One possible post- hole was found; scatters of lumps of sandstone; two small depressions — unidentifiable; evidence of burn- ing — fire-stained stones and burnt daub; small flecks of charcoal; a possible platform lying on the natural. The burnt stones and daub together with the presence of an antler weaving comb, pottery roundel, bronze brooch, iron brooches, bone pin, and a lead spindle whorl gave the impression of occupation followed by subsequent disturbance and possible use as a refuse up. Some three thousand sherds were found but no complete pot. The line of beech trees, planted in Victorian umes, would have caused disturbance; whilst the later removal of stumps would have mixed any stratification. The line of trees could account for the 126 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Figure 1: Manor Farm, Bratton: location map. (Scale 1:10,000 ) low bank observed, for this was probably the remains of the earthing-up along the tree line when planted. The main features of the excavation were the ditch 3.6 m deep and 3.5 m wide; the lines of doggers which were oval in plan and were aligned in an east-west direction, some on the north edge of the ditch, two in the ditch and three on the south edge; a scatter of chalk lumps, scattered pieces of sandstone, and a sandstone platform, the latter a natural feature, being one of the passage beds of sandstone found along the Vale of Pewsey. In the 7 m x 7 m area was found the only acceptable post-hole and also a shallow depress- ion containing the curled up skeleton of a dog. Although 1975 was a good summer, during excav- ation there was much rain and, in the winter months, frost, which meant a lot of time cleaning trench faces and silt from the ditch and excavation generally. THE FINDS ( 1) A barbarous radiate imitating a coin of Victo- ( 2) Ga) rinus with reverse type ‘Invictus’. Dated to about 268-275 AD. A broken bronze coin found in a rut 50 m north of the site. Constantine I or II. Obv. CONST ANTINU. Rev. GLORIA EXERCITUS — 2 soldiers with 2 standards. Mint mark uncertain — possibly TR[ ] — TRIERS. Date 330-335 AD (Dr P. Robinson kindly identified and supplied this information). A bronze brooch, well preserved but with pin missing. Hinge 1.4 cm wide; Bow 1.2 cm wide, narrowing to 0.4 cm., length 4.5 cm; catchplate continuous — 2.9 cm long with no holes; faint traces of tinning. A Hod Hill type with vestigial lugs cast in and separate pin. (Hull 1947 Plate XCVII Nos. 141, 142; Crummy 1983.30 Type 60 No. 23). Bronze nail(2) with domed disc head 2.0 cm dia with a riveted shank 0.8 cm long and 0.4 cm dia. The dome had a narrow margin which has 127 | NOTES , Bratton: the finds. Figure 2: Manor Farm 128 ( 6) ( 8) ( 9) (10) (1) (12) THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE broken — a small portion 0.1 cm wide is left. A close parallel comes from Camulodunum — a bronze ornament disc, probably a military decoration (Hawkes/Hull 1947.339/340 Plate CII No. 27). Lead Spindle Whorl — 2.2 cm dia at base tapering to 0.9 cm at top, and 1.5 cm high. The central hole is 0.8 cm dia. Clifford (1961.196. Plate LIT) shows spindle whorls one of which resembles this but is of pottery. Hawkes/Hull (1947.342 Figure 64 no. 4) show one 3.2 cm dia. and 2.4 cm high, of lead but more elaborate. Antler Weaving comb — 18.1 cm long, 4.0 cm wide tapering to 2.3 cm with 6 teeth (one missing). Undecorated save for faint grooves — 6 — at small end and | rough groove 1 cm from base of teeth. The latter show saw marks but no signs of wear. (Richmond 1968.40 Figure 33; Hodder and Hedges 1977.17 et seq Type SH-A, Dec-L, and St. George Gray 1911. 260-272. Plate XLVI -— type 4— No. B232 — this is bone, not antler). Pottery Roundel — 3.2 cm dia 0.8 cm thick, with central hole 0.8 cm dia. This piece of wall sherd of redcoated ware with a ground edge and both sides showing signs of abrasion was prob- ably used as a gaming piece. (Crummy 1983.93-95 Figure 99 Nos. 2463, 2467). Crummy suggests pierced counters (or roundels) tend to be early — the Colchester ones were from Ist century contexts. Pottery Roundel (half only). A grey ware piece 4.1 cm dia., 0.3 to 0.4 cm thick with hole 0.8 cm dia. See 7 above. Pottery Spout. A piece of hard light-grey fabric 2.0 cm dia with central hole 0.9 cm dia broken at an angle. Appears to be part of a spout. Pottery Foot. A dark-grey, very hard fine fabric which contains fine quartz grits and seems to be a foot from a tripod bowl. Possibly mediaeval. Worked Bone. A tarsal (sheep or goat) 11.0 cm long and 1.0 cm dia. The condyles on the distal end have been worked into four points on a 1.8 cm x 1.2 cm surface. At the proximal end — 1.6 cm dia — a hole 0.6 cm dia x 1.1 cm deep has been drilled with a lateral hole 0.4 cm dia leading into it from the side. (St. George Gray 1911.427 Figure 150 Type E-B100; also figure 152; Richmond 1968.41 Figure 33 No. 15b). Gray suggests that the Glastonbury piece was used as a bobbin. Bone Pin — the tip missing — 4.9 cm long, 0.3 cm dia. The head is roughly oval 0.6 x 0.4 cm. (13 (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (Crummy 1983.23 Figure 21 No. 395 — this is similar but has a ring below the head — dated to 4th century; WAM Notes 1912, Plate facing 610 — this example is in Devizes Museum, Romano-British Case 10; also Nan Kivell 1925.185. Plate VIIA). Bone Object — a rib bone, broken at one end, 11.5 cm long and 1.5 cm wide with the unbroken end apparently deliberately made into a U-shape. Iron Brooch — pin missing — 6.4 cm long, 2 spring turns only remaining. It is similar to the Nauheim safety-pin brooches. The catch-plate is small and solid. Similar ones are shown by Hull (1961.168 figure 19 No. 1) Hawkes/Hull (1947.308-310 Plate LXXXIX No. 4) and Wheeler (1936.204. Figure 43 Nos. 10 — 11). The probable latest date 1s AD50/60. Iron Brooch. Badly corroded, straight pin 4.6 cm long; flat section bow, curved, 0.5 cm wide, 3.4 cm long — half length. Suggestion of hinged pin. Hawkes/Hull (1947.327 Figure 59 No. 11; 308, Plate LXX XIX), one from Oare (Cun- nington 1909. Plate I — B) is said to be early, and Nan Kivell (1925.283. Plate IV — E and G). Iron Brooches. Fragments of two iron broo- ches. One curved bow (part) — 2.8 cm long, 0.8 to 0.4 cm wide, probably hinged; and one flat bow 3.8 cm long, rectangular section 1.1 cm x 0.6 cm having remains of catch plate. (Nan Kivell 1925. 183 Plate IV — I). Iron Ring. This badly corroded incomplete. 1.6 cm internal dia. Iron Object. A piece of iron 4.5 cm long with rounded end, widening to 1.0 cm and tapering to 0.5 cm. Nearest shape found is in Hawkes/ Hull (1947 Plate CIV No. 11) —a pilum head, but this is 13.6 cm long. Iron Awl/pin. A 0.4 cm square piece of iron 8.8 cm long tapering to a point. (B.H. & M.E. Cunnington 1913.99 No 10 in Plate HI -—0.6 cm sq. Macgregor/Simpson 1963.394 and Figure 2 — p. 397; also Hawkes/Hull as for No. 18 above). Iron Awl — 6.4 cm long tapering to a point. (Macgregor/Simpson, as above, also p. 395 Figure 1 nos 19-23). Two Iron Cleats. One half-moon shaped with one end having upturned pin, the other end broken and corroded. Pin is 1.7 cm long tapering to point, moon-shaped piece is 6.5 cm long, 1.9 cm wide at end broadening to 3.0 cm in middle, and about 0.3 cm thick. The other and NOTES cleat is 5.0 cm long with possible traces of leather. See B.H. & M.E. Cunnington (1913.98 Plate II No.8) where an iron cleat ‘was found with assorted hobnails’; Nan Kivell (1925.187 Plate X — I was one of 43 found); and Richardson (1951.154/5 Figure 15 No. 6) where an example was found with hobnails and this is dated to 3/4th C. Iron Nails. A collection of 27 nails mostly badly rusted. They include 4 which show traces of leather — these are hobnails. The others are mainly square shanked with round heads and are up to 4 cm long. They are described in various reports (B.H. & M.E. Cunnington 1913.99 No.7; Richardson 1951.133, 135). Miscellaneous Iron:- A nail-like piece 3.0 cm long, 0.6 cm dia with a hole 2.3 cm long drilled into to it from one end. An oval shaped piece, badly flaking, about 4.0 cm x 3.0 cm. A possible blade 7.5 cm long x 1.6 cm wide and 0.2 cm thick tapering to an edge. A modern knife-blade 14.0 cm long with 4 brass rivets. Half a modern ‘shoe’ for a boot heel. Other items:- A small piece of glass, blue, 0.7 cm thick, Roman in appearance. A wall-sherd of very dark sandy ware which has had a hole repaired with a lead plug hammered over on both sides. (22) (23) (24) _ The Pottery | Flanged — 12:- 3.8% The pottery assemblage included Samian of Ist and 2nd C AD (Hartley 1969 240 et seq), fine red/orange ware, New Forest, and at least two pieces of Porton ware (identified by Bryn Walters). The bulk, over _ 3,000 fragments, consisted of local Savernake ware, (Annable 1962.151; Luckett 1970.200/1), black burn- ished ware, and the usual types found on Romano- British sites (CBA 1973). The range indicates a date from the Ist to 4th centuries AD. The rims and bases were sorted. 314 rims representing 300 pots were divided into:- Samian — 9:- 2.9% Bead rims — 29:- 9.1% Plain rims — 9:- 2.8% Everted, 252:- 90.3% Rolled over etc. Plate — 3:- 1.0% Lid, -Mortarium (1 of each) No whole pots were found. The main decoration was the typical BB ware lattice work. 116 bases repre- sented 100 vessels of which 20 were flat and 80 were 129 domed or footed. 100 rims and 8 bases have been described and numbered and the majority drawn. The descriptions, drawings and sherds have been depos- ited in Devizes Museum as are all the plans, sections, notes and finds. CONCLUSIONS Although no structure was found and the site appears to be mainly a disturbed midden it does indicate further evidence of Roman-British occupation in the Bratton area most of which seems to have been to the south of the site. Whilst the Manor Farm area was being developed a watch was kept on the 3 hectares area but only one or two sherds were found. Acknowledgements. Thanks are due to the Wiltshire County Archae- ology Officer and his staff for supplying advice, tools, equipment, and the JCB and the opportunity to excavate. Also to the many volunteers who assisted, some giving up all their weekends for many months, and to Charlotte Mayhew for the drawings. Finally I must take responsibility for all attributions, descriptions and errors. BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNABLE 1960, K.F. Annable in WAM 1960 CCVIII Vol. 57.403 Excavation notes — Bratton. Devizes — Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society. ANNABLE, 1962, K.F. Annable in WAM 1962 CCX Vol. 58.143-155 Roman-British pottery in Savernake Forest, Kilns 1-2. BARRON, 1976, R.S. Barron Geology of Wiltshire 1976. Chapter 5 87-105 describes the Bratton region. Bradford- on-Avon — The Moonraker Press. CBA, 1973 Council for British Archaeology Research Report 10. Current research in Roman-British Coarse Pottery Ed. Alec Detsicas 1973. See especially the chapters by R.A.H. Farrar and Vivien Swan. CLIFFORD, 1961, E.M. Clifford, Bagendon A Belgic Oppidum 1961 Cambridge, W. Heffer & Son, Ltd. CRUMMY, 1983, Nina Crummy Colchester Archaeological Report No. 2, Colchester, Colchester Archaeological Trust Ltd. CUNNINNGTON, 1909, Mrs. M.E. Cunnington in WAM XXXVI 1909, 125-139. A Celtic Rubbish Pit at Oare. CUNNINGTON, 1930, Mrs. M.E. Cunnington in WAM CLII.1930. 216 Additional Notes on Romano-British Wiltshire — Information from Rev. S. Collett, Vicar of Bratton. CUNNINGTON B.H. & M.E., 1913, Mr & Mrs B.H. Cunnington in WAM XXXVIII 1913.53.105 Casterley Camp Excavy- auons. HARTLEY, 1969, B.R. Hartley in R.G. Collingwood and Tan Richmond The Archaeology of Roman Britain. HAWKES/HULL, 1947, C.F.C. Hawkes and M.R. Hull — Camulodunum Ist Report on excavations at Colchester 1930-1939. Oxford — OUP. For the Society of Ant- quaries. 1947. HODDER/HEDGES, 1977, I. Hodder and J.W. Hedges in The Iron Age in Britain 1977 edited by John Collis. Sheffield — Dept. of Prehistory & Archaeology, University of Shef- field. HULL, 1947, In Camulodunum as above. 130 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE HULL, 1961, M.R. Hull in E.M. Clifford 1961 Bagendon— A Belgic Oppidum, 167-185 — Cambridge, W. Heffer & Son Ltd. LUCKETT, 1968, L. Luckett in CBA Review Gps. XII & XII. 1968.21 Bristol. Dept. of Extra Mural Studies, University of Bristol. LUCKETT, 1970, L. Luckett in WAM Vol. 65 Pt.B 1970, 200/201. The Savernake Kilns. MACGREGOR/SIMPSON, 1963, M. MacGregor and D.A. Simpson in WAM Vol.58, 1963 394402 Iron objects from Barbury Castle, Wilts. NAN KIVELL, 1925, R De C. Nan Kivell in WAM XLIII 1925. 180-191. Objects found during excavations on the Romano-British site at Cold Kitchen Hill, Brixton Deverill, 1924. NERC, 1962, National Environment Research Council — British Regional Geology — The Hampshire Basin 1960.52. London — HMSO. RICHARDSON, 1951, K.M. Richardson in WAM LIV.1951. 123-168. The Excavation of an Iron Age Village on Boscombe Down West. RICHMOND, 1968, Sir Ian Richmond 1968 Hod Hill Vol. 2 Excavations carried out between 1951 and 1958. London — The Trustees of the British Museum. ST. GEORGE GRAY, 1911, In A. Bulleid & H. St. George Gray 1911 The Glastonbury Lake Village Vol. 1. The Wessex Press, Taunton for the Glastonbury Antiquarian Society. VCH, 1957, Victoria County History of Wiltshire Vol. I pt. i, 1957.46. Archaeological Gazetteer — Bratton. WAM NOTES, 1912, Notes in WAM XXXVII. 1912 A Plate facing p. 610. WHEELER, 1936, R.E.M. Wheeler — Verulamium — A Belgic and two Roman Cities 1936. Oxford OUP for Society of Antiquaries. The Bishopstrow Find of Roman Coins by PAUL ROBINSON In about 1792 an important find of late Roman bronze coins was made at Bishopstrow, near Warminster. It is not well-known today and is largely ignored in both archaeological and numismatic literature. Its importance lies firstly in its exceptional size, which is shown by the use in sources describing the find of phrases such as ‘that vast profusion of coins’, ‘a vast number . . . nearly sufficient to fill a bushel’, ‘three large vases full of brass coin’. These suggest that the find should be classed with the Blackmoor, Hants hoard (29,802 coins), the Owmby, Lincs find (47- 48,000 coins) and the Cunetio find (54,951 coins). Secondly, the hoard is of importance in its association with the earthwork known as the Bury, a sub- rectangular enclosure lying adjacent to the river Wylye and enclosing an area of 54 acres. Its purpose and date are uncertain, however, and the hoard could have been deposited either when it was still in use or after it had been abandoned. The sources of this coin find are, unfortunately, relatively brief and fairly scattered. Moreover, they are frequently both confused and contradictory. Nevertheless, they do allow tentative conclusions to be drawn about its size and the date of its conceal- ment. The sources can be listed under five groups (given below as 1 to V) No contemporary newspaper account appears to exist. I ‘Of these it will not be amiss to notice the number of upwards of five thousand (coins) being lately found at a place called the Barrows or Berys, by two labourers who on digging a ditch discovered various fragments of Roman antiquity, such as urns, bricks, iron armour, and three large vases full of coins, consisting of medals and small brass, many of them in high preservation, of the following emperors, viz. Titus Vespasian, Claudius Augustus, Aur- elianus, Probus, Tacitus, Gallienus, Victorinus, Carinus, Postumus, Maximinus, Marcus Aurelius, Antoninus, Adrianus, Philipus, Diocletianus, Salonina, and Sabina. Those principally abounding were the coins of Probus, Tacitus and Gallienus.’ Bailey’s Universal Directory (1791-7), pp. 679f. This is the source for the short account in Pigot & Co’s. London & Provincial New Commercial Directory for 1822-3, p. 654. The figure of 5000 coins should be ignored as ‘three large vases full of coins’ must have totalled substantially more coins than this. ‘Small brass’ here refers to the denomination, the anto- ninianus; ‘medals’ must be larger coins i.e. sesterti, dupondu or asses and will be coins of the earlier emperors among those listed in the Directory. The latest coins listed are those of Carinus (283-285 AD) and Diocletian (284-305 AD), inferring a date of about 285 for the concealment of the coins. This approximate dating, which conflicts with most of the other sources, is supported by the statement that NOTES coins of Probus, Tacitus and Gallienus predominated in the find. II ‘... about six years ago were found at Bishopstrow, within half a mile of Pitmead, three urns full of small brass coins, in quantity nearly a bushel. Of these I have several hundred, some of which are in fine preservation.’ Part of an undated letter (pre 1801) from William Cunnington I to John Britton in William Cunnington, Heytesbury book 3 in the library of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Devizes. This is the source for the accounts in John Britton The Beauties of Wiltshire (1801) I, p. 54 and idem., A Topographical and Historical Description of the County of Wilts. (1818), p. 317, both of which slightly change some details and state that the bushel was the Winchester bushel. This was 36,480 ccs in capacity. By analogy with the Cunetio hoard where the main container was about SO litres in capacity and held about 46,000 coins, the Bishopstrow find can then be estimated to have been in the region of 33,500 coins. III ‘But to return to the supposed situation of a Roman station which was most probably at a place in the vicinity of Warminister called the Barrows or Berries (‘buries’ in a later hand) situated about 13 miles SE of the town where that vast profusion of coins was found about nine years ago containing a series of not less than sixteen emperors, chiefly of the middle and lower Empire, from Claudius to Constantine. . .’ S. Yockney Antiquities in the Neighbourhood of Warminster (1801), a MS in Wilts MSS I in the library of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society at Devizes. While the references to coins of Constantine contradict source I above, they are also referred to in other accounts of the find described below. IV ‘In 1790 (or 1791) two earthen pots were found by men employed in casting a ditch ina field called The Berries in the adjoining parish of Bishopstrow, containing several thousand small brass coins of Valerianus, Gal- lienus and subsequent emperors down to Constantine and Gratian. A lump of these coins firmly rusted together was given to me by Thos. Arnold, the then bailiff of the late councillor Buckler, which upon being separated produced several in good preservation. These are also in my cabinet.’ J.E. Halliday Information about Warminister (c. 1820-40), MS in the Dewey Museum, Warminster. This is the source for the account in R. Colt Hoare History of Modern Wiltshire: Warminster Hundred (1831), p.92. While the reference to coins of Const- antine confirms sources III and V above, reference to those of Gratian (AD 367—383) must be incorrect. 13] V ‘...in 1792 Richard Arthur and John Arnold while employed in levelling a high ridge and digging a ditch at the Buries, discovered several pieces of iron armour, much Roman ware, and two large urns, one of which contained several thousand Roman coins, a peck in measure, chiefly of the middle and small brass, of all ages of the Roman Empire from Tiberius, viz., Claudius, Vitellius, Domitian, Anto- ninus Pius, Commodus, Alexander Severus, Lucius Verus, Maximus, Gordian, Philip, Gallienus, Tetricus, Probus, Tacitus, Carausius, Alectus, Carinus, Maxentius, Maximinus, Constantine, Constans, Magnentius, Victorinus and two female heads, Salonina, wife of Gallienus, and Julia. A lump of these coins, firmly rusted together, in good preser- vation, was in the possession of Mr Halliday of Warminster but cannot now be found. Revd. J.J. Daniel The History of Warminster (1879), pp. 6f. Although some details are taken from the Halliday MS above, much of this is ‘new’ and may possibly derive from the Wansey papers, which Daniel acknowledges was a major source for his book. The reference to armour reinforces the mention of this in source I. The denominations referred to, ‘middle and small brass’ describe firstly the dupondius and as, and secondly the antoniniani and AX3 and 4 issues. This again confirms the presence of different denominations alluded to in source I above, sug- gesting moreover that sestertt1, which would have been described as ‘large brass’ were either not present in the find or not recognised. The important point of conflict in these sources is that whereas source I lists coins of emperors down to c. 285 AD., III and IV mention coins as late as the reign of the emperor Constantine I (306-337), while V includes not only coins of emperors between Dioc- letian and Constantine I, but also of sull later rulers — Constans (337-350) and Magnentius (350-353). Any coin hoard deposited in the reign of Constantine I or later, which included so many 3rd century coins would be a most unusual, in fact almost certainly an impossible one. Of, then, the five sources, the first is more likely to be the most accurate as it is the earliest, it omits coins dating after c. 285 and does state with some authority that the most common coins in the find were of Probus, Tacitus and Gallienus. This enables the hoard to be associated in date with the three other abnormally large hoards which were also all deposited in the late 3rd century. Because of the nature of the sources, it is impossible to prepare even a reasonably accurate list of the emperors represented. The hoard clearly consisted primarily, if not solely, of antoniniani of the 3rd century with, perhaps, coins of the Central Empire predominating over coins of the Gallic Empire. 132 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Several of the sources refer to earlier coins of other denominations. Whether these really came from the hoard is debatable. They are possibly other coins found at the site by the two labourers and with which the hoard became contaminated. The same could also be said for the later coins of Carausius, Allectus, Constantine, Maxentius, Magnentius, Constans etc. 1. I.A. Carradice ‘The Monkton Farleigh, Wilts Hoard.’ A.M. Burnett Comm Hoards from Roman Britain, Vol. 5. British Museum Occasional Paper No. 54 (1984). Saxon Burials at Elston, Orcheston by PAUL ROBINSON In 1856, the Revd. E. Wilton exhibited in the temporary museum arranged for the fourth Annual General Meeting of the Wiltshire Archaeological Society at Warminster a ‘Saxon knife, found with skeletons at Elston’ (WAM (1856), 267). This tantalisingly brief source was the sole one used by M.E. Cunnington in her catalogue of pagan Saxon sites and finds in Wiltshire (WAM 46(1934) 147-175 esp. p. 168); by L.V. Grinsell in his reference to the find in VCH Wilts. 1; 95 and by Audrey Meaney, Gazetteer of Early Anglo Saxon Bunal Sites (1964), 22 The knife was, however, also exhibited by the Revd. Edward Wilton at a meeting of the Archae- ological Institute on 7 March 1856 and a fuller account of the discovery is given in the report of that meeting in the Archaeological Journal 13 (1856), 188f. By the Revd. Edward Wilton — An iron single-edged knife, length about 9 inches; length of the blade, 62 If then source I is fundamentally correct, the hoard would have been concealed at about the same time as the recently found hoard from Monkton Farleigh.! While both might possibly be associated with the seizure of power by Carausius in 287, the evidence for this is yet very far from conclusive. inches, resembling those normally found with intern- ments of the Saxon period. It was found with the skeletons of a young adult and a youth, about 30 inches below the surface, at Elston Winterbourne, Wilts., in one of the vales running S.E. on Salisbury Plain and within 2% miles of the Charlton locality where numer- ous vestiges of early occupation have been discovered. Burials with an iron knife of this length and without any other grave goods are characteristically Saxon in date as opposed, say, to late Roman, as the Revd. E. Wilton supposed. These two burials may be an isolated pair of burials or could be part of a larger cemetery. The findspot lies towards the boundary of the parish of Orcheston, and in his study of the distribution of pagan Saxon burials in Wiltshire, Desmond Bonney has shown that a large proportion of these do lie on, or close to, parish boundaries (D.J. Bonney ‘Pagan Saxon Burials and Boundaries in Wiltshire’ WAM 61 (1966), 25-30). If this is so, then it is useful to be able to add this to the list of Saxon cemeteries or possible cemeteries in Wiltshire. NOTES 133 Some Evidence for Livestock Traffic in Wiltshire during the Seventeenth Century by Ja BET TEY * 1 Sheep The sheep flocks were a vital feature of farming throughout the chalk downlands of Wiltshire, Dorset and Hampshire during the seventeenth century, and large numbers were also bred in Somerset for sale to the folding flocks of the chalklands. Travellers through the region from Leland to Defoe were all impressed by the number and size of the flocks and by the wide views of the downland ‘all overspread with innumerable flocks of sheepe, for which it yields very good and sound feeding’.' John Aubrey described the familiar sight of the shepherds dressed in long white cloaks with deep capes which came half-way down their backs, and Defoe found that the numerous shepherds were invaluable guides for travellers across the great expanse of Salisbury Plain.? Without the dung of the sheep-fold it was impossible to grow good crops of corn on the thin chalkland soils, and the main purpose of the sheep flocks was summed up by Thomas Davis who was steward of the Longleat estates in Wiltshire, “The first and principal purpose of keeping sheep is undoubtedly the dung of the sheepfold, and the second is the wool’.* Robert _ Wansborough who farmed at Shrewton on Salisbury Plain during the 1630s is typical of chalkland farmers in the major concern he shows for his corn crops _which were the main source of his profit; likewise Edward Lisle, who farmed at Crux Easton on the Hampshire chalklands from 1693 until his death in 1723, emphasised the vital connection between the sheep-fold and corn production.* Robert Seymer of Hanford near Blandford Forum in Dorset who compiled a Report on the Husbandry of the _ Chalklands for the Georgical Committee of the Royal Society in 1665 concentrated his attention upon corn * Dept. Extra-Mural Studies, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen’s Road, Bristol. BS8 IHR 1. L. Toulmin Smith ed., Leland’s Innerary in England 1, 1906, 247; Thomas Gerard, Survey of Dorsetshire, c. 1630, publ. 1732; 3; D. Defoe, Tour through England and Wales, Everyman Ed., 1927, I, 210, 218. 2. J. Aubrey, Natural History of Wiltshire, ed. J. Britton, 1847, 108-9. 3. T. Davis, General View of the Agriculture of Wiltshire, 1794, 20. For further discussion of this subject see E. Kerridge, The Sheepfold in Wiltshire and the Floating of the Watermeadows, Economic History Review, 2nd Ser., 6, 1953-4, 282-9. growing and wrote that ‘. . .the chiefest help that the hill country hath for theire corne grounde is their great flocks of sheep which they constantly fold upon their land’.° Very large sheep flocks were kept on chalkland manors; many had flocks of 1,000 sheep and some even larger numbers. The tithing of Charlton in south Wiltshire had 1,800 sheep on the downs in 1628, while a similar number was kept at Martin; at Alton Barnes in 1659 the tenantry flock numbered 2,300 sheep.° A survey of Sutton Veny in 1613 lists grazing rights for more than 1,100 sheep on the downland there, while at Bishopstone near Swindon in 1647 1,260 sheep were kept by the tenants.’ As late as 1826 William Cobbett saw flocks of several hundred sheep each being driven from the down at Everleigh in the evening to be folded all night on the arable land.® There was a constant demand from arable farmers in the chalkland areas for new stock, especially weth- ers, to replenish their flocks, and sheep bred on the claylands of north and west Wiltshire, west Dorset and Somerset were regularly purchased by chalkland farmers. Many lambs and in-lamb ewes were also sold each year to be fattened in the Midlands and in the counties around London. Many thousands of sheep changed hands each year at the great west-country sheep fairs such as Wilton, Chilmark, Britford, Yarnbury and Castle Combe in Wiltshire, Norton St Philip in Somerset, Woodbury Hill near Bere Regis in Dorset or Ringwood, Damerham, Alresford and Weyhill in Hampshire. Daniel Defoe was greatly impressed by the number of sheep sold at Weyhill fair, and described it as ‘the greatest fair for sheep. . . that this nation can shew’. He estimated, perhaps somewhat over-generously, that 500,000 sheep were 4. EE. Kerridge, The Notebook of a Wiltshire Farmer in the Early Seventeenth Century, Wltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, 54, 1952, 416-28; E. Lisle, Observations in Husbandry, 1757, Il, 368. 5. Royal Society MSS, Classified Papers 1660-1740, 10/3/10. 6. VCH Wiltshire IV, 1959, S4-5; WRO 490/759; 490/783; 2057/M3, M8. E.H. Lane Poole, Damerham and Martin, 1967, 178-80; R.L. Rickard, ed., Progress Notes of Warden Woodward, Wiltshire Archaeological Society, Records Branch, 13, 1957, 85. WRO 283/5; 283/12; 283/203; 649/1. VCH Wiltshire, VU, 1965, 68; VCH Wiltshire, XII, 1983, 7 8. VCH Wiltshire IX, 1980, 139. ™~ 134 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE sold at Weyhill fair each year, and described how many of the sheep, especially ewes, were purchased by dealers from the Home Counties and from Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, while the wethers were bought by local farmers for their folding flocks.’ In spite of their great importance in the agricultural economy, Wiltshire markets and fairs have left few documentary records, but during the seventeenth century there were 23 towns in the county in which weekly markets were held, and 43 places which had annual fairs.'° John Aubrey, who was born nearby at Easton Piercy, described Castle Combe as ‘the most celebrated faire in north Wiltshire for sheep . . . whither sheep masters doe come as far as from Northamptonshire’. A list of sales included in Castle Combe manorial accounts for 1663 and 1664 shows that sellers came from all over north-west Wiltshire and from north Somerset, and that buyers of sheep came from as far away as Warwickshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire as well as from places around London.!! Many other sheep were sold at markets or in private trading through dealers, although except in those cases where some dispute arose, it is rarely possible to find evidence of these deals. Thomas Partridge of North Perrott in Somerset sold many sheep from Somerset and West Dorset to farmers in Wiltshire and was described in 1623 as ‘a common buyer and seller of sheep’; while in 1688 William Douch of South Perrott described himself as ‘a person that have had great dealings in the behalf of other persons in the buying and selling of Sheepe.’!” The account book of John and Leonard Snow who were stewards to the Ashe family of Downton from 1686. to 1727 shows that they bought large numbers of sheep at local fairs on behalf of dealers in the Home Counties. For example, during the 1690s they bought flocks at Weyhill, Britford, Chilmark, Wilton and other fairs for John Robinson of Ham in Middlesex, John Gilles of Kempton Park, John Pavey of London and oth- ers.'? Further evidence of the activities of sheep dealers comes from the Wiltshire Quarter Sessions Rolls for 1634 when several men were presented for marketing offences in Wiltshire and Dorset. It was alleged that “ . they continually go from Faire to Faire, and from 9. D. Defoe, A Tour through England and Wales, Everyman Edition, 19273. 1,289: 10. Edward Leigh, England Described, 1965, 29-89; Joan Thirsk, ed., Agricultural History of England and Wales, 1V, 1967, 590; V, 1985, 427-8. 11. John Aubrey, Natural History of Wiltshire, ed. K. Ponting. 1947, 114. British Library, Add. MSS 28, 211 Courts and Rentals of Castle Combe and Oxenton. Market to Market, from Sheepfould to Sheepfould, from one man to another, where they buye continually great numbers of sheepe; as for example one Saterday to the market at Blandford Forum, the Wensday following sell the same againe at Wilton. Nay, they and most of them will buye one day and sell the same the next, nay, buy and sell in one and the same day, insomuch that our Fayres and Markets are generally and for the most part furnished by these sort of jobbers and Ingrossers who take up all the cobbs and pens there that other men viz. Farmers and Yeomen who doe not trade as they doe must sell their sheep in common fields abroad in regard they cannot gett penns for them. Some of the before named have not been ashamed to brage and boast that they have sould this yeare last past 6,000, 5,000, 4,000 and 3,000 sheepe, some more some lesse. . .”!4 When purchasing sheep bred on the heavy lands of Somerset and west Dorset buyers often demanded a warranty that the sheep were free from diseases such as liver rot or coath, and inevitably such warranties gave rise to many disputes and court actions which provide further evidence of the extent of the trade. For example John Clym of Plush near Buckland Newton in the Blackmore Vale sold 160 ewes at Hindon fair in 1635 at £5 13s 4d per score, and warranted them to be ‘free from Rott & Coath’, a claim which later proved to be false.!° At Stoford fair in 1649 John and William Luckeys of Yeovil, who were described as graziers ‘buyinge and selling several sorts of cattle and sheep’ purchased 120 sheep for taking into Wiltshire. The seller, John Dawe, had warranted the sheep to be sound, and had even produced the healthy livers of two recently-killed sheep which he claimed were part of the same flock; but in spite of his assurances almost the whole flock died with liver rot shortly after the deal was concluded.!® At Britford in 1690 John Snow bought 20 ewes from John Doore of Stalbridge ‘warranted sound’ for 6s 10d each, and a further 14 ewes not warranted at 5s 0d each.'” The high annual turn-over of sheep in the folding flocks of the chalklands is evident from the few surviving account books of sheep farmers. On Sir John Cooper’s manor of Rockbourne near Fordingbridge during the years 1620-1622 a demesne flock of some 800 sheep was kept. In 1620 438 lambs were sold from the flock and 56 sheep were bought as replenishments, the sale of lambs, fleeces and skins bringing a profit of £133 6s 0d during that year. In 1621 411 lambs and 92 old ewes 12. PRO C6/523/97; E134/20Jas I TI; C2/Jas I H18/64; REQ2/50/ the 13. WRO 490/842. 14. WRO Quarter Sessions rolls, New Sarum 8 January 1635. 15. PRO C8/111/105; C6/523/97. 16. PRO C21/P21/11; CP40/261/347. 17. WRO 490/842. NOTES were sold, and 94 replacement sheep were bought. The profit on the flock was £122 Os 6d for the year. By 1622 the number of sheep had risen to 912, 223 lambs were sold and 115 replacement sheep were pur- chased.!* A similar large turn-over of sheep and lambs and large purchases of replacement wethers can be seen from a notebook covering the years 1658-61 kept by Samuel Sullingfleet who was steward of the Earl of Salisbury’s large estate on Cranborne Chase. Stil- lingfleet’s flock numbered between 200 and 250 sheep and during the four years for which his records survive his sales and purchases of sheep were as follows: Bought Sold 1657-8 112 155 1658-9 42 65 1659-60 63 122 1660-1 98 Not recorded. The numerous fairs at which he bought and sold sheep included Blandford, Shaftesbury, Ringwood, Hindon and Wilton.!? Robert Wansborough of Shrewton had a folding flock of about 250 sheep during the 1630s, and each year he sold about 90 sheep and bought replacement wethers at various fairs, including Wilton, Salisbury and Chilmark.?° 2 Horses On the heavier lands of Wiltshire during the sevent- -eenth century a few farmers specialised in horse breeding, but as with the sales of sheep, only a few scattered references to their activities survive. Several members of the Gorges family of Langford Castle were engaged in horse breeding during the early decades of the seventeenth century, and possessed imported Barbary horses and racehorses, some of which they sold to members of the royal court during their visits to Wilton. They were also involved in breeding nags, coach horses, amblers and other spe- cialised horses.”! Horse breeders from Wiltshire are “listed among the dealers at Shrewsbury and other Midland fairs during the early seventeenth century as | well as at the important horse-fair at Taunton, while during the course of the century Devizes became a /18. Hampshire Record Office, Photocopy 350/1. These accounts | were drawn to my attention by Andrew Winser; the originals are in the possession of Lord Shaftesbury to whom I am grateful for permission to use them. Details of the Rockbourne estate are given by K.H.D. Haley, The First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1968, 7-15. 19. Salisbury MSS, Hatfield House 165/3; 149/8. For brief details of Sullingfleet’s career see L. Stone, Family and Fortune, 1973, | 1288-9. 20... Bristol University Library, Shrewton MSS, 37. 21. J.H. Bettey, ed., Correspondence of the Smyth Family of 135 noted market for horses.?? The best source of evi- dence concerning Wiltshire horse dealers is the record of trading at Magdalen Hill fair just outside Winches- ter. This fair, held in July each year, specialised in horses, and a large number of those sold there each year had been bred on the claylands of Wiltshire. Wiltshire farmers also bought brood mares and stallions at the fair. For example during the 1620s John and Thomas Barrett of Warminster, Henry Marcham and Nicholas Knight of Heddington, Thomas Tucker of Potterne, Matthew Pole of Westbury, Thomas Alford of Minety, and John Walsh of Chute were regularly listed among the sellers of horses at Magdalen Hill fair. Likewise during the 1640s William Piper of Burbage, William Roke and others of Potterne, John Smith of Beechinstoke, John Shepherd and others from Pewsey, Robert Nott of Idmiston, Eneas Goddall of Everleigh and several others were regular dealers at the fair. This record of the trade in horses at Magdalen Hill fair provides a good example of the distances people were prepared to travel to a specialised market place of this sort, and of the very wide catchment area and sphere of influ- ence such a fair could have.”* 3 Cattle Large numbers of cattle were brought into Wiltshire each year from Wales for fattening, or were driven through the county to markets in Berkshire, Hampshire, Surrey and London, but again few docu- mentary records survive, and we are dependent upon chance references for information concerning this important trade. The depositions of witnesses in disputes over the import of Welsh cattle into Bridgwater, Watchet and Minehead during the early seventeenth century show that there were regular shipments of several hundred cattle, and that many of these were immediately driven on to Wiltshire, Dorset and Hampshire.** Similarly, several thousand sheep and cattle were brought into the Somerset ports each year from Ireland, especially from the port of Youghal.?°> Many Welsh cattle were also brought by drovers, although only occasional references survive Ashton Court, Bristol Record Society, 1982, 49, 78. 22. P.E. Edwards, The Horse Trade in Tudor and Stuart England, in F.M.L. Thompson, ed., Horses in European Economic History, 1983, 113-131. Somerset Record Office, DD/SP341 Taunton Fair Accounts 1621-1764. 23. Winchester Cathedral Archives, Magdalen Hill Fair Accounts. Tam grateful to Dr Peter Edwards for allowing me to borrow his transcript of these accounts and for information on horse trading. 24. PRO E134/21 Jas 1 H 15; E134/8 Chas I M48. 25. PRO E190/1084-1090 Port books of Youghal. 136 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE to bear witness to their activities. The Wiltshire Quarter Sessions accounts show that Edward Gille of Salisbury went to Ireland in 1639 and spent £180 on buying cattle to bring to England; all the cattle were lost at sea, and Gille was reduced to penury and forced to ask for charity, but there is no indication that his business mission to Ireland was in any way unusual.”° In proceedings before the Court of Star Chamber in 1623 William Brounker, a yeoman of Whaddon in the Avon Valley near Melksham, stated that he was a grazier and that for the previous thirty years he had been accustomed each year to repayre to certain fayres in Shropshire and the county of Radnor to buye rother beasts there to stock his grounds as the Graziers dwellinge neare your Subjecte in the said county of Wiltes use to doe.’ In May 1622 he had purchased fifty beasts at Knighton fair in Radnorshire and had driven them back to Whaddon. The dispute arose because it was alleged that one of the beasts, a black cow, had been stolen.?” A remarkable source of evidence about the extent of the annual traffic in livestock is provided by the late-seventeenth century Tithe Book of Minety near Malmesbury.7® This was predominantly a dairy- farming and cattle-raising parish, with little arable and many ‘all-grass’ farms; it also possessed a large area of unenclosed common grazing land. The vicar, Richard Browne, depended for his income on the tithes of livestock, cheese and wool, and he therefore kept a careful record of his parishioners’ livestock, of their purchases and sales, and of the tithes which they owed. His notebook reveals the large number of livestock bought by farmers and over-wintered on the common at Minety before being sold again during the following spring or summer; the number of steers bought for fattening and the sheep flocks taken in for the winter from farms on the chalklands and the Cotswolds. During the 1660s there are numerous references to sheep and cattle being purchased at various fairs including Castle Combe, Cirencester, Malmesbury, Sherston, Marlborough, Swindon, Devizes, Market Lavington and elsewhere. Most of the cattle were bought during the summer or autumn, and there are several references to deals made at ‘Barnabie Bright’, which probably means the fair at Collingbourne Ducis which was held on the feast of St 26. WRO Quarter Sessions Rolls, Hil. 1641. 27. PRO STAC 8/54/10. 28. WRO 1190/17. Iam grateful to Kenneth Rogers for drawing my attention to this source. 29. WRO 1190/17. Barnabas (originally 22 June) and was so-called from the old rhyme. Barnabie Bright, Barnabie Bright, The longest day and the shortest night.’ The origin of the cattle purchased by Minety farmers is not always recorded, but many were undoubtedly Welsh cattle which were brought by drovers. For example, in 1671 one parishioner, Philip Norton, had four steers on Minety common which were ‘bought at Lammas (1 August) out of Shropshire and sold at Christmas’. As well as these four beasts, Philip Norton had 14 cows, 888 calves, 54 sheep, 20 lambs, and 50 additional sheep which he was paid to over- winter at Minety. The large and rapid turnover of livestock presented a great problem for the vicar, and he was at pains to record all the transactions of his parishioners and to note their attempts at concealment. For example, ‘17 October 1665 Malmesburie faire day, John Frankham had 6 fat beasts to sell at the faire, never told it to me’ He also noted whether the sheep were shorn and if tithe was payable on the wool. ‘1667 70 sheep of John Willis came in about Candlemas (2 February) and stayed on our common till shere time and then drove on againe.’”? The sheep were probably bought at Devizes Can- dlemas fair. Among the offences reported to the Court of the Exchequer during the twenty-two year reign of James I there were more than a hundred men from Wiltshire accused of buying livestock and driving them to London for sale without keeping the beasts for the statutory five weeks. Many were dealers engaged in a regular trade and who were reported more than once, and almost all of them came from the cattle-raising areas of north Wiltshire such as Malmesbury, Castle Eaton, Calne, Wootton Bassett, Quemerford, Lidd- ington, Swindon, Cricklade, Minety and Chippen- ham.*° The drovers who actually conducted much of the widespread traffic in livestock have left few records.*! Perhaps the most remarkable evidence of their activity comes not from a documentary source but from an inscription on a seventeenth-century cottage at Stockbridge in Hampshire. At the point where the road across the downlands from Wiltshire 30. N.J. Wiliams, ed., Tradesmen in Early-Stuart Wiltshire, Wiltshire Record Society, 1960, 52-99. 31. For further references to drovers see PRO E178/5256; E.H. Bates Harbin, ed., Somerset Quarter Sessions Records 1646-60, Somerset Record Society, 3, 1912, 333. 137 ‘Gwair tymherus porfa flasus cwrw da a gwal cysurus’ (good hay, sweet pasture, fine ale and a comfortable bed).*” NOTES drops down into the valley of the Test there is a small paddock by the river where cattle could be penned for the night, and the nearby cottage, the Drovers Inn, still bears the prominent inscription in Welsh. The Inscription on the Finger-Ring from Hill Deverill WAM 79, p. 238 by E.G.H. KEMPSON* « Latin ‘vigilia’; ‘g’? as usual is dropped and contemporary spellings are given by Ducange: Dictionary of Middle and Low Latin, viz. VILLE. Hence ‘May Honour watch over you’. Ducange, vol. vi, p. 825 under ‘vigilia’; also vol. vil, p.333 under ‘Vrille’ (Fr. gimlet). Mr Cherry’s expert reading of the inscription is HONOR VOUS URULL, but this is unin- telligible. The nearest equivalent motto in Burke’s General Armory is ‘Honneur me guide’. The doubtful word may well be ‘VEILLE’; word- order requires a verb. ‘Veiller’ is derived from the Robin Tanner Lecture: July 5, 1986 by ROBIN TANNER On July 5,1986, Robin Tanner, the artist opened the Summer Exhibition at Devizes Museum by giving a 20 minute account of his work as an artist. Many members were unable to squeeze into the lecture hall and hear the fascinating talk, and the suggestion was made that it should be published in WAM. As a boy I had two great abiding passions — to be a teacher and to be an artust, and they have never left me. It has been my great good fortune to live two long, happy lives — in Education and in Art; and the one has never stifled or hindered the other. So painting, drawing and etching are only one part of me. Nor have I a high opinion of my work: if I have a talent it is a very minor one. I regard what I have produced as the natural overflow of my deep love of the Wiltshire countryside, where most of my life has been spent — NW Wiltshire, not far from the Gloucestershire border: Cotswold with a Wiltshire difference — less pre- cious and selfconscious, more earthy and in feel- ing much more ancient. Even while sull at school Heather and I drew gates and stiles, hay and cornricks, barns, cow byres and wagons, churches and cottages, trees and wild plants, little realising that we were chronicling the passing of an era. In 1939 this resulted in Heather’s book ‘Wiltshire Village’, the first of a group we have made in very close cooperation — ‘Woodland Plants’, ‘A Country Alphabet,’ and soon to come from The Old Stle Press, ‘A Country Book of Days.’ * Deceased. Late of Sun Cottage, Hyde Lane, Marlborough, Wilts SN8 IP. 32. Lam grateful to Miss Penelope Rundle for providing me with this inseription and a translation, 138 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Alas! we have had to watch appalling Government-supported damage to the landscape. When people call me a Samuel Palmerish pastoral etcher I feel bound to assert that my work is also a protest at the ruthless, raping ‘agribusiness’ of today. Of course I am an idealist, and my etched world is an ideal world — a world of pastoral beauty that could still be ours if we did but desire it passionately enough, instead of poisoning it! Until we admit the failure of our nuclear dream and also see the folly of greedy prairie farming this destruction will continue — And the more idealistic I shall become! My corn will still be ‘orient and immortal wheat’, and my world will sull be what Blake called ‘the real and eternal world’, where, to use Traherne’s words again, ‘Everything is at rest, free, and immortal.’ But why do I etch? Why not paint instead? I love painting, especially in egg tempera — that marvellous medium Botticelli, Fra Lippo Lippi, Fra Angelico, and Piero della Francesca used, which leaves their paintings as fresh today as when they were created. The painting called ‘Portrait in April’ in this exhibition was made according to the directions — which have never been superseded — of the late 14th century Paduan painter, Cernino Cernini. The mahogany panel was first covered in strips of handwoven linen, glued to it with parchment size (made by boiling parchment cuttings). Then slaked plaster of Paris was mixed with parchment size, to the consistency of thick cream; and six successive coats of this gesso were applied to the panel. It was then polished with silk, giving it an enticing surface like ivory. The painting medium was egg yolk diluted with distilled water, and the colours (in dry form) were mainly earths, such as umbers, ochres and terre verte. The entire pic- ture was first painted in monochrome, after which many glazes of pure colour were applied. Since egg yolk, unlike oil, is an emulsion, there is no chemical reaction on the colours; they therefore retain their original brilliance and purity. But a painting can be owned by only one person, whereas — with care — a large number of perfect impressions can be printed from a steel- faced etching plate. There are similar collections to this one here at the Ashmolean and at Bristol City Art Gallery. There are also a number of prints at the Victoria and Albert Museum and at Boston, Massachusetts. . I will not describe the technique of etching, because there is a detailed display of this intaglio process in the exhibition. Etching is an expensive craft, and the process is slow. The printing of each impression is a lengthy business, and no two proofs are alike. When I first studied and was bowled over by the incomparable work of the greatest of all etchers, Rembrandt, I realised that there was nothing he could not say with a needle on a copper plate. He could express human tragedy and ecstasy, love and compassion, the poignant beauty of the natural world and of the human head — and with them all a celebration of light and darkness; of sunlight, moonlight, and lamplight; and the depth of tone in clouds and foliage, drapery, architecture, and the earth itself. Within its chosen limits an etching can say all. Men like Diirer, Goya, Meryon, and our own Palmer and Griggs and many more have wrought wonders on copper. I spent my thirty years as H.M. Inspector of schools and colleges working to ensure a liberal education for all children. That absorbing job entirely ruled out the involved and intricate craft of etching, though I continued to draw every day. But since my retirement twenty-two years ago I have produced more etchings than in the sixty years before. Sadly, I and many others who gave our entire professional lives to Education have had to watch our achievement denigrated and irreparably damaged. My two special fields, Primary Education and Art and Craft Education, once provided our best export, and educationists from all over the world came to learn from English schools and colleges. That is fast going. So I cannot say my life in Education has been very successful. Nor can I claim great success as an etcher. The pursuit of excellence involves a long struggle. I am goaded on to produce a superb etching. The vision I have is glorious, but I’m afraid the reality is always a partial failure. Yet something urges me to continue the pursuit. Etching designs seek me out and crave to be born: there are seventeen in the queue! I am in the throes of three exacting plates at the moment. I am not, as you see, a topographical artist. Much as I love St. John’s Church, for instance, I have no desire to make a photographically true etching of it. Yet every element in every etching of mine is true to something I have seen and loved and been moved by. I could show you the gate on Morgan’s Hill that I have etched in ‘August in Wiltshire’, and you may recog- nise the medieval bell turret on Biddestone church in NOTES “Martin’s Hovel’ and ‘Christmas.’ In ‘Aldhelmsburgh’ I Tannerised Malmesbury so drastically that I thought it best to call it after the first Abbot of Malmesbury, St. Aldhelm. I wanted to convey essential, ultimate truth rather than photographic verisimilitude. As I work I often repeat to myself the words of Cennino Cinnini, from his ‘Book of the Art’, as my aim and my ideal: “You must be endowed with both imagination and skill in the hand to discover unseen things beneath the obscurity of natural objects, and to arrest them with the hand, presenting to the sight that which did not before appear to exist.’ 139 They are such important words that I should like to read them to you again. Repeat. One of my favourite poets, Louis Macniece, wrote of artists as ‘Those endowed with a doom and heirloom.’ and “Those who carry a birthright and a burden.’ And for my complete happiness I want to be possessed by them all— Doom and Heirloom, Birthright and Burden! Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, vol. 81 (1987), pp. 140-143. Wiltshire Archaeological Register for 1985 The Register for 1985 is arranged in chronological order and by parishes. In order to save space ‘85’ does not precede the serially numbered entries in the text, but this prefix should be used to identify individual items in future cross references. The Register has again been compiled on a selective basis. Records of small groups of unassociated flint- work and of pottery, when of uncertain date or of common Romano-British or medieval types, have been omitted as well as a number of other uninforma- tive stray finds. Not included also are, firstly certain groups of finds from sites which are due to be published in detail in the near future such as bronze- age finds from 1985 burials in Blackberry Lane cemetery, Potterne; and also certain sites which might be particularly vulnerable to the depredations of ‘treasure-hunters’. While it is no longer practical to include all stray finds, it is hoped that contributors will continue to supply full records so that future Registers may be compiled from as comprehensive a range of material as possible. Accessions to museums are noted by the short name of museum (Devizes or Salisbury) followed by the accession number. For objects remaining in private possession, the sources of information noted are museum records or individual informants, not necess- arily the owners. Particulars of attribution and provenance are as supplied by the museums, societies and individuals named. Where there is a reason to doubt the accuracy of the find record, this caveat is given in the text. Acknowledgements to individual donors for those gifts to the Society’s museum at Devizes which fall within the chronological range of the Register (prehis- toric to c. AD 1500) will be found in the Curator’s Report for 1985. The illustrations have kindly been provided by N. Griffiths. Abbreviations C century as in C2, second century. DMDB Devizes Museum Day Book. PP In private possession. SAS Swindon Archaeological Society. TMAR Thamesdown Museums Archae- ological Records. WAM Wiltshire — Archaeological and Natural History Magazine. WAR Wiltshire Archaeological Register. 11 12 1S 14 17 NEOLITHIC Aldbourne, Peaks. SU 26327874. Small late Neolithic rim-sherd. PP. DMDB 1108. All Cannings, Cross Keys House. SU 07276207. Polished flint axe-head. PP. DMDB 1097. Bishops Cannings, NW of Down Barn. SU 06386761. Small flint assemblage. PP. DMDB 1154. Bromham, 4 Hurts Mead. ST 96106522. Leaf- shaped arrowhead. PP. DMDB 1147. Broughton Gifford, Red House Farm. ST 88806290. Leaf-shaped bifacially worked imple- ment; backed blade with retouch. PP. DMDB 1119-1120. Cherhill, Knoll Down, SU 070696. Small group of waste flakes. Devizes 1985.42. Durrington, ‘Lynchmere’, Windsor Road, SU 1592 4457. Chipped flint axe. Salisbury 142.1985. Figheldean, Milston Down. SU 207462. Chip- ped flint axe. Salisbury 90.1985. Kingston Deverill, long barrow G1. ST849380. Finds from the 1964 excavation deposited in Devizes. 1985.183. BRONZE AGE Aldbourne, E of North Farm. SU 26327874. Group of MBA sherds. PP. DMDB 1108 (fig. 3). Erlestoke, excavation in 1963 at the Detention Centre. Centred on ST 97005395. Furrowed bowl sherd, two sherds from situlate jars with finger-tip decoration, oolitic grit sherds. Devizes 1985.136. Erlestoke/East Coulston. Brounkers Court Farm. ST 959541. Fragment of socketed bronze axehead. Devizes 1985.194. See also WAR 82.36. Chiseldon, Herdswick Farm. SU 168765. Sherd of MBA-LBA urn. Devizes 1985.113. Upavon, Upavon down. c. SU 170546. Tanged bronze chisel. PP. DMDB 1085. Westbury, E of Pumping Station. c. ST 891515. Sherd and bronze fragment. Devizes 1985.32. IRON AGE Bishops Cannings, E. of Reservoir. SU 041656. La Téne I bronze brooch. PP. DMDB 1167. (fig. 3). Castle Eaton, in silt from the Thames. SU 16139610. Bronze toggle or bar-bit with WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL REGISTER FOR 1985 14] Figure 3. 16. La Téne brooch from Bishops Cannings. engraved decoration and enamelled terminals. PP. DMDB 1088 (fig. 1). 18 Cherhill, ramparts on E side of Oldbury Camp. c. SU 051693. Group of undecorated body sherds. Devizes 1985.98. 19 Easton Grey. no n.g.r. Base gold stater of the Coritani. Type as D.F. Allen The Coins of the Coritani nos. 245-8. Athelstan Museum, Mal- mesbury. 20 Ogbourne St. Andrew, SW of village. SU 18657195. Silver coin of Epaticcus. Type Mack 263. PP. DMDB 1118. 21 Ogbourne St. Andrew, Buckerfields. SU 199739. Silver coin of the ‘Irregular Dobunnic’ series. Type Mack 384a. PP. DMDB 1124. 22. Ogbourne St. Andrew, by railway line. SU 195727. Potin coin. Type Mack 12. PP. DMDB 1142. 23 Ramsbury no n.g.r. Base gold stater, type Mack 62. PP. DMDB 1145. 24 Upavon, SW of village. SU 133548. Spherical bronze head of pin or terminal, with traces of enamel decoration. Devizes 1985.107. 25 Upavon, NW of Casterley Camp. c. SU 127544. | Figure 1. 17. Iron Age toggle or bar-bit of bronze with engraved Bronze harness attachment or plate brooch with and enamel decoration. Found at Castle Eaton. coral insets. Devizes 1985.182. (fig.2). 142 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Sy) 38 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE ROMAN Aldbourne, Ewins Hill. SU 256739. Six C2-4 coins found close to the site of the late C3 hoard (WAM 77 (1983), 61-6). Devizes 1985.74. Avebury, head of the Kennet SE of Silbury Hill. SU_ 10556822. Twenty-two C3 and C4 coins. Devizes 1985.12. Bromham, on or near the site of Verlucio. No n.g.r. Late Roman bronze buckle. Devizes 1985.185. Bromham, Hillside Farm. ST 971666. Disk brooch and two C4 coins. PP. DMDB 1101. Colerne, Bury Wood. ST 812733. As of Augustus of the Lugdunum mint. Possibly from the Northwood Barn hoard of Dobunnic and Durotrigian coins. Devizes 1985.193. Coombe Bissett, Homington Down. SU 115244. Quernstone of ? Roman date. Salisbury 14.1985. Marlborough, Cherry Orchard. SU 1969. As of Marcus Aurelius. TMAR. Marlborough, Barton Farm. c. SU 182690. Penannular brooch with curled over terminals. PP. DMDB 1138. Pewsey, the Scotchhole. SU 16406032. Dupon- dius of Domitian and eighteen C1 and C2 sherds. Devizes 1985.37. Potterne, Little Chilsbury. ST 99725800. Group of coarse sherds. Devizes 1985.61. Roundway, Nursteed, Allotments behind the ‘Fox and Hounds’. SU 020602. Counterfeit copy of a follis of Magnentius or Decentius. Devizes 1985.38. Upavon, S of church. SU 136549. Oval plate brooch. Devizes 1985.106. Wanborough, Kite Hill. SU 20958272. Group of Cl—2 coarse ware and Samian sherds. TMAR. Figure 4. 43. Small-long brooch from Aldbourne 39 40 4] 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ai Westbury, E of Pumping Station. c. ST 891515. Neck of a small flagon. Devizes 1985.32.3. Wroughton, Elcombe. SU 13168005. AE3 of Licinius II. TMAR. Wroughton, Barbury Castle, between NW rampart and the Ridgeway. c. SU 14757645. Collection of early RB sherds. Devizes 1985.115. Uncertain findspot in North Wilts. Late Roman military buckle PP. DMDB 1095 (fig. 5). SAXON AD 450-1100 Aldbourne, Holes field. SU 26777576. Fragment of small-long brooch. Devizes 1985.5 (fig. 4). Harnham. no n.g.r. Bronze tongue-shaped strap-end with an openwork design of tendril ornament issuing from two dolphin heads. Devizes 1985.83. Kingston Deverill. Ford. ST 852373. Type H (‘Southampton’ type) sceatta. PP. DMDB 1140. Langley Burrell, SW of Langley House. ST 926755. Bronze animal-ended strap-end. PP. DMDB 1155. Rushall, near ditch behind church. c. SU 12855585. Bronze animal-ended strap-end with traces of silvering or tinning. Devizes 1985.62. MEDIEVAL AD 1100-1500 Aldbourne, Court House field. SU 26327592. Bronze strap-end. PP. DMDB 1130. Aldbourne, Blue Boar Inn. SU 26457575. Pair of small shears. PP. DMDB 1152. Bratton, N of Bratton Castle. ST 903521. Lid of bronze mirror case. Devizes 1985.75. Bratton, Bratton Farm. ST 911527. Group of sherds. Devizes 1985.89. Figure 5. 42. Late Roman Military Buckle from North Wiltshire. WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL REGISTER FOR 1985 52 Cherhill, Yatesbury. SU 067715. Assemblage of 53 54 1 B55 56 sherds. Devizes 1985.177. Christian Malford, by footbridge. ST 961792. Bronze buckle plate with rocked tracer decor- ation. Devizes 1985.47. Edington, cemetery. c. ST 92655327. Iron knife. PP. DMDB 1144. Edington, Fitzroy Farm. ST 92255275. Elliptical lead pendant with suspension loop and cross design. PP. DMDB 1117. Edington, N of Priory in upcast from water pipe trench. No n.g.r. Group of sherds. Devizes 1985.112. , Edington, Tinhead. ST 934538. Circular gilt bronze pendant. Devizes 1985.76. Fittleton, no n.g.r. Sterling of John III of Brab- ant, struck at Brussels in c. 1318. Type de Witte 307. PP. DMDB 1107. Grittleton, Whitegates. No n.g.r. Lead pilgrim’s ampulla with uncertain arms. PP. DMDB 1090 (fig. 6). 60 Figure 6. 59. Pilgrim’s ampulla from Grittleton Inglesham, DMV. SU 206983. Sherds from house platforms. TMAR 850616. 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 143 Langley Burrell, Manor Farm. ST 933754. Lead pilgrim’s ampulla with design of obv coat of arms rev quatrefoil. PP. DMDB 1156. Marlborough, garden of 1 George Lane. SU 19226894. C15 French jeton of AVE MARIA GRACIA PLENA type. PP. DMDB 1137. Ogbourne St. Andrew, NE of village. SU 197727. Lid of bronze mirror case. PP. DMDB T21e Ogbourne St. Andrew, SW of village. SU 187721. Harness pendant with scalloped edge. PP. DMDB 1122. Purton, village centre, c. SU 093877. C15 French jeton. PP. TMAR. Salisbury, 21 The Close. SU 14352968. Decorated floor tiles with design incorporating the letters IB. Salisbury 5.1985. Stert, Crookwood Mill Farm. SU 02305850. Silver ring with an incomplete design on the bezel of a crown with a blank space beneath, where a letter would have been inserted. Devizes 1985.188. Swindon, Toothill. No n.g.r. Incomplete lead pilgrim’s ampulla with hexafoil design. PP. DMDB 1171. Tidworth. No n.g.r. Bronze seal matrix. The design depicts two figures (lovers) with the inscription I0 SVY SEL DAMUR LEL (I am a seal of loyal love). Devizes 1985.189. Upavon, by footbridge. SU 13645488. Irish penny of Edward I struck at Waterford. Devizes 1985.46. Upavon, by footbridge. c. SU 136549. Finger- ring with traces of glass setting. Devizes 1985.48. Warminster or vicinity. No n.g.r. Henry II “Tealby’ penny cut in half for use as a halfpenny; possibly Salisbury mint by the moneyer, Levric. Half-groat of Robert III of Scotland (1390-1406), type Burns Figure 354. Devizes 1985.186 and 187. 144 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Reviews Roland Smith and Peter Cox. The Past in the Pipeline: Archaeology of The Esso Midline. 1985. Trust for Wessex Archaeology and Esso Petroleum Cox td. The Esso Midline oil pipeline was constructed from Fawley, Southampton, to Seisdon, near Birmingham, during 1985. Despite the rapidity with which the work went ahead, time was available for the archae- ological investigation of the route. The resulting booklet tells the story of the laying of the pipeline and publishes some of the main aspects of the archaeology which came to light. Illustrated by colour photographs, artist’s impres- sions, and on occasion the two combined, the text describes the archaeology of the pipeline using a chronological framework but focussing each broad archaeological period on a different stretch of the pipeline. There is enough information to whet the appetite of the layman interested in the history of his immediate surroundings without becoming bogged down in a mass of detail. The authors also take the opportunity to outline some of the methods and techniques used by archaeologists, and to describe the background to scheduling a site as an Ancient Monument. The booklet is very easy to read and understand, at the same time retaining academic respectability. It would be an advantage to have figure numbers against illustrations referred to in the text, likewise scales against all the maps and objects illustrated. The maps are uncluttered and well tied-in with the text, al- though Swindon has been suddenly transported into Staffordshire (p.14)! The authors’ enthusiasm for their subject comes through clearly, and the publication should dispel some of the image of inaccessibility to the public which has grown up around archaeology in recent years. With its imaginatively illustrated cover and jargon-free text “The Past in the Pipeline’ sets an example of cooperation between progress and interest in the past and of the presentation of archaeology to the public that others would do well to note. GILLIAN SWANTON Copies of The Past in the Pipeline are obtainable free from: Corporate Affairs Dept; Room T/11/22, Esso UK PLC, Esso House, Victoria Street, London SWIE 5JW Peter Saunders. Channels to the past: the Salisbury Drainage Collection. Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum, 1986. 12 p 20 ill A4 paperback. ISBN 0947535020 £1.25. This 125th annniversary publication tells the story of the birth of Salisbury Museum, which was founded around the objects collected during the nineteenth- century updating of the water supply and drainage system of the city. The history of Salisbury, founded in the thirteenth century, and unique in Britain with its network of fresh-water/drainage channels, has interested many people, past and present. ‘Channels to the Past’ describes the channels, the problems of keeping them clean and the attendant diseases whch took their toll over the centuries. From the descriptions, one can imagine how dreadful the city smelled at times! Eventually, after lively campaigning on the part of a Dr Middleton and considerable reluctance on the part of the Council, the City was provided with piped water and underground sewers. We are not told how long it took the doctor to persuade the authorities to listen to him, but it took over twenty years to complete the work. During this period, many arti- facts were collected from the excavations (and prob- ably as many discarded), and gathered together mainly by Mr Edward Brodie. In 1860 the Museum was formed, opening to the public the following year. The City was a busy centre of trade and craft industries. Passers-by and inhabitants alike lost a great variety of possessions, many of which are shown in the excellent illustrations: all these lack are figure numbers to relate them to the text. The division into categories of tools, ornaments, horse-gear etc. makes for easy reading: perhaps some information on num- bers of different craftsmen in Salisbury at some period might underline what a large centre of trade the city was. The pictures illustrated show life during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the chan- REVIEWS nels were still in use. With people and animals constantly passing along the streets, one can envisage how easily they became polluted: unfortunate for the inhabitants, but resulting in the rich array of finds which formed the original core of Salisbury Museum. The great merit of this publication is that it combines an interesting introduction to the history of Salisbury as a whole with the more detailed background to the beginnings of the Museum and the personalities behind it. The history of museums is as fascinating as that of the collections they house; reading this enjoyable commemorative booklet will surely encourage many to visit Salisbury and inves- tigate the past of the city and its Museum further. GILLIAN SWANTON P.J.A. Levine. The Amateur and the Professional. Antiquarians, Historians and Archaeologists in Victorian England, 1836-1886. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1986. 222 pages, 2 line diagrams. ISBN 0521306353. £25.00. The empiricist disposition of nineteenth century Eng- lish scholars favoured the production of histories which were catalogues of fact. With few exceptions, historians rejected philosophical models of historical development; implicitly, however, they adopted a teleological perspective on their subject matter which naturally bound it into a more or less coherent narrative. Such presentism was both the strength and the limitation of Victorian history. Ms. Levine’s account of the professionalisation uf historical studies in Victorian England owes something to the same empiricist tradition. It is rich in historical fact, drawing upon an impressive set of manuscript and primary sources as well as a comprehensive range of secondary material. In rejecting presentism as an acceptable approach to historical analysis, Ms. Levine is, however, necess- arily obliged to offer an alternative intellectual framework: unfortunately, this she has not done. Despite asseruons that the book adopts a contextualist approach to the History of Ideas which seeks to embed intellectual developments in contemporary social and political structures, The Amateur and the Professional suffers from the absence of any coherent analytical perspective. Significantly, and rather dis- concertingly, the bibliography omits nearly all major texts dealing with the philosophy of the History of Ideas which have been published over the last two decades. The result is that the text lacks both coherence and purpose; the thesis receives no clear exposition. Only in those areas in direction of 145 which a presentist approach naturally emerges — such as Ms. Levine’s account of the emergence of the Public Record Office — does the book, somewhat ironically, become readable; the remainder is unsatis- fying and, on occasions, tedious. The principal objection to Ms. Levine’s approach must be its failure to handle the heterogeneous nature of Victorian social and intellectual life — the complex pattern of inherent contradictions which underlay apparent unity. In seeking to demonstrate the mar- ginalisation which arose from the development of History as a profession, she is overly eager to treat social and intellectual groupings as monolithic enti- ties. This applies to her use of the Middle Class as a protagonist but it is also a failing in her treatment of Antiquarianism and Archaeology. The latter, for example, is treated as possessing an intellectual and methodological unity which it did not manifest at any point in the nineteenth century: the systemic differen- ces between Classical and Field Archaeology, born of separate historical ancestries, are not properly addressed; developments in Prehistory are blandly passed off as developments in Archaeology in general. Elusive hints at controversies and conflicts within the various intellectual communities, and at the significance of re-alignments of alliances and the balance of power within the Victorian Middle Class itself, are made throughout the text but are brought to little. This approach is frustrating precisely because it seems unnecessary. The book itself is far from being historically superficial, incorporating a great deal of interesting material and documentary evidence as well as insights into the social background. In addition, Ms. Levine has a perceptive grasp of the ideological interplay between Victorian society’s aspirations and its historical view of itself, between the expansion of empire and the expansion of historical studies. Many individually telling points are made. The problem is that individual points do not make up a thesis: it is not sufficient to assemble the social statistics, or to note the apparent connections between political and social aspirations and changes in the _ intellectual community. A social history of Ideas requires that the material be assembled into an analytical whole which brings alive the interaction of the parts. Ms. Levine, however, does not seem to be in sufficient control of her material to give it the necessary direction. In consequence, while the book is, without doubt, histo- rically competent it is analytically deficient; in terms of the treatment of the material, it is constantly in danger of over-simplificauon. While there is always a place for such over- 146 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE simplification in polemical work, especially where it seeks to expound an approach which throws old material into strikingly new relief, it seems unnecess- ary here. The essential historical details of the period are already known — notwithstanding the additional material presented by Ms. Levine — and the model for professionalisation has received elegant expositions at the hands of others. What was needed was a thorough-going analysis which encompassed the div- ersity of the historical record while combining it with a penetrating insight into the social and political life of the period. This is not to belittle Ms. Levine’s contribution: her use of the manuscript sources is enlightening, as is the prosopographic analysis which informs the text. It is, however, unfortunate that more has not been made of the material and that the book should ultimately fail to integrate changes in the social context with developments in the content and institutional organisation of the three disciplines. As a social history of Ideas, it lacks the analytical apparatus necessary to support the thesis. There are some additional small matters which deserve attention. The scheme of footnotes, while thorough, is rather old-fashioned: the use of op./loc. cit. and ibid., still current amongst some historians, is generally avoided in modern publications and can be a source of confusion. This is, however, a minor quib- ble and there are many areas in which the book is to be commended. It will undoubtedly serve as a useful point of reference for many. The material culled from the manuscript sources is of great interest and the bibliography should prove valuable to both students and researchers as should the appendices. Finally, while the price seems high for such a thin volume, Cambridge University Press have, as usual, adhered to their high standards in layout and pressing and the book has a handsome appearance. J.B. McVICAR Abstracts of feet of fines relating to Wiltshire, 1377-1509 edited by J.L.. Kirby for the Wiltshire Record Society, vol. XLI for 1985, Devizes 1986, xv + 248 pages. Obtainable from M.J. Lansdown, 53 Clarendon Road, Trowbridge BA14 7BS. £15.00 plus postage to non-members. (£10.00 to members). This volume, the third collection of this routine class of historical document to be published by the Wiltshire Record Society, covers the late Middle Ages, terminating here in 1509 with the last year of Henry VII. It may be seen in some respects therefore as completing a series. The brief but useful introduc- tion acknowledges the previous work of Professor Pugh and Christopher Elrington in this field, and refers the reader to their respective volumes in the Record Society publications for elucidation and description. Apart from one point of diplomatic significance introduced after 1422, the form and content of fines of the reign of Edward III were substantially the same as those of the following century. Until that year the warranty was always ‘against all men’. Thereafter specific individuals, often heads of religious houses with no estate in the premises conveyed, begin to be mentioned. Owing to his propinquity to the law courts the abbot of Westminster is named most frequently, though the heads of foundations in Wiltshire or neighbouring counties sometimes occur also. The main purpose of this legal fiction was probably to restrict the liability of the grantor by excluding further warranties implicit in the terms or nature of the conveyance. Another change in the fine was effected in 1489 when the first Statute of Fines corroborated title by barring other claims subject to certain conditions being satisfied. Of interest also during the fifteenth century are the lists of premises belonging to manors, apparently the equivalent of full extents but excluding the capital messuage and demesne, which comprised the lord’s holdings. The introduction includes a useful bibliography of feet of fines already published together with other relevant sources. There is an index of persons and places, and a ‘very selective’ subject index with ‘the emphasis . . . on exceptional subjects.’ In view of this one wonders why advowsons and manors, to take but two examples, and given the point just raised with regard to the latter, should have been omitted when the humdrum of pepper and rose rents (commonplace in deeds of this period), livestock, dovecots and payment in kind are deemed important enough for inclusion. But this is a minor criticism which detracts in no serious way from this carefully edited volume. The feet of fines themelves are given in abstract and follow in sequence of year with Public Record Office references at the end of each abstract. Terms used in the fines are explained in the list of abbreviations and conventions preceding the introduction. WILLIAM SMITH Seend Heritage by Edward Bradby, in collaboration with Jack Dunton and John Hutchinson. Devizes Books Press, 1985, 34 pages, 60+ photographs. £2.50. A History of Highworth Part 2. Highworth Histori- cal Society, 1986. 318 pages, numerous photographs. £7.00 Wroughton History Part 3. Wroughton Local REVIEWS History Group. 1986. 112 pages, 2 folding maps, numerous photographs. £5.00 These titles are the products of three flourishing historical societies within the county. As such they represent hours of labour and enjoyment for their members. It is a pleasure to note the high quality of the contributions which range from personal remin- iscence to patient research, from direct quotation to careful selection of archive material, from events with strictly local significance to those with international ramifications. There is, in fact, something for all historical tastes. ~ Seend Heritage’ is, as its sub-title indicates, ‘a look at vernacular architecture in a Wiltshire village’. Its main author, Edward Bradby, needs no introduction to readers of this magazine — he has been a regular contributor for many years now. The book 1s attract- ively designed with more than sixty photographs of buildings within the parish of Seend. It begins with a chronological survey of the buildings; this is followed _ by a section on building materials from cruck beams to Welsh slate roofs; and it moves to a consideration of such architectural features as the unusual terra-cotta bust protruding from a chimney in Perry’s Lane. Most valuable, especially for local residents for whom this book is primarily written, is a comprehensive list of all the buildings in the parish which were built before 1914. This records the building materials and earliest documentary evidence for each. An outsider might have wished for a larger-scale map to help to locate the buildings referred to in the text. In all other respects this is an excellent record of pre-war Seend and should encourage other villages to re-examine and record their surroundings too. This, after all, is _Bradby’s intention. He concluded his earlier book on his adopted village with these words: ‘Perhaps the best hope for the future is that members of the village community will be more aware of what they have and so more alert to defend it when threatened.’ ‘A History of Highworth Part 2’ is the second such publication by the local Historical Society. It is _well-bound and benefits enormously from the word- _ processing facilities made available to the society. It begins with some words by Sir John Betjeman who /wrote, ‘When I am abroad and want to recall a typically English town I think of Highworth’. Flattery perhaps, but we can only agree when he adds, ‘the only way to see a town is to go down every alley and see the backs of the houses’. What excellent advice for a local historian! ‘A History of Highworth’ contains articles on a wide variety of topics, typical of life in a 147 small town— a local potter with a national reputation, the goings-on of the Silver Band, reminiscences from ‘an Highworthian’ about the tradespeople at the turn of the century, extracts from the Church records and from the local newspaper in the 1850s — as well as a selection of evocative photographs. There are authoritative contributions on ‘Enclosure 1778-1783’, ‘Education in Highworth’ and ‘Highworth during the Second World War’, any one of which could prove invaluable to youngsters struggling with demands of the new GCSE examination. Perhaps the most revealing article, however, is Bryan Lawton’s account of the ‘British Army Manoeuvres, Highworth, 1909’. As a result of this ‘war game’, he suggests, there was so much activity that ‘Coate had never before seen such exciting and busy times’ and ‘that little hamlet of Watchfield, just outside Shrivenham, had never been so busy.’ Just occasionally the outside world impinges directly on our lives and events take on added significance. ‘Wroughton History Part 3’ is similar in many ways to the work on Highworth. It is the product of a Local History Society which had its origins in a course put on by the Workers’ Education Association in the late 1970s. This is the third such publication since 1982 and, although it differs slightly in format, is true to the spirit of its predecessors. It is a compilation, by more than a dozen active members of the society, of photographs, newspaper articles, other documentary material and reminiscences relating to life in the village in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The sub-title, “Wroughton Remembered’, and the opening words from 89 year-old Eric Barrett give an idea of what is to come. The focus is very much on the people and their everyday concerns. Thus, we read of the cow struck by lightning, swollen to ‘an extraordinary size’ and ‘quite putrid in the course of an hour’; or ‘three Wroughton men who were charged with stealing a quantity of cultivated water-cress’; or, more seriously, of the sixty-six ‘who made the supreme sacrifice’ in the Great War. The hopes of the first ‘Wroughton History’ that it would ‘provide nostalgic memories for the older residents and great interest for (the) new .. . are sull being fulfilled. Yet, these are just three of the some two hundred publications that relate to Wiltshire and find their way on to the library shelves each year. A large number of them may be classified as Local History. Such a blossoming in the ’70s and ’80s deserves some consideration. There is no doubt that modern repro- ductive techniques have made publication easier — these well-produced books bear ample testimony to this. Better library facilities and greater leisure ume in 148 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE which to make use of them are two further explan- ations. It is no accident either that two of these historical societies exist close to the M4 corridor, with its acres of new factories and modern housing estates. Herein lies the most satisfying explanation for the increased interest in local history. The study of local people and local places has a therapeutic value — it provides a point of reference in a rapidly changing world. It is a recognition of the fact that we are the creations as well as the creators of our environment. As Lord Elton wrote in 1985, when Minister of State for the Environment: ‘the history of England is not something locked away in books to be read only by scholars. It is all around us through the length and breadth of the land. Every generation of our forebears has left its mark upon this country and the story they have written is open for all to see.’ Thus, the study of Local History, in Seend, Highworth, Wroughton or elsewhere, not only con- tributes to the work of ‘Caring for the Past’ but also serves to enrich the present and the future. LAWRENCE COUPLAND Barbara Croucher. The Village in the Valley —- A History of Ramsbury. Barbara J. Croucher, 25 Ashley Piece, Ramsbury, Wilts, SN8 2QZ, 1986. 314 pages with end-paper maps, numerous illustrations and photographs. £14.75. In addition to her skills as author and publisher, Mrs Croucher brings to the history of her village an upbringing and education across the county border in Newbury and Reading — a sound viewpoint from which to consider a community which economically, at least, looked down stream rather than towards the chalk uplands. This well illustrated and researched volume is a credit to her efforts and to Ramsbury, whose people have helped the enterprise by their subscriptions. Local history publications are on occa- sion at the best glossy and little more than the repository of traditional anecdotes. Here is a book which sets an example to those who are considering facing up to the hard work and commitment involved in producing a community record of substance. It deserves a place on the shelves both of those who know the village and those institutions involved in local history studies. The book is divided into three parts. Part 1 covers the landscape, prehistory and archaeology, and the early history up to the Civil War. Part 2 forms the main part of the book and looks in detail at the components of the community: craftsmen, farmers, non-conformists and rioters, schooling, poverty and wealth, and the church in the developing community of the next 250 years. Part 3 — the Changing Community — reflects the transformation of a self- contained village community into a modern sub-set of a rural area, framed by the advent of motor transport and mass commuting, in the wider interdependence of town and village. This is the period when the historian can call on the recollections of people still living. While it may be of less interest to those seeking anecdotal evidence for social history, it is the part which will be read locally and if not recorded here would be lost to the future historian. Each part is illustrated with appropriate diagrams, statistical tables, reproductions and photographs, prepared in many cases by the author and her husband, a highly experienced photographer. References are listed at the end of each chapter and there are summary tables of dates, ecclesiastics and prominent citizens with an index at the back. End-paper maps set out the occupiers and business of the householders in the village in 1839 and 1910. Casual visitors to this part of Wiltshire are unlikely to distinguish Ramsbury from other small rural communities with less than 2000 inhabitants, but as Mrs Croucher reminds us, it has had its place in history and even occasionally hits the national headlines to-day in concern for the conservation of its monuments. Indeed, the distinction of the penul- umate Bishop, Herman, as the authenticating link between the ancient Saxon Church and the Norman realty by his participation in the coronation of the Conqueror and consecration of Lanfranc might have been mentioned. But possibly with Cromwell as a visitor during the Commonwealth, and later, in the 1930s, with Queen Mary staying at the Manor and Sir Oswald Mosley resident at the other end of the village, the author hardly needs to dig too far to make the point, that the history of Ramsbury is of more than local interest. Mrs Croucher has wisely extended her study to include neighbouring interests, if only to ‘compare and contrast’ apparently similar communities. Inevitably a history of this kind inclines to treat the geological and archaeological basis of the environment rather sweepingly. Undoubtedly the location of the village in the Kennet valley has been fundamental to the social and economic history of Ramsbury. On the other hand the relative poverty of the valley sides and tops with their restriction on agricultural expansion might have been brought out by stressing the fact that the underlying geology is poor quality Upper Chalk, much of it covered by clay. The geological sketch i REVIEWS (1.3) gives a rather deceptive impression. Comparison with Aldbourne, for example, shows the benefit of a much lesser proportion of clay cover and a proportion of the Grade 4 Lower Chalk land in the upper valleys. This in turn is reflected in the relatively high propor- tion of woodland in Ramsbury and the scarcity of prehistoric monuments compared to Aldbourne. ‘The population based on the chalk lands had tackled only the nearest woodland on the southern boundary, before abandoning the high ground for the valleys. The profusion of occupation debris on the clay just over Ramsbury’s border with Aldbourne, compared to the barrenness of the valley slopes is marked. The Romans undoubtedly introduced a taste for running water and the Littlecote Villa illustrates this preference. Washing on the other hand has never been a priority among the British, which may suggest who were the occupiers of Rudge and Gorse villas on their ridges. Progressive clearance of the chalk and a dropping water table both allowed and obliged the natives to move down to the valleys in the post- Roman period. Inevitably the east-west axis became predominant as time went on. But before this communications were broadly north-south. Both the Roman roads and, more significantly, the tracks through the then uncleared woodland illustrate the point, as well as the Domesday reference to Cricklade as the burghal centre rather than Marlborough. The linking of Baydon and Bishopstone in the Hundred of Ramsbury and, in Saxon times, Shipley on the north- ern boundary of Aldbourne as part of the bishop’s manor reflects the same orientation. Mrs Croucher in her Prologue paints a slightly romantic picture of the way in which the first people came to the site of the settlement. It would be interesting to know what made particular family groups moving from the downs choose the wet bottoms of the Kennet rather than the dry valleys of the perennial bournes, so establishing quite distinctive societies. The author’s analysis of the Domesday record -comparing Ramsbury and Aldbourne suggests social differences already marking the environmental con- _trasts. Ramsbury was the more populous and richer, _ but with the same proportion of heads of household to serfs. In Ramsbury the inferior freemen outnumbered the villeins, while in Aldbourne, with rather more _villeins, there were only half the number of others. This suggests that in Ramsbury, even in the 11th Century, there was already a tendency to a sharper | social pyramid with a proportionately larger number of subordinate freemen. Effectively society was split into about equal numbers of those dependent directly /on the manor and those with a relatively substantial 149 independence. Arguably this suggests, as it also seems to apply to Chilton Foliat on a much smaller scale, that the valley with its natural access from the east produced a more developed hierarchy even in Saxon times. It probably also reflects the relatively devel- oped society of a well established Saxon community, when Aldbourne was still largely a royal hunting estate with a generally absentee lord. As time went on Ramsbury attracted wealth generated in London seeking country estates. These produced a dependent class of domestic and estate staff, to an extent isolated from the small freeholders and tradesmen of the established community. The substantial houses in Ramsbury from the Littlecote villa to the present manor in their comfortable valley contrast with the nondescript housing in Aldbourne. There the Goddards having acquired from the Crown the rather bare and harsh downland, had to seek their wealth by developing the potential of the Swindon vale. The Bishops of Salisbury’s taste for the comforts of Ramsbury emphasises the contrast. While, therefore, the great houses dominated economic life in the village, those who broke out from this dominance earned their Bulldog soubriquet in comparison with the harmless simpletons of the Dab- chick story. In the agricultural riots of the early 19th Century, for example, the rioters, with their Aldbourne neighbours in support, had to be suppressed by the military and many were imprisoned or transported and two executed. Indeed, the development of Ramsbury exemplifies not only its geology but its geography between east and west: wealth coming up the valley from London, and non-conformity, in all senses, from the west. The number of substantial houses on the one hand matches the number of dissenting chapels on the other. In the Civil War the village avoided the involvement of Aldbourne in skirmishing and accom- modating the royal army, but the remarkable collec- tion of Cromwellian armour at Littlecote illustrates the allegiance of the Pembrokes and Pophams against the Royalist strength of the south west. The deplorable state of the church in the last century and the willingness of the Burdetts, among others, to meet the cost led to a major reconstruction. There is a most interesting photograph of the building with the south wall down which shows the capacity of local builders to take on a major task. But most interesung for those who hanker after the chance to take their church to pieces, the old wall was found to include substantial carved stones from the old Saxon abbey, now displayed in the church. In 1974 redevelopment in the village led to the finding of a 150 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Saxon forge site. It is, of course, assumed that most villages in the area were established in Saxon umes, but few are fortunate enough to have positive evi- dence of this to add to the distinction of a ‘cathedral’, three of whose bishops went on to be Archbishops of Canterbury. The forge used iron ore from Seend, showing that what we now see as small communities continued until very recently to import raw materials to manu- facture industrial products locally, basically because of transport difficuties. There seems to be no evidence of river transport at Ramsbury and the major medieval transport task of bringing in limestone to build the church indicates a reasonable route to the west and north, rather than the east. Typically Ramsbury had a substantial agricultural engineering business dependent on imported pig iron unul the 1920s. Mrs Croucher compares the trades represented in the village in the mid-19th Century and their near total disappearance to-day. The number of trades and their scale recognises the relatively large size of the village prior to the industrial revolution. Tanning and the manufacture of leather goods was an imporannt industry. Malting and brewing had to be a local business until road movement was able to bring it from urban breweries without spoiling. It must have played a part in reducing water-borne disease in the days when wells and latrines were too often hardly differentiated, and animals often shared the ponds with their masters on the upland farms. But in Ramsbury at the end of the 18th century it became a substantial business with the local ale compared with Burton and other national centres, leading to a subst- antial consumption in London. Against Ramsbury’s trade in leather goods, Aldbourne produced fustian, the equivalent of the modern jeans; Ramsbury’s iron founding matched Aldbourne’s bells, but we are left to surmise how these specialisations started 1n places remote from the major east-west valley route. The record shows how the major benefactors, such as the Burdetts, contributed to the community, but Mrs Croucher in her detailing of so many local people reminds us that in the end many of the initiatives and their consolidation depended upon ordinary people. Thus, Ramsbury has its Building Society and Aldbourne its coach business, Ramsbury its Horticul- tural Society and Aldbourne its Band, bringing their gifts to a much wider audience than the village. The seeds were not unique, but different soils affected the flowers. Traditionally reviewers are expected to insert a magisterial criticism trumping the unfortunate author. Mrs Croucher cannot be faulted on the mass of detail she records in her text and tables; these are the stuff of history and will remain invaluable to the successor she visualises in another hundred years. But she does seem to have fallen for the Littlecote guides patter on the ‘dreadful’ case of ‘wild’ Darrell and the new born child cast on the fire. C.E. Long in Volume VI of WAM demolishes the story as skilful propag- anda. Similarly she also allows Henry Wilson, the Ramsbury Butcher, to take the blame for the disap- pearance of Snap, once a minor part of Woodsend hamlet in Aldbourne. The picture is again largely propaganda with the added interest that Wilson sued the local MP for slander and won hands down. M. Weaver Smith in WAM volume 57 assesses the facts but the ‘story’ still lives and inspired a recent study by Kenneth Watts who comes to much the same conclusion. Wilson was not “The Butcher of Snap’: but local history would hardly be ‘popular’ without a residue culled from the more irresponsible press of the past. These are not blemishes but pepper and salt to a well told tale. Mrs Croucher is to be congratulated on making this the definitive Ramsbury reference source. It is also essential reading for local historians working in neighbouring areas and should encourage others to try their hand at a similarly comprehensive approach. People from Aldbourne like to look down on Ramsbury — from a few feet further up the valley — but Mrs Croucher has once again reminded us that Ramsbury has a distinguished past and a worthy historian to put us on our mettle to do better. ANDREW SEWELL Rodney Legg (ed.). Stonehenge Antiquaries. Sher- borne: Dorset Publishing, 1986. 179 pages, plus 12 folding illustrations. £9.95 (paperback). Rodney Legg has had the idea of collecting together the antiquaries’ ideas about Stonehenge into a book which would add up, as the blurb puts it, to ‘Nine hundred years of fantastic theories concerning Brita- in’s foremost national monument, brought together as a bizarre compilation of archaeological nonsense.’ The chance to quote at length should make it a comple- ment to Michaei Balfour’s Stonehenge and its Mysteries and my Stonehenge Complete, two recent books which have used a narrative framework which can give each antiquary only a few paragraphs of selective reference and quotation. Most of the work of this was done nearly two hundred years ago, when the Salisbury booksellers Easton’s published a guidebook compilation as a crib for tourists, collecting the best-known conjectures REVIEWS about Stonehenge, from Geoffrey of Monmouth to Camden, Stukeley, and the then-modern authority, Richard Colt Hoare of Stourhead. Legg reprints in this book the 1815 edition of Easton’s guide, which makes up a third of its length. He adds a small selection of other Stonehenge pieces. First is a seventeenth-century squib, the anonymous A Fool’s Bolt soon shott at Stonage, and the reasons why he identifies its author as Robert Gay, who was vicar of Nettlecome by Somerset in 1643. Then comes John Aubrey’s account from Monumenta Britannica, as published in Legg’s edition a few years ago, and a piece from the Gentleman’s Magazine of 1756 that proves the stones of Stonehenge were not sarsens from the Marlborough downs, but cast in some artificial concrete. The antiquaries end with what an early- Victorian antiquary thought of a late pre-Victorian antiquary’s views on Stonehenge. For the rest — none of them antiquaries — we are given a newspaper ‘interview with Thomas Hardy at the time Stonehenge seemed in danger of being sold to America, a contemporary polemic against the fencing of Stonehenge in 1901, and a matching polemic by Rodney Legg against the closing of the centre of Stonehenge to public access in 1980. The book ends with twelve reproductions of Stonehenge engravings, from seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. So this is a most partial and individual compilation from the vast Stonehenge literature, and whether you like it or not depends very much on whether you like Mr Legg’s choice. It does not suit the taste of this particular Stonehenge buff. If you wanted to be thorough, republishing the major texts that narrate the views taken by the learned of all ages, you can do much better than to reprint a jobbing bookseller’s collection from 1815. (And why bother with the Gentleman’s Magazine extract, when most of its text recapitulates Stukeley, as already reprinted a few pages before it?). If you wanted the ‘Bizarre compil- ation of archaeological nonsense’ that the cover pro- mises, then there are things ancient and modern to be found which are very much odder than what is given here. Of course, there are all sorts of marvellous phrases and fragments — John Aubrey’s talk of ‘vast perennial memorials’ [the stone circles of Britain], Benjamin Martin’s plaint that he ‘was obliged with a Hammer to Labour hard three Quarters of and Hour to get but one Ounce and half’ of powder off the stones, Thomas Hardy’s idea of preserving Stonehenge with shelter- belts of close-planted trees. These compensate for the _ overall feeeling the book gives me, of a quite miscel- _laneous compendium, put together more with enthu- 151 siasm than with a clear order, and in a manner which is itself antiquarian. The extracts are reproduced, not clearly, from original editions if these seemed suitable, and the book — including the engravings — printed on a rather soft paper, so the whole is neither handsome nor easy to read; and it is by no means inexpensive. CHRISTOPHER CHIPPINDALE Mary Delorme. Curious Wiltshire. Ex Libris Press £4.95 paperback, Bradford-on-Avon. An American visitor to Wiltshire was recently over- heard to ask ‘how did they know where to dig to find those White Horses?’. White Horses are one of the curious aspects of the County of Wiltshire that Mary Delorme has chosen for this book. The other subjects are Watermeadows, Sarsen Stones, Dew Ponds, Blind Houses and Tithe barns. In bringing together these distinct and unrelated topics, the author has certainly picked subjects worthy of discourse but unpublished in easily accessible form. The cover of this book shows a fine colour photograph of the Cherhill White Horse with sheep grazing peacefully in the foreground. One anticipates good things to come. The six subject areas are separated into individual chapters, and each chapter is illustrated with some interesting half-tones. It is a shame that the interior view of the Bradford-on-Avon barn which supposes to show the roof structure has not been illuminated sufficiently for this result. The general view of Tis- bury Tithe Barn is taken at such an angle as to give no indication of its true dimensions. The maps which precede each chapter are adequate to locate the sites of tithe barns and blind houses but serve little purpose elsewhere. The quality of the line drawn illustrations is however decidedly poor. The diagram of the oper- ation of the watermeadows is scrappy whilst that showing the timber structure of tithe barns would have benefited from the use of a ruler and the advice of an architectural historian. The text of ‘Curious Wiltshire’ is written somewhat in the florid style of the romantic novelist and is in fact preceded by a Dramatis Personae. The frequent use of quoted passages and an extensive bibliography indicates that the author has read widely on the subjects. Yet one is inevitably left with the feeling that there is very little knowledge or depth of understan- ding of these topics. This feeling is reinforced as Mary Delorme describes William Stukeley merely as ‘a householder’ of Avebury. That she is unaware of his stature as the foremost antiquary of his day and the 152 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE source of our most valuable information on Avebury is an unforgivable error. To add insult to injury she even manages to mis-spell his name. There is a tendency for repetition, most noticeably in the various descriptions of the making of the watermeadows or in the use of the word ‘chill’ used on four separate occasions in less than one page to describe the inside of a blind house. The author is prone to add personal asides within the text and flights of verbal fancy. In discussing the lock-up in the Yelde Hall in Chippenham the author says ‘Unusually, the ceiling is only timber; however, recalling the rough umbers of tithe barns which bid fair to complete a thousand years in situ, perhaps one should rescind the word “‘only”’ ’. The ceiling is timber because of the nature of the Yelde Hall, and the use of ‘only’ in the first instance was quite unnecessary. The result is neither a history book nor a guide book and the potentially useful collation of inform- ation is hampered by the lack of an index. This book is a considerable disappointment and misses the opportunity to answer many of the often asked ques- tions on curious Wiltshire. IAN EDELMAN J.H. Bettey. Wessex from AD 1000. xiv +320 pages (Longman), 1986, £19.95 Hardback. £10.95 Paper- back. Wessex is fortunate that one of the first in what is not unfairly described by the publishers as an ‘ambitious new series’ deals with the medieval and later history of the country bounded by Bristol, Reading, Ports- mouth and — well, Dorset had no big-town equivalent unul the remarkable growth of Bournemouth as a resort in the second half of the nineteenth century, one of the consequences of railway travel. The author of the book is a Senior Lecturer in the Extra-Mural Department of Bristol University, and will be well known to many WAM readers both because of his lectures and his many books and articles. Dr Bettey’s own research has centred on the Tudor and Stuart periods, and he writes particularly well about the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. To the Middle Ages, he is a safe guide, though there are minor quibbles: alternative theories exist to account for the plan of Devizes (p. 56), the pottery industry at Crockerton is known from 13th-century documents and a late 16th-century kiln, so is more than just late medieval (p.117 — and there is nothing on earlier medieval kilns, Westbury, Potterne, Lav- erstock etc.), and vernacular architecture receives no mention. Interesting as Dr Bettey is about the immediate post-medieval period, the region’s fluctuating fortunes in the 18th and 19th centuries are perhaps more significant in terms of social pressures and change; Wiltshire’s declining cloth industries threw even greater emphasis upon agriculture; apart from the railway works at New Swindon, engineering was principally for agricultural equipment, and the new industries were concerned with food-processing. Most other counties were developing a broader base. Such over-dependence is sull causing Wiltshire problems in the 1980s. Dr Bettey’s book brings the story up to the 1970s, and everyone who reads it will be grateful to him for such a lucid exposition of the processes that have caused the Wessex region to be in the position that it is in to-day. DAVID A. HINTON The register of Thomas Langton, bishop of Salis- bury 1485-93, edited by D.P. Wright for the Canter- bury and York Society, part CXLVII, vol. LXXIV, privately printed, 1985, xxiv + 198 pages. Obtainable from Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, Uni- versity of York, St Anthony’s Hall, York YO] 2PW. £10.00 plus post and package. The episcopal career of Thomas Langton culminated in his election as archbishop of Canterbury on 22 January 1501, a dignity to which he had been nomi- nated by Henry VII during the previous year. His office was never confirmed, however, for he fell victim to the plague and died five days later. A learned canonist and diplomat his previous appointments had included the bishoprics of St Davids (1483-5), Salis- bury (1485-93) and Winchester (1493-1501). His rapid growth in the royal favour is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that, as a supporter of Richard III who had elevated him to the see of Salisbury, he was arrested shortly after the Battle of Bosworth and put in the custody of Peter Courtenay, bishop of Exeter and keeper of the privy seal. Courte- nay subsequently had oversight of his charge’s temporalities and extensive patronage, though Lan- gton was still free to exercise his episcopal functions albeit in a curtailed fashion. Despite his situation it says much for Langton that late in 1494 he appears as - one of the seven bishops among the forty members of the king’s great council. His rapid promotion undoubtedly owed as much to his own ability, and probably personal charm, as it did to the royal magnanimity and shrewdness. REVIEWS This edition of the Salisbury register shows Lang- ton to have been busy and assiduous throughout his episcopate, both in the administration of a large diocese and in the prosecution of heresy. Its short but well-researched introduction describes its subject’s life and career, together with an account of the manuscript and a brief discussion regarding clerical pensions during the late Middle Ages. Against the view that meagre pensions were extremely common in this period, an analysis of the evidence for the diocese of Salisbury leads to the conclusion that they were in fact ‘rather rare, affecting only perhaps 4% of all benefices’. Appendices contain additional acta not found in the register, a sketch-map of the diocese, and the itinerary of Langton whose principal residences were Ramsbury, Edington, Woodford, Sherborne, and Sonning in Berkshire. The frequent occurrence of Ramsbury in the itinerary suggests a predilection for the place. Langton visited London but rarely, staying at his official house in Fleet Street, and then usually in obedience to summonses to parliament or convo- cation. One suspects on the whole that Langton preferred the country life. In addition to the appendices are tables of benefices resigned or exchanged and clergy pensions, an index of persons and places, and a subject index. Register entries are assigned consecutive numbers in sequence of folio and are given in abstract, apart from entries in English, which are reproduced in full. There is littke to comment with regard to the institutions and ordinations in the register. Notable is the collation of John Gunthorpe, the humanist dean of Wells, to the canonry and prebend of Bitton in Salisbury cathedral (entry 365). Gunthorpe also held the prebend of Alton Borealis for a while (entry 427). The only errors found so far in the volume occur in _ the index and in a few of the ordination titles (entries 579-81). Amesbury was neither Augustinian nor at this period an abbey, for since its refoundation in 1177 it had been a dependent priory of the Benedic- une house of Fontevrault. Among the memoranda an unnamed Irish Francis- can is recorded as having produced false papal bulls (entry 479), while a renegade Benedictine, Miles Salley of Abingdon, had been imprisoned for the crime of /ése-majesté, but later restored to his monas- _ tery on supplication to the king (entry 475). An important liturgical entry is the mandate of the bishop of London rehearsing a decreee of the archbishop of Canterbury ordaining observance of the feast of the ‘Transfiguration throughout the southern province on 7 August, presumably a mistake for 6 August (entry 448). Perhaps the most interesting memoranda are the 153 heresy detections, most of which relate to the Thames Valley and Newbury area, a notorious region of Lollard agitation in the north-east of the diocese. As a resident prelate Langton was assiduous in_ his attempts to expunge heresy in the diocese to judge by the increase in prosecutions during his episcopate. The irregular beliefs brought to light by the detec- tions range from the usual heterodoxies such as those concerning transubstantiation (entries 419, 486, 490, 501 and 503), baptism and the priesthood (entries 484, 486 and 488), and images of saints and _pil- grimages (entries 484, 486, 495, 497, 501 and 503); to the obscure wherein the Lord’s Prayer was said to be the prayer of the devil (entry 459), and St Peter was declared to have become a priest but a little before his death, receiving the tonsure of Simon Magus (entry 486). One Richard Lyllyngston of Castle Combe had wished all churches in Christendom to be in the midst of hell (entry 499). Master of the pot parliament Lyllyngston was also bold enough to boast that ‘whan so ever was eny prechyng or techyng of the word of god in the pulpyte I wold contrary hit atte alehouse’. Another heretic, Alice Hignell of Newbury, confessed that ‘when devote Cristen people be offering their candels to the ymage of seint Erasme I have wold I had an hatchet in my hand and wer behynde theim to knoke theim on the heddis . . . willing and wysshing all tho Imagys that stondith in void placis of the church wer in my yarde at home havyng an axe in my hand to hewe theim to sethe my mete and to make my potte to boyle’ (entry 495). The register of Bishop Langton allows insight into the organisation and affairs of a large diocese a generation or so before the Reformation when Alice Hignell and her kind would have been in their element, depriving posterity of much of its spiritual and arustic heritage. A cultivated and capable prelate whose diligence is reflected in the pages of this competent and carefully researched edition, one won- ders what sort of archbishop Langton might have been had he lived. WILLIAM SMITH M. Coatts and E. Lewis (eds.): Heywood Sumner: Artist and Archaeologist 1853 — 1940. Winchester City Museum, 1986. ISBN 0 86135 009 X. 64 pages, illustrated throughout. £6.50. 75 Hyde Street, Winchester. B. Cunliffe (ed.): Heywood Sumner’s Wessex. Roy Gasson Associates, 1985. ISBN 0 948495 01 4. 159 pages, illustrated throughout. £10.95. As an artist, Heywood Sumner lays few claims to 154 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE greatness. He was versatile and technically compe- tent, but rarely strayed beyond the field of the lesser arts, the ‘decorative’ arts for whose brief renaissance William Morris had been largely responsible. In Sumner’s work the stamp of Morris is everywhere evident. As an archaeologist, Heywood Sumner does not figure much amongst the pioneers of the discipline: he ‘was not an innovator nor did his work add signifi- cantly to the development of British Archaeology’. Sumner put the Pitt-Rivers methodology into action, but this was as a devotional token of homage; he took it no further. These admissions of modesty being made, it might be asked why the man has been thought worthy of commemoration prior to the half-centenary of his death, with a handsome exhibition of his work touring the West Country — it is the catalogue that is reviewed here -— and an _ elegantly produced volume anthologising extracts from his considerable, but now mostly forgotten written output? Partly, of course, the answer lies with the current vogue amongst publishers for the revival of turn-of-the-century literary memorabilia, the re-issue of works by honest but essentially minor figures (Richard Jefferies, for example) chronicling an England that has already disappeared or else is fast disappearing. It is true that Heywood Sumner’s Wessex is not our Wessex. His landscapes are patched with hedgerows and spinneys. His fields are tilled by man, ploughshare and horse. There are no ring-roads, no M4, no milk quotas and butter mountains. Rivers flow without chemical scum. Sumner’s main means of getting about was walking: his sole concession to technology here was a bicycle. In short, he belongs to another country, and his love of it was as profound as that evinced by the writings of his sometime contemporary Edward Thomas. The fact that he was not particularly original is irrelevant. One of his last letters speaks of the bombs beginning to drop around his neighbourhood and reporting ‘one hen killed’. The detail is laughable but sobering too: for Heywood Sumner is one of those characters who remind us of what we have lost in the fabric of rural life, and what we stand to lose if we are not careful. Sumner was a child of the Arts and Crafts Move- ment, self-confessedly; but he was also something of an island, a lover of solitude and seclusion. So whilst his art is stylistically strongly conditioned by Morris and Co., his application of it becomes more and more personalised as he grows older and correspondingly fonder of his own company. It is this that affords the chief fascination of the man. The transition from artist to archaeologist was perhaps predictable, given the place where he chose to settle. His natural eye was for landscape. His vaguely Pre-Raphaelite training had encouraged an empathy with Medieval and pre- Medieval Britain. Simply circulating on foot or bicycle in Hampshire he could not go far without ancient earthworks impinging on his vision. It was natural that he should turn to digging them up. He preferred to work alone. Schoolboys occa- sionally joined in, but he was probably relieved to see them go. The Arts and Crafts Movement might be credited for the fastidiousness which he brought to bear upon his hermetic excavations, but equally one might link this with a more general Victorian faith in being able to build up a general picture from many little and perhaps incidental details. Sumner’s oper- ations have a distinct flavour of Sherlock Holmes: he speaks of the ‘zest of detection’, and further states: ‘observation, compassion and earth-delving are our only means of information; and the detective instinct is needed to divine their evidence’. Working alone obviously limited the scale of his projects. If he is known at all today to students of archaeology, it will be for his kiln-excavations in the New Forest. It would be wrong to overstate the usefulness of these excavations, but undergraduates whose minds are buzzing with Thiessen polygons, inter-state polities and diverse mean little Marxist orthodoxies ought just once or twice to look at Excavations in New Forest Pottery Sites (1927). They will find the Roman potters there, filing through deciduous glades with their staffs, and their pack horses loaded with their wares, trotting down to ford a pebbly stream in a clearing. These are shadows, spirits of the place; and Heywood Sumner apprehended them with a real sense of the past in a particular place. ‘We are rooted in Britain’ he writes, ‘and the past life of our own forefathers must always appeal to us in a special and intimate manner.’ Romancing his labours came easily; but in fact he was probably closer to knowing what went on at his sites than many of today’s archaeologists, blinded by their own science. For this alone he deserves belated celebration, but one should not neglect his influence as an archae- ological draughtsman. The dullest sites are a pleasure to look at as recorded by Heywood Sumner; and whether it is acknowledged or not, many attempted to emulate his clear inking style - Mortimer Wheeler amongst them. The sensation that Sumner’s drawings convey is not easy to describe: it is of entering the confines of a special little world, with its own familiar landmarks, haunts and boundaries. There are overtones of Arthur Rackham, and of the illustrations REVIEWS to A.A. Milne: something very cosy and reassuring. I do not say this patronisingly; I wish more archae- ological drawings could be done with such genuine care. But this is a vain hope. Heywood Sumner was nothing if not an individualist. He would have been perplexed by the prevailing mania amongst archae- ologists for conferences: made a member of a number of archaeological bodies, including the Society of Antiquaries, he evidently eschewed the business of professional showmanship and doctrinal propaganda. Nothing in his work is polarised or geometricised. He was simply his own man. So it is fitting that he be accorded this new atten- tion; and he would have been gratified himself by the fine way in which these books have been produced. Bibliophiles will find them a pleasure to handle and possess, and archaeologists should recognise that in parts they are instructive. But spiritually there is something for all of us here. NIGEL SPIVEY Kenneth H. Rogers. Warp and Weft. The Story of the Somerset & Wiltshire Woollen Industry. Barra- cuda Books Limited. Buckingham, 1986. £15.00. Few people nowadays are likely to look upon the West Country as a depressed area, replete with the relics of a derelict industry. But K.H. Rogers in this solidly- based and timely book explains, with much illustra- tive detail, how this is indeed the case, and how the west of England was once the home of a famous clothmaking industry. It developed in the 14th and 15th centuries, enjoyed a golden age of international fame in the 16th, reformed and sull prospered in the 17th and 18th, but wilted under the pressure of technical rivalry in the 19th and now in the 20th has virtually come to a halt. It has however left many a memorial visible for our generation to ponder and often admire, from the perpendicular churches and Tudor manor-houses erected by clothiers of earlier generations to the elegant town mansions put up by their successors of the 17th and 18th centuries at Trowbridge, Bradford and elsewhere, and the more recent factories and warehouses still prominent in some places though nowadays serving a different purpose. On the archaeological aspect of the woollen industry Mr. Rogers is especially knowledgeable, as _ indeed his previous publications testify. His new book contains many vivid prints and other illustrations of _ buildings associated with the woollen industry, including the admirable drawings by his collaborator Alan Andrew — it is a pity that space does not seem to have been available to number and list them. Direct 155 observation has further enabled Mr Rogers to make some points of direct social relevance, such as the link between the first nonconformist chapels and the religious gatherings in workshops behind clothiers’ houses, as at Bradford-on-Avon. Mr Rogers passes skilfully and economically over the early and climacteric years of the woollen industry in the Tudor and Stuart period, thereby leaving himself space sufficient to make excellent use of the business records that survive from the end of the seventeenth century onwards, mostly in his custody at the County Record Office at Trowbrige. They depict a trade whose ups and downs set in motion much social mobility, in either direction: in every gener- ation, there were some clothiers who flourished suf- ficiently to establish themselves in a graceful dwelling- house, while others met with bankruptcy. The reader is given a clear and jargon-free account of the responsibilities of the capitalist clothier in the eight- eenth century, when it rested with him to organise the processes of manufacture, often himself buying the raw materials, and to check the standards of produc- tion and to see to the safe delivery of the end-product at London. In those days, it was stll usual to serve some years of apprenticeship before setting up shop as a clothier, though ambitious men ‘not bred to the trade’ sometimes succeeded in entering it and building up a prosperous business that extended from the purchase of wool from staplers to the dispatch of the completed broadcloths to the Black- well Hall factor whose requirements were apt to be somewhat exacting, and who dominated the London wholesale market. Not surprisingly, one or two exceptionally venturesome clothiers actually tried to by-pass the wholesale market: Mr. Rogers gives us a glimpse of how a Wiltshire clothier in 1745 tried to lessen his costs by cutting out the Blackwell Hall middleman and dealing direct with a London draper. One or two exceptionally venturesome clothiers actu- ally attempted to invade the foreign market them- selves; George Wansey of Warminster shipped his cloths across the Atlantic, and also lost £1,000 through the Lisbon earthquake in 1755. Machinery began to displace the traditional textile handicraft occupations from the mid-eighteenth century, the spinning jenny being in use at Shepton Mallet by 1776, when its introduction was met by rioting, and the gig-mill at Warminster by 1802, with a similar result. By 1839 the power-loom had arrived. But the clothmakers of Yorkshire, with readier access to coal supplies, had the edge over their west country rivals once power-driven machinery had become usual in the textile industry, and the coarse trade had been 156 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE lost to the north even before 1800. Mr Rogers does not neglect the social problems brought by the remorseless progress of technological change in the west country — the distress, the union clubs, the riots. But industrial trouble was not continuous. There was a period of general prosperity in the years from 1700 to 1790, and a final St Martin’s summer in the third quarter of the nineteenth century. Then after further years of decline the last Bradford mill closed in 1905, though at Trowbridge one factory survived until 1982. Mr Rogers’s work is no mere glossy coffee-table book, though some might think that it masquerades as such. It is a clear and trustworthy account of the rise and decline of the east Somerset and Wiltshire broadcloth industry. It is duly equipped with an index, bibliography and a helpful end-map — though not, regrettably, with the footnote references that it deserves. It is a book that should be brought to the knowledge of everyone living in the region, for textile history is embodied not only in the mills, factories and domestic buildings throughout the countryside, but also in the roads, paths and watercourses. It turns up where it might least be anticipated. To cite an instance quoted by Mr Rogers, who could have suspected that the principle underlying the rotary action of the ubiquitous lawn-mower of to-day had been derived from the rotating cutter introduced for the shearing of cloths in the early years of the last century? G.D. RAMSAY Michael Snell. The Clocks and Clockmakers of Salisbury. ISBN 0946418020 £30.00. Hobnob Press, Salisbury. 250 pages casebound. This book is certainly a most important addition to the growing number on countries and towns, and how valuable these volumes are. Even should the makers referred to be already listed in Baillie or Britten, there is seldom the same wealth of detail given. This book, however, is much more than just lists of makers, for it is fleshed out with a great deal of social and biogra- phical detail of the city and its people. It covers a span of some five centuries; for the earliest maker referred to is John Elizaunder 1499. The main text is split into three parts followed by no less than 13 appendices, a glossary and an index. The first main part covers the Salisbury makers, both clock and watch-makers despite the title of the book. Some entries are a few lines, others several pages long for the more important and _ well- documented makers. The Wentworth family, all eight of them, take up nearly twelve pages and Michael Snell points out the difficulties consequent upon a succession of no less than five Thomases, each elder son in turn being named after his father. Baillie gives one Salisbury Wentworth as before 1707, Loomes, in volume 2 of Baillie, gives two more but disagrees with Michael Snell over the date of George’s death. In the 9th Edition of Britten only one is mentioned. Loomes in Early Clockmakers of Great Britain records one of the Thomas Wentworths as working in Salisbury by 1675 and goes part way to complete the story by mention- ning the possibility of another Thomas (Thomas Junior) and mentioning the son George who was apprenticed to John Knibb. Here then is an illustration, if one is needed, of the value of this type of specialist book. Mr Snell is most careful to record the sources of his information, a practice one would think was synonymous with all good scholarship, although is unfortuately not always so. The text, in this section and also somewhat in the next, is reinforced with contemporary articles and advertisements taken from the archives of the local press. Microfilm copies of the Salisbury Fournal right back to 1746 are to be found in the Salisbury Library and we have the distinct impression that Mr Snell read every single page. In the second part, one is again surprised, because of the title of the book, to find details of clock and watchmakers from the rest of South Wiltshire listed alphabetically by village. Part one takes up no less than 117 pages with this second part being about 30 pages in length and so not to be treated lightly. One must not think that a maker in this section cannot be found if his place of work is not known, however, for the general index overcomes this difficulty. The third part deals with ‘Important Local Turret Clocks by Local Makers’. It focusses on the clocks rather than their makers and not unnaturally, the Salisbury Cathedral Clock takes up more than 30 pages. The remainder of this section is covered in about another 60 pages and has a very interesting section on William Monk wherein we stray into Dorset and Wiltshire, for he lived and worked in Berwick St John, in the south-west corner of Wiltshire, and his clocks are to be found in Wiltshire and Dorset. He made lantern clocks, 30 hour clocks, eight day long-case clocks and turret clocks. The turret clocks form an interesting group easily identifi- able. By local standards, Snell says, his output was prolific and no comparable number of clocks remain by any other single maker. The Appendices must be admired. They include REVIEWS Sources, Credits and References, detail references to parts one, two and three, a list of the holdings of the Salisbury Museum, Diocesan Marriage Licences, Bells and and a Bibliography. Other Appendices give the Salisbury Cathedral Clock References, Extracts from the Churchwardens’ Accounts of St Edmund’s and St Thomas’s, the Gillingham Vestry Book 1759- 1800 and a report on the restoration of the Nicholas Snowe Clock written by Sir George White, the well known expert on lantern clocks. Both the index and the glossary are disappointing, the only blemishes on an otherwise excellent book. The glossary betrays Mr Snell’s lack of technical knowledge and the index is mainly limited to makers and place names. The book has, in all, 280 pages. It is lavishly furnished with good quality illustrations, on good 157 paper and well bound. The author Michael Snell first became interested in clocks some ten years ago when he purchased a long-case clock by a local maker. His interest in the subject grew, and he subsequently got together with Tony Martin the proprietor of the Salisbury Bookshop and together they planned the book’s publication. Tony Martin owns the Hobnob Press, and this book is its third publication. Two more publications are projected and all from the Hobnob Press have the same local interest. Michael Snell must have felt very fortunate to have met such a man as Tony Martin who is obviously not primarily interested in profit. The price of the book is £30, a further incentive to include it on our bookshelves. RICHARD GOOD 158 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Obituaries Roy Pitman. The death occurred on Wednesday October 8th after a short illness, of Roy Pitman, the well kown local naturalist. Roy Pitman was an example of an increasingly rare type of naturalist. In the field of Natural History he was largely self taught but his accumulated know- ledge, especially of Entomology and Zoology was monumental. He was endowed with a wonderful memory, an acute ability to observe, and a marvellous power to communicate his enthusiasms to other people. A walk in the country with Roy Pitman was an education and a pleasure combined. He was par- ticularly effective as a lecturer in which he made good use of his great skill as a photographer, acquired in the days when nature photography in colour called for a great deal more skill than modern cameras demand. He had also built up over the years that invaluable adjunct to a Natural Historian, a wide network of correspondents and observers. He became widely known for his contribution to the television pro- gramme on the Petersfinger Cuckoos and this was followed by a book summarising his more broadly based activities. He was for many years vice-president of the Salis- bury and District Natural History Society and was a regular contributor to their monthly Bulletin. Readers who were accustomed to send him reports and obser- vations are requested to send them to Mr E. Gange, Belvedere, Southampton Road, Whaddon, so that Roy’s work and contribution to our knowledge of local wildlife may continue. Francis Kenelm Mackenzie Carver, for the past twenty years resident in Wiltshire, and with his wife Peggy, a long standing member of the society, died aged 79 in August, 1986. Educated at Rugby, he later went up to Hertford College, Oxford, where he read History. But while still an undergraduate, a devel- oping interest in old European films led to his decision, when he came down from Oxford, to enter the film industry. His first appointment was with the Welsh Pearson Studios in 1928, but following their closure a year later, he joined the British and Domin- ions Film Studios at Boreham Wood, where he worked under the well known Director of Lighting, F.A. Young, OBE, and subsequently himself became a lighting cameraman. He joined the Territorial Army in 1938, and on the outbreak of hostilities was immediately called up for military service with the Royal Artillery. Through his experience and skills as a film photographer he was subsequently transferred to the Army Film Unit, later serving with the Special Operations Executive. After demobilisation in 1946, he reverted again to his earlier profession, working with Rank Religious films, later becoming Director of Special Effects for J. Arthur Rank until the closure of that department. From here he entered the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, serving in this country and in Germany until his retirement in 1967. It was almost immediately after settling in Wiltshire in 1966 that his association with the Society began, when he undertook responsibility for much of the photographic work needed at the museum. His arrival was a godsend to our limited curatorial staff, always hard pressed to produce the photography required for internal record, and gallery displays, and at the same ume to supply requests from visiting researchers and students. In the years following he freely gave of his time and expertise, happy on any occasion, and always with equable temper, to drive over from his home at Keevil to cope with requests, often on urgent appeal from the curators. In 1969 he began a systematic photographic catalogue intended to serve as a permanent visual record of the Society’s outstanding collections. Such a project could not have been achieved by any one individual, but the sections he did complete, together with the thousands of negatives he accumulated in supplying day to day commissions, he generously presented to the museum. They constitute a valuable and permanent source of reference in the event of loss or damage to archaeological exhibits. But he combined with his work for the society a further notable service to the National Trust, which for a number of years involved him in travelling the county to create a photographic archive of the exhibits housed in the historic houses under their charge. Francis was unassuming to a degree, preferring to arrive at the museum unnoticed, complete the day’s quota of photography, and slip as quietly away. But his sense of humour was constantly apparent, and partner to his enjoyment of the variety and comedy of life and people, qualities also amply shared by his wife OBITUARIES Peggy. It was never surprising to know that for years they both took an active part as organisers and players with the lively dramatic society possessed by the village. To their friends it was but one aspect of an idyllic companionship which endured for fifty-one years. Egbert C. Barnes, who died in early January, was President of the Society for three years from July 1958, being succeeded in 1961 by Mr. E.G.H. Kempson. During his term in office, and at other times, he was very generous to the Society. He left Winchester in 1916, and for the remainder of the War served in the Royal Regiment of Artillery in France and Belgium. Following the War he read Law and practised from 1922 to 1928, but a very serious illness obliged him to retire from his profess- ional life. He was married to his wife, Ruth, in 1934, and for virtually half a century they lived at Hungerdown, Seagry. A house of great charm built at about the end of the First World War, the garden was quite excep- tional, having been designed by Percy Cane early in the 1940s. As the master mind behind it Egbert Barnes had contrived to combine the best features of botanical gardening with those of the decorative, an art which is not easy of achievement, but many of us with similar interests spent long and happy hours in his garden and he in ours, playing what is known as the ‘name game’. 159 Amongst the many offices he filled was that of Vice Chairman of the County Council all through the Second World War, and Chairman of the Finance Committee. He was also a member of the Home Guard, and High Sheriff in 1947. Both he and Ruth were prime movers in the formation of the Wiltshire Natural History Society, which was the precursor of other societies now, latterly, playing such a prominent role in the County. His personal interests embraced art (particularly 20th century art). He was also strongly literate and read a great deal, acquiring any book from a reputable authority on the work of Shakespeare, in which he had a keen interest. He was also an cenologist, as many of us found to our delight when visiting him at Hungerdown. I remember him most particularly for his ready and perceptive wit, which he frequently used as a stalking horse to conceal a keen mind, but never in a malicious fashion. He had a rare gift for public speaking, and those who were sufficiently fortunate to hear one of his after-dinner speeches would not forget it in a hurry. When asking him many years ago how he would wish to be addressed, since I was a generation younger than he, he replied ‘my dear fellow, do call me Egbert’, and then with a twinkle he added ‘if you can possibly bear to do so.’ To many of us he is an easy man to remember with much happiness. Index Abstract of feet of fines, 1377-1509, reviewed, 146. Aldworth, Robert, 91. Amateur and Professional, the, reviewed, 145-6. ampulla, lead medieval (fig.), 143; another, 143; incomplete, 143. Annable F.K., contribution, 46. apothocaries, tokens issued by, 74-9, and see Ferris, Hancock, Macks, Wayte. apse-ended rooms in Roman villas compared, 29-32 and fig. architecture, domestic, see Bewley Court; Maddington Priory. armour, Roman, 131. Avebury, Society’s visit in 1859, 123-4. Axford, Henry, 91, 95-6, 108. Barnes, E.C., obituary, 159. Bayntun, Sir Edward, 93. bead, glass, from Gt. Bedwyn Roman villa, 56. - Bettey, J.H., note on livestock traffic, c17, 133-7; Wessex from AD 1000, reviewed, 152. Bewley Court, Lacock, 63-73. Bishopstrow, Roman coins from, 130-2. _ bone, pins and various objects, 7-19 passim; 128. ~ bones, animal, 7—18 passim; from Box Roman villa, 49; from Gt. Bedwyn Roman villa, 55, 56. borough M.P.s, 91-110 passim. - Borthwick A.M., contribution, 45. - botanical remains, 56. Box, Roman villa excavations, 1967-8, 19-51. - Bradby E., paper on a deadlock in 18c Devizes, 91-110; Seend Heritage, reviewed, 146-8. | Brakspear, H., 68-72. Bratton, excavation at Manor Farm, 125-30. | Briggs, C.S., note on WAS at Silbury Hill, 123-4. Bronze Age, objects, 7—18 passim. bronze objects, see armour, brooch, buckle, chisel, coins, mirror case, pendant, ring, strap-end, terminal, toggle. brooch, disk, 142; Aragonesque, 16; Hod Hill type, 126; iron, from Bratton, 128; La Tene I, 140 (fig.); oval plate, 142; Penannular, 142; Saxon small-long, 142. Browne, M., paper on insectivores in Wilts. Hedgehog, 111-122. buckle, late Roman bronze military, 142 (with fig.). buckle-plate, medieval bronze, 143. Bundy, Franklin/Bundy, Richard, Richard, jun., 108. 95-7, 100-1, 107-8; | calendars, liturgical, 57-62. | Calston, Thomas, 63-5, 72: Joan Chelrey, 64-5. Carver, F.K.M., obituary, 158. Castle Copse, Great Bedwyn, Roman villa, 52-6. cattle, in cl7 farming, 135-7; dealers, 136; drovers, 136-7; imports, 135-6. chalk, carved, 14. Channels to the Past, reviewed, 144—5. Child, Sir Francis, 95-6, 102, 105-6, 109; John, 93, 95-100, 102-8; Robert, 106. Chippindale, C., review by, 150-1. Chisbury. Iron Age fort, 56. chisel, bronze tanged, 140. Clocks and Clockmakers of Salisbury, reviewed, 156-7. Coatts, M. (ed.), Heywood Sumner, reviewed, 153-5. coins, from: Box Roman villa, 44; Bratton, 126; Cunetio, 130-131; Gt. Bedwyn Roman villa, 54, 55, 56; hoard from Bishopstrow, (late Roman), 130-132; hoard from Monkton Farleigh, 132; miscellaneous Roman, 142; gold, stater of Coritani, 141; silver, Epaticcus, 141; irregular Dobunnio, 141; potin, 141. Coleman, Henry, 78. commensality, in hedgehogs, 115. Coupland, L., review by, 146-8. Cox, P., Past in the Pipeline, reviewed, 144. Croucher, B., The Village in the Valley, reviewed, 148—S0. crucibles, from Box villa, 44. Cunliffe, R. (ed.), Heywood Sumner’s Wessex, reviewed, 153-5. Curious Wiltshire, reviewed, 151-2. Darell, William and Elizabeth, 64-5; Sir Edward, 65; Sir George, 65. Dartnall, D.L., paper on Box Roman villa excavations 1967-8, 19-51. Deane, Richard, paper on Maddington Priory, 80-90. Delorme, M., Curious Wiltshire, reviewed, 151-2. Devils Den, Clatford Bottom, 123. Devizes, corporation, 91-110; politics in cl7—18, 91-110. Diston, Josiah, 96-102, 105-9. Dunton, J., Seend Heritage, reviewed, 146-8. earthworks & enclosures, 7-19, passim. Edelman, I., review by, 151-2. Elston, Orcheston, Saxon burials at, 132. Erinaceus europaeus, 111-122. Ernle, Sir Walter, 93, 95, 109. etching, 138-9. Eyles, Francis, 106; Sir John, 93-4, 100, 109; John, 95, 99-102, 108. 162 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE fairs, cattle, 136; horse, 135; sheep, 133-5. Ferris, Elias, 74-5. Filkes, Jonathan, 96-7, 104, 106—7. finger-ring, Hill Deverill, 137. Fisher, C., paper on Box Roman villa excavations 1967-8, 19-51. flint implements, 7—18 passim; mesolithic, 21, 36. floor tiles, medieval decorated, 143. Fowle, Sir Thomas, 94. furniture, medieval, 65-8. glass, from Box Roman villa, 44, 48. see also bead. Good, R., review by, 156~7. Great Bedwyn (Castle Copse), Roman villa, 52-6. Hancock, John, 75-6. harness, attachment, or brooch, bronze with coral (fig.), 141. Harvey, B. and R., paper on history of Bewley Court, Lacock, 63-8. Hazelbury, tesselated pavement, 33. hedgehogs, 111-122. Hele, John, 78. hibernation, of hedgehogs, 120. Highworth, History of, reviewed, 146-8. Hill, Jonathan, 78. Hill Deverill, inscribed finger-ring from, 137. Hiller/Hillier, Richard, 93-4, 96-101, 104, 107-8. Hinton, D.A., review by, 152. Hodges, R.A., contribution, 32. Hope, Edward, jun., 93-4, 108; Richard, 93-108. horses, breeding in cl7, 135; dealers, 135. Hostetter, E., paper on Castle Copse, Great Bedwyn, Roman villa, 52-6. How, Sir Richard, 99. Howe, T.N., paper on Castle Copse, Great Bedwyn, Roman villa, 52-6. Hungerford, Sir Giles, 93. Hurst, H.R., paper on Box Roman villa excavations 1967-8, 19-51. Hutchinson, J., Seend Heritage, reviewed, 146-8. Hyde, Robert, 99. iron objects, 7-19 passim; 47; see also brooch, knife, shears. Jacobi, R.M., contribution, 42. Johnson, George, 93. Kempson, E.G.H., note on inscribed finger-ring, 137. Kenfield, J.F., paper on Castle Copse, Great Bedwyn, Roman villa, 52-6. Kirby, J.L., Abstract of feet of fines, 1377-1509, reviewed, 146. knife, iron medieval, 134; Saxon, from Elston, 132. Lacock, Bewley Court, 63-73. Legge, R., Stonehenge Antiquaries, reviewed, 150-1. Levine, P.J.A., The Amateur and the Professional, Anti- quarians, Historians, and Archaeologists, reviewed, 145-6. Lewis, E. (ed.), Heywood Sumner, reviewed, 153-5. Littlecote, 64-5. Littleton Drew, 123-4. livestock traffic in Wilts., c17, 133-7. Locke, John, 101, 108. Long, Sir James, 102; William, 102, 106. loom-weights, 7-19 passim. Lucket,, L., note on Manor Farm, Bratton, 125-30. Lugbury, 123-4. Lukis, W., sketch by, 123-4. Macks, Edmond, 76-7. McVicar, J.B., review by, 145-6. Maddington Priory, Shrewton, survey and report, 80-90. Manor Farm, Bratton, 125-30. martyrologies, 57-61. Merewether, Francis, 95n., John, 106, 108. Methuen, John, 94-6, 98, 108-9; Paul, 98, 102, 105, 109. Meyrick, Owen, his collection of prehistoric material, 7-18. mirror case, medieval lid of, 142; another, 143. molluscs, Roman, 49. Monkton Farleigh, coin hoard from, 132. Mosaics, 14, 22-25, 27-28 33, 39, 46. Nicholas, John, 106; Robert, 95-8, 101, 104, 106-8. Norden, John, 91. Paradice, Ambrose, 105; Francis, 94-5. Past in the Pipeline, reviewed, 144. pendant, gilt-bronze, medieval, 143; harness, medieval, 143; lead, medieval, 143. Pengelly, H.W., contribution, 45. Pitman, R., obituary, 158. Pitts, L.F., contribution, 147. pottery, Bronze age, 7-18 passim; 140; Iron Age, 7-18 passim; Late Bronze Age, (Deverel-Rimbury) 7-18 passim; Medieval, 7-18 passim; Neolithic, 7-18 passim; 21, 36, 44; Roman, 7-18 passim; 19-51 passim; 52-56; Saxon, 7-18 passim; 48. psalter, The Amesbury, 57; the Wilton, 57-62. Pynsent, Sir William, 94, 99. Ramsay, G.D., review by, 155-6. register, archaeological, for 1985, (selectively indexed only), 140-3. Register of Thomas Langton, 1485-93, reviewed, 152-3. rings, medieval, inscribed, 137; silver, 143; with glass setting, 143. road casualties, animal, 118, 120-2. Robinson, Paul, note on Bishopstrow coin hoard, 130-2; note on Saxon burial at Elston, 132. Rodwell, Kirsty , paper on Maddington Priory, 80-90. Rogers, K.H., Warp and Weft, reviewed, 155-6. Sadleir, Franc.., 7 196-8. St. John. Yenry, 102, 106. saints in medieval worship, Alphege, 58; Birinus, 58; Birnstan, 58-9; Edburga, 58; Edith, 57, 60; Grimbald, INDEX 58-9; Hedda, 58-9; Iwi, 57, 60; Judoc, 58; Paternus, 60; Werberg, 60; Wulsin, 60. Samian (stamped), 16; and see pottery, Roman. Saunders, P., Channels to the Past, reviewed, 144-5. sculpture, Hunter God, from Box Roman villa, 29. seasonal activity, in hedgehogs, 116, 120. Seend Heritage, reviewed, 146-8. settlements, 7-18, passim. Sewell, A., review by, 148-50. shears, medieval, 142. sheep, in cl7 farming, 133-5; dealers, 134; sales of, 133-5. Shrewton, see Maddington Priory. Silbury Hill, Society’s visit in 1859, 123-4. Slocombe, P.M., paper on architecture of Bewley Court, Lacock, 68-73. Smith, Rev. A.C., 124. Smith, I.F., contribution, 44. Smith, R., Past in the Pipeline, reviewed, 144. Smith, W., paper on the Winchester saints in the Wilton psalter, 57-62; review by, 152-3. Snell, M., Clocks & Clockmakers of Salisbury, reviewed, 156-7. Spencer, Charles, 3rd. Earl of Sunderland, 98, 101-2, 104. spindle whorl, lead, 128. Spivey, N., review by, 153-5. — Stevens, William, 78. stone, building materials from Box Roman villa, 19-51 passim; 46. Stonehenge Antiquaries, reviewed, 150-1. _ strap-end, bronze, several, 142. - Street, Benjamin, 102-8; Stephen, 106, 108. Sunderland, Earl of, see Spencer. Sutton, James, 95-7, 103-5, 107-8; James, jun., 106, 108. _ Swanton, G., paper on the Owen Meyrick collection, 7-18; | reviews by, 144-5. Talbot, Sir John, 93-108. 163 Tanner, Heather, 137; Robin, lecture on his work as an artist, 137-9. Tatton-Brown, V.A., contributions, 44, 48. Tayler, John, 92. tempera painting, 138. terminal or pin head, bronze enamelled, 141. tesserae, see mosaics. Thurnam, Dr., 124. toggle, Iron Age, bronze, enamelled and engraved, 140-41 & fig. tokens, trade, 74-9. Trenchard, William, 94. villa, Roman, at Box, 19-51; at Gt. Bedwyn (Castle Copse), 52-56. Village in the Valley, reviewed, 148-50. Vince, A., contribution, 48. wall-plaster, Roman, 47. Warminster, Roman finds near, 130-2. Warp and Weft: the Somerset and Wiltshire Woollen Industry, reviewed, 155-6. Wayte, William, 77. Webb, Richard, 91; Thomas Richmond, 96-102, 105-9. Wessex from AD 1000, reviewed, 152. West Kennet long barrow, Society’s visit, 1859, 123-4. Whigs and Tories, in Devizes, 18c, 91-110. Whittet, T.D., paper on Wilts. apothecaries’ tokens, 74-9. Wilton, abbey, 57; psalter, 57-62. Wiltshire sites, sketches of, 123-4. Winchester, religious houses and their calendars, 58-61; saints, see Smith, W. Wright, D.P. (ed.), Register of Thomas Langton, reviewed, 152-3. Wroughton History, reviewed, 146-8. ' ; = 5 ; f —. / ) { a 7 2 ) ‘ = : a! . x & i ears : z ar = ; , - ' ~ 1 af ‘ ' \ Th 3, = r . . r { / ' \. i he ne (. aS << ~ ae ie any aS coer? eerie, of en periee recente ; eto Sonat shoe Scheie Toe, ~ 2 : 3 ~ petro aoe Z eee eee Rees tr Roe et 5 a oteemy tae oa ae Cees seeps SATS a ag a ae sieee ae