WILTSHIRE “STUDIES The Wiltshire [Neat tcelorater! and Natural History Magazine Volume 96 2003 CAI The Wiltshire Archaeological : and Natural History Magazine Volume 96 2003 Published by The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society 41 Long Street, Devizes, Wilts. SN10 INS Telephone 01380 727369 Fax 01380 722150 email wanhs@wiltshireheritage.org.uk Founded 1853 Company No. 3885649 Registered with Charity Commission No. 1080096 ~ VAT No. 140 2791 91 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE VOLUME 96 (2003) ISSN 0262 6608 © Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society and authors 2003 Hon. Editors: Joshua Pollard, BA, PhD, and John Chandler BA, PhD. Hon. Local History Editor: James Thomas, BA, PhD, FRHistS. Hon. Natural History Editor: Michael Darby, PhD, FRES Hon. Reviews Editor: Michael Marshman, ALA. Editorial Assistant: Lorna Haycock, BA, PhD, Dip.ELH, Cert Ed. We acknowledge with thanks publication grants for this volume from the following bodies: Department of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum (Venner-Gren Fund), for ‘Beaker Presence at Wilsford 7’, by Humphrey Case; English Heritage, for the colour pages supporting ‘From Pit Circles to Propellers: Recent Results from Aerial Survey in Wiltshire’, by Martyn Barber, Damian Grady and Helen Winton; Salisbury District Council, for ‘Neolithic Pits at the Beehive’, by Michael Heaton; Messrs Morrows (on behalf of a client), for ‘AWiltshire ‘Bog Body’?: Discussion of a Fifth/Sixth Century AD Burial in the Woodford Valley’, by Jacqueline I. McKinley; and to the Marion Browne Legacy, for a contribution towards the publishing costs of the natural history articles included in this volume. 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. The cover title “Wiltshire Heritage Studies’ (volume 93) and ‘Wiltshire Studies’ (volume 94 onwards) should not be used in citations. The title of the journal, The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, remains unchanged. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Society and authors. Typeset in Plantin by John Chandler and produced for the Society by Avonset, 11 Kelso Place, Upper Bristol Road, Bath BA1 3AU Printed in Great Britain Contents Frederick Kenneth Annable — ‘Ken’ — BA, FSA, FMA, 1922-2002: a Memoir, by Nicholas Thomas (Curator 1952-1957) A Wiltshire ‘Bog Body’?: Discussion of a Fifth/Sixth Century AD Burial in the Woodford Valley, by Jacqueline I. McKinley The Eyes and Ears of the Lord: Seventeenth-Century Manorial Stewards in South Wiltshire, by J.H. Bettey Excavation of Roman Features and Deposits on the Outskirts of Cunetio (Mildenhall), Marlborough, in 1997, by Nicholas Cooke, with contributions by Moira Laidlaw and Jacqueline I. McKinley Etruscan and Other Figurines from Avebury and Nearby, by Paul Robinson The Trees of Savernake Forest, by Jack Oliver Islam in East Knoyle: George Aitchison and the National School 1870-1873, by Elisabeth Darby Neolithic Pits at the Beehive, by Michael Heaton, with contributions by Mark Corney, Sheila Hamiton-Dyer, Peter Bellamy, Peter Higgins and Ros Cleal Dragonflies in Wiltshire - Odonata recording past, present and future, by Steve Covey The Chantry of the Holy Trinity at Hungerford, by Norman Hidden Malmesbury Abbey and Late Saxon Parochial Development in Wiltshire, by Jonathan Pitt The Wiltshire Natural History Forum 1974-2002, by Michael Darby ‘False and Unjust Slanders’: The Duchess of Beaufort and her Daughter Quarrel over the Seymour Estate, by Molly McClain ‘A Feast of Reason and a Flow of Soul’: The Archaeological Antiquarianism of Sir Richard Colt Hoare, by David Robinson Spiders of the Family Tetragnathidae (Araneae) in Wiltshire, by Martin Askins The Use of Beetles in Evaluating the Saproxylic Status of Savernake Forest, by Michael Darby The Friendship between Sir John Thynne junior and John, Baron Stourton of Stourton in Wiltshire: an Account of the Provenance of the Portrait of the 10th Baron Cobham and his Family at Longleat House, by Kate Harris 19 54 63 69 77 89 98 111 129 137 143 From Pit Circles to Propellers: Recent Results from Aerial Survey in Wiltshire, by Martyn Barber, Damian Grady and Helen Winton Beaker Presence at Wilsford 7, by Humphrey Case, with contributions by Paul Robinson and Alison Hopper-Bishop ‘A Family Chapel . . . to an Archdruid’s Dwelling’: an investigation into the stone circle at Winterbourne Bassett, Wiltshire, by Andrew David, David Field, Joerg Fassbinder, Neil Linford, Paul Linford and Andrew Payne Notes and Shorter Contributions Recent work on St Laurence’s Chapel, Bradford-on-Avon: an interim report, by David A. Hinton From Tiny Seeds . . . a Correction, by Antoinnette Rawlings A Bronze Genius figure from Badbury, by Bernard Phillips and Martin Henig Thomas Twining’s Roman Avebury, by Rick Peterson Early Dog Collars in Wiltshire Museums, by Kenneth Rogers and Paul Robinson A Newly Discovered Round Barrow and Proposed Dispersed Linear Cemetery at Boscombe Down West, by Bob Clarke and Colin Kirby A mid Saxon Disc-Brooch from Upavon, by David A. Hinton Clack Mount, by Steven Hobbs A Curious Roof Modification at no. 47 The Close, Salisbury, by Michael Heaton Fir Clump Stone Circle — a correction, by Aubrey Burl The Glow-worm (Lampyris noctiluca, (Linnaeus, 1758)) in Wiltshire: an Update, by Michael Darby Steam Cultivation in Wiltshire during the First World War, Peter Donovan A Romano-British figurine of Mercury from near Durnford, by Martin Henig Breton Melchi, ‘Prince-Hound’, and Melksham, by Andrew Breeze Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire 2001 Reviews John Bowen, The Story of Malmesbury, part 1: 500 BC - 1600 AD, by Kay S. Taylor The Picture Book of Malmesbury, by Kay S. ‘Taylor Reis, John (ed.), Plenderleath’s Memoranda of Cherhill, by Michael Marshman Tim Couzens, Hand of Fate: the History of the Longs, Wellesleys and the Draycot Estate in Wiltshire, by Ken Rogers Index, by Philip Aslett 148 161 195 206 206 240 The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society The Society was founded in 1853. Its activities include the promotion of the study of archaeology (including industrial archaeology), history, natural history and architecture within the county; the issue of a Magazine, and other publications, and the maintenance of a Museum, Library, and Art Gallery. There is a programme of lectures and excursions to places of archaeological, historical and scientific interest. The Society’s Museum contains important collections relating to the history of man in Wiltshire from earliest times to the present day, as well as the geology and natural history of the county. It is particularly well known for its prehistoric collections. The Library houses a comprehensive collection of books, articles, pictures, prints, drawings and photographs relating to Wiltshire. The Society welcomes the gift of local objects, printed material, paintings and photographs to add to the collections. The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine is the annual journal of the Society and is issued free to its members. For information about the availability of back numbers and other publications of the Society, enquiry should be made to the Curator. Publication by the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society does not imply that the Society endorses the views expressed; the factual content and the opinions presented herein remain the responsibility of the authors. Notes for Contributors Contributions for the Magazine should be on subjects related to the archaeology, history or natural history of Wiltshire. While there is no fixed length, papers should ideally be under 7,000 words, though longer papers will be considered if of sufficient importance. Shorter, note length, contributions are also welcome. All contributions should be typed/ word processed, with text on one side of a page only, with good margins and double spacing. Language should be clear and comprehensible. Contributions of article length should be accompanied by a summary of about 100 words. Please submit two copies of the text (with computer disk if possible) and clear photocopies of any illustrations to the editors at the Museum, 41 Long Street, Devizes, Wiltshire, SN10 1NS. A further copy should be retained by the author. The editors will be pleased to advise and discuss with intending contributors at any stage during the preparation of their work. When submitting text on disk, Word or Rich Text Format files are preferred. Contributors are encouraged to seek funding from grant-making bodies towards the Society’s publication costs wherever possible. Referencing: The Harvard System of referencing (author, date and page, in parentheses within the text) is preferred: e.g. *... one sheep and one dog lay close together (Clay 1925, 69)’. References in footnotes should be avoided if at all possible. Only give references which are directly applicable, repeating as little as possible. All references cited in the paper should be listed in the bibliography using the following style (with the journal name spelled in full, and the place and publisher of books/ monographs given): For a paper: PITTS, M.W. and WHITTLE, A. 1992.The development and date of Avebury. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 203-12. (Note that in citations Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine is abbreviated to WANHM) For a book or monograph: SMITH, I.F., 1965, Windmill Hill and Avebury: Excavations by Alexander Keiller, 1925-39. Oxford: Clarendon Press For a paper in a book or monograph: FITZPATRICK, A., 1984, ‘The deposition of La Téne metalwork in watery contexts in Southern England’, in B. Cunliffe and D. Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, 178-90. Oxford: University Committee for Archaeology Endnotes can be used for specific information that cannot otherwise be comfortably incorporated in the main body of the text. Illustrations need to be clear and easily reproducible, the format following that of the Magazine. If possible, all original artwork should not exceed A3 before reduction. Drawings should be produced on drafting film or high quality white paper using black ink. Detail and lettering should not be so small that it will become lost in reduction. Mechanical lettering (dry transfer or computer generated) is preferred over hand lettering. Photographs should be supplied as good quality black and white prints, and transparencies and colour prints avoided wherever possible. Digitised images may be supplied as computer files in certain formats: please seek advice from the editors. Original illustrations and photographs should only be sent once a contribution has been accepted. Offprints: Ten offprints of each article will be given free (to be shared between joint authors). Offprints are not given for notes and reviews. WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY BOARD OF TRUSTEES (from 16 November 2002) Chairman Lt. Col. C Chamberlain Deputy Chairmen Mrs G Swanton, BA, Dip.Ad.Ed. J HThomas BA, PhD, FRHistS Other Elected Trustees Miss A Arrowsmith BSc B K Davison OBE, BA, FSA, MIFA Mrs W P Lansdown W A Perry (Hon Treasurer) D Roseaman CA Shell, MA, MMet, PhD E Stanford, FRBS JSS Stewart BSc, MB, ChB, FRCS MJH Stiff BA, DPhil Nominated Trustees A Mills (Member, Devizes Town Council) P.R. Saunders, BA, FSA, FMA, FRSA (Director, Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum) Mrs J Triggs (Member, Kennet District Council) Two Vacancies (Wiltshire County Council) In attendance: T Craig (Wiltshire County Council Heritage Services Manager) COLLECTIONS TRUSTEES (from 3 March 2001) RC Hatchwell C Meays Miss V Novarra OFFICERS Curator P H Robinson, PhD, FSA, AMA Assistant Curator and Keeper of Natural Sciences A S Tucker, BSc, AMA Sandell Librarian and Archivist Mrs L. Haycock, BA, PhD, Dip ELH, Cert.Ed. Outreach Officer Ms R Stalker HND, BA, MA Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 1-6 Frederick Kenneth Annable — ‘Ken’ — BA, FSA, FMA, 1922-2002: a Memoir by Nicholas Thomas (Curator 1952-1957) Ken Annable served the Society and its museum for 32 years, 29 of them as its Curator. This is a record that will be hard to beat, not just because of its length — anybody can work on and on if allowed. It was the quality of what he did in virtually every department of this entrancing, treasure-filled museum that may never be bettered. And, when asked, he attended to a host of other matters that were essential to the smooth running of the Society. I felt touched and privileged when invited to write an obituary for Ken and I have chosen to make it a personal tribute rather than something more formal. Three friends and colleagues, Lorna Haycock, Paul Robinson and Ian Hodder have contributed essays about Ken recently, in which his work as a Romano-British scholar has been emphasised (Roman Wiltshire and After; Papers in Honour of Ken Annable, ed. Peter Ellis, WANHS 2001). Though drawing on some of the detail already set down in Ken’s festschrift (which he just lived to receive), I have thought it appropriate to concentrate on his achievements in this wonderful museum of ours as its Curator. I have also done my best to include a bibliography of his writings. Major influences on Ken’s adult life and career came from his childhood and war service. He was a Derby man born and bred. From his father who played the timpani in a local orchestra must have come at least the germ of his love of music. Ken’s elder brother, later Secretary of Derby County Football Club, had first choice, as a child, of what instrument to learn, and he selected the piano. Ken had to be content with the fiddle, though when in the right mood he could perform impressively on the spoons. Soon after the outbreak of World War II, Ken enlisted in the Royal Corps of Signals (and subsequently in the Royal Scots Greys and the Household Cavalry) and was stationed in the Middle East, West Africa and Germany. It was while training in what is now Ghana to go to Burma that he came into contact with Professor A.W. Lawrence, the classical archaeologist, who at that time was teaching in Achimota College. Lawrence permitted the scholarly young soldier to read in the library each weekend. One of my many reasons to feel grateful to Ken was the communication of his passion for the life and writings of T.E. Lawrence, which he must have obtained from his mentor at Achimota, the man’s brother (and generous friend and Honorary Member of this Society). Ken’s own library included a wealth of T-E.L.’s published work, all of which he lent me to devour during my curatorship at Devizes. If Professor Lawrence fed Ken’s scholarly appetite, so the antiquities which he saw while serving in Egypt must also have inspired him with a feeling for the remote past, and especially for the deep and compelling romance of it, which inclined him towards a career in archaeology. But this was not before his three fruitful years as an ex-Forces undergraduate at Reading University where he read English and Classics, and where, too, he met Myra, a fellow student reading Music, Latin and French. They married in 1952. The seal was set upon Ken’s future in archaeology in 1950, when he gained a place at the University of London Institute of Archaeology to read for the two-year diploma in the Archaeology of the Roman Provinces. That was where we met, my preference being European prehistoric archaeology. In those days the Institute was located in the slightly dilapidated but appealing Regency mansion, St. John’s Lodge. It stood in the inner circle of Regent’s Park, Queen Mary’s rose garden facing it, Upper House, Belle Vue, Newlyn, Cornwall TR18 5ED 2 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE the open air theatre across the road, the London Zoo audibly located away in the opposite direction. The giants of archaeology, environmental studies and object conservation were there to teach us — Gordon Childe, Mortimer Wheeler, Kathleen Kenyon, Max Mallowan, Frederick Zeuner, Ian Cornwall, Ionye Gedye. If Ken sought further for romance in archaeology, he found it in the inspiration which came especially from Wheeler, both at the Lodge and during his famous field trips. Verulamium became a spiritual home. His diploma achieved, Ken began the search for a post, preferably in archaeology. Meanwhile, like many young graduates then, he directed excavations for the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works. Ken was not averse to prehistory. In 1951 he joined Richard Atkinson and me at the Big Rings, Dorchester-on-Thames (Whittle et al. 1992), and the following summer a number of fellow Institute students, with Ken, followed me to the Thornborough Circles near Ripon, where we made a trial excavation at the famous henge monument which, with its two neighbours, so closely resembled the Big Rings (Thomas 1955a). In 1953 Ken went back into the field, extending his excavation experience at Great Chesterford (Essex), where he began a lengthy campaign, completed and published by Vera Evison with acknowledgement to Ken, on a series of Pagan Saxon graves in a gravel pit (Evison 1994). His work at the Cantley Estate, Doncaster Romano-British pottery kilns followed (Bibliography, 1954, 1960). For about three months during the autumn of 1952 Ken had also worked as a volunteer at Guildford Museum. This offered him his first and very influential taste for work in a world in which, in due course, he was to find his own special place. This kind of peripatetic archaeology is not ideal, even if Myra was there in support. The relief must have been considerable when Ken applied successfully for the Assistant Curatorship at Devizes. It was a wonderful day for all of us when, in February 1954, as I recall so vividly, Ken and Myra drew up outside the Museum in a pantechnicon containing their worldly possessions. They were to occupy the flat at no. 41, now the Society’s administrative area, curatorial offices and workroom. For the next 32 years, three as Assistant Curator with special responsibility for archaeological conservation (including a day a week at Salisbury Museum), Ken dedicated his life to the daunting multiple role of Curator, field archaeologist, researcher, assistant to the Society and willing servant to the Museum’s many clients, young and old. He re-displayed the entire museum. He combined curatorship with pioneering work in the field, scrupulously published, as contributors to his festschrift gratefully acknowledge. And he remained at the beck and call of the Society, playing an important part in its several committees, editing WANHM at one stage with Isobel Smith (whom we both knew from our days at the Institute where she was Gordon Childe’s personal secretary), leading Society walks, lecturing and teaching. He found time to be tutor for the Museums Diploma and was notably generous with the help and encouragement he gave to researchers, scholarly or more casual. Many of the students who worked on attachment to Devizes Museum have gone on to develop notable careers in universities and museums. This enormous achievement, this immense labour to transform the Museum and make its collections fully accessible, can best be appreciated in the form of a chronology, beginning with the year of my appointment as the Society’s first professional Curator in August 1952. In all of this, Ken and I acknowledge with praise and gratitude that had it not been for the help, as carpenter and electrician, of Albert Cole, formerly of the Wiltshire Regiment and husband of Frances, our caretaker, little would have been possible and then only slowly, since Bert gave his services each evening for a token payment. It is noticeable how the programme of re-display slowed after he and Frances retired in July 1968. 1952-3, N.T: alone Centenary Exhibition, ground floor, no. 41 Gift of grave group from the Manton barrow (Preshute Gla) negotiated and exhibited for the first time in that exhibition Conservation facilities for pottery and metalwork installed Office for Curator established, 1st floor, no. 41 Refurbishment of Natural History Gallery begun by Natural History section and Cyril Rice, Beatrice Gillam Neolithic/Beaker Room (today’s mediaeval gallery) 1954-7, N.T., F.K.A. Five-Year Plan (Thomas 1955 with plan) Lecture Hall with platform, fire escape 1954 Visitors’ entrance transferred to no. 41, 1954-5 Picture Gallery in former entrance hall, 1955-6 Recent History Room (later Henge Room), 1956 Planning of Bronze Age, Iron Age rooms, no. 41, begun FREDERICK KENNETH ANNABLE, 1922-2002: A MEMOIR 5) Ken (far right) with his colleagues in April 1954. Left to right: Nicholas Thomas (curator), Justus Akeredolu (attached Institute of Archaeology student, from Nigeria), Frances Cole (caretaker), Albert Cole (carpenter/ electrician). The group 1s sitting outside Mr and Mrs Coles’s flat at the rear of the Museum. 1954, 1955 Negotiation for display grant from Carnegie United Kingdom Trust for Bronze Age, Iron Age rooms achieved 1956 Bronze Age Room installation begun 1956, 1957 1957-86, EK.A. (Assistant Curators listed below) Natural History Gallery (former Stourhead Room) opened 1958 (name board over entrance carved by Beatrice Gillam) Bronze Age Room, with study storage of all grave groups, opened 1960 Dark Room added to pottery repair room, 1960-1 Anglo-Saxon/ Mediaeval Room (former Neolithic Room), 1962 Neolithic/ Beaker gallery (former Picture Gallery), 1962 Conversion of attics in no.41 to Museum stores, begun 1961, completed 1970 Recent History Room refurbished, 1963 Gas-fired central heating installed, 1965 Planning and installation of Iron Age displays begun, 1965 Iron Age Room opened, 1968 Frances and Albert Cole retired 1968.The Iron Age Room display mounts were Albert’s final contribution. Olly Brown, his successor, was not appointed until 1971 Flat in no. 41 converted for storage, workshop use, 1971 Repair, restoration of the Marlborough Vat negotiated with British Museum, installed in Iron Age Room in new display case, 1971 Roman Room refurbished from 1970, opened 1975 Henge Room (replacing Recent History), 1979 New Neolithic/ Beaker Room (former Curator’s office) enlarged, 1980 The Bonar Sykes Wing was built in 1980-1 and opened by Sir David Eccles, Minister for Works in 1982 New Art Gallery, John Piper Window, 1982 Anglo-Saxon Gallery (Coles’s former flat), 1982 Natural History store, 1982 Natural History Gallery enlarged, re-displayed, 1983 Two cellars beneath no. 41 converted to storage, 1984-5 Devizes Museum awarded Museum of the Year, 1984 (see frontispiece in Ken’s festschrift) Picture Store, metalwork store, 1985 Ken Annable retired, 1986 4 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Assistant Curators who worked with N.T: and F-K. A. S.M. Mottram, 1953 EK. Annable, 1954-1957 D.D.A. Simpson, 1960 G.P. Lamacraft, 1961 G.P. Mitchell ( née Lamacraft), 1962-1964 A.M. Burchard, 1965-1973 P.H. Robinson, 1974-1985 (Acting Curator 1985-1986) S.A. Cross , 1980-1986 Ken was a good committee man, always short and to the point, and strong with it when necessary. As well as serving the Society’s Council, he worked with a number of its smaller groups, including liaison with Salisbury Museum, the County Council, the Area Museums Council. He was secretary of the Archaeology sub-committee in the sixties. Here his important contribution was to draft the 1966 memoranda I and II which became the Society’s submission to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, concerning proposed G overnment changes to the Ancient Monuments Acts (Fowler 1968). From the outset Ken believed that good curatorship should include excavation and fieldwork. As Ian Hodder and others have made clear in the festschrift, Ken remained essentially a Romanist. Cunetio became his patch, the Savernake kilns and their product his speciality, their rapid publication his scholarly duty. Perusal of Ken’s bibliography also reveals a steady outpouring of short, pithy notes on Romano- British objects which had found their way to the Museum, together with more substantial papers on his excavations. A pleasing and productive aspect of Ken’s fieldwork was his collaboration with Tony Clark, who was engaged in development of his Martin—Clark proton magnetometer in the late fifties (Bibliography, 1966). Ken’s interest in post-Roman times, perhaps first aroused at Great Chesterford in 1953 (Evison, 1994), was renewed towards the end of his museum career when the need arose to excavate a spectacular series of Pagan Saxon graves at Blacknall Field, Black Patch, Pewsey. The long loan of these important and often beautiful grave goods he negotiated successfully in 1973 and they now form the centre of interest in the Anglo-Saxon Room, which he set out in 1982. The manuscript of his excavation report on the Blacknall graves was substantially complete at his death, a tribute not just to his scholarship but also to his courageous perseverance in the face of declining eyesight. Ken made one contribution of great significance to European prehistory. With Assistant Curator Derek Simpson he published the catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze Age collections which make our museum so famous (Bibliography, 1964c). Ken also initiated work on an Iron Age catalogue, whose completion by Mark Corney is awaited. During the sixties Ken was also collaborating with Margaret Smith and Professor Christopher Hawkes on the preparation of nine cards to add to the Great Britain series within the Inventaria Archaeologica, an expanding European publication during those years. These cards would have highlighted our holding of princely Bronze Age grave groups and it was unfortunate that the British contribution to the series ceased before the Devizes Museum cards could be added to it. Away from the Museum, the diversity of Ken’s interests should cause no surprise. Those maps, diagrams and other illustrations, which he prepared himself to enhance all his museum displays — and models too — reflect his gifts as a serious artist. He never spoke of it and he never exhibited. He particularly loved pastel and occasionally painted in oils. He saw drawing as the basis of good art and during his retirement he used to have regular weekly drawing lessons. His museum models also reflect his considerable manual skill, seen again in his repair of museum pots and in cabinet making. Ken wanted people to know about things and to appreciate the romance, especially the romance of the past, which was also his principal motivation. The museum world was for him an ideal one through which to communicate this passion. A speciality within his approach to museum display was the provision in galleries of discreet extra information panels, which contained data for the more dedicated museum visitor. And from 1958 he composed an annual Curator’s Report (discontinued after 1973), which was always a model of good English and a delight to read. Ken enjoyed writing poetry. He never let others read it, often screwing up and throwing a piece away when done with. It formed an essential part of the artistic and very private side of Ken which few other than Myra ever saw. This clever, formidably well-read, intensely amiable and valued friend and colleague could be wonderfully entertaining, whether as formal speaker or in more private company. Some of my most pleasurable days when at Devizes were spent with Ken and Dick Sandell, visiting other museums and sites in Dick’ state-of-the-art two tone green FREDERICK KENNETH ANNABLE, 1922-2002: A MEMOIR 5 Sunbeam Talbot. A slap-up lunch, which Ken and I paid for, was a feature of these extra-curricular days out. Once during such a meal Ken asked us, “Do you know what the French for “Mow the lawn” is?’ Always eager to receive some new apercu from Ken, we confessed ignorance. ‘Mot de I’an’, came the reply. And Ken could be robust in his views and straight in remonstration. I have never forgotten the shock of being hauled over the coals by him, when accusing me, quite rightly, of becoming an absentee. It made me realise that it was time for me to move on, which I was able to do shortly afterwards, and I found it especially touching to read Ken’s more than generous remarks about my work at the Museum, which appeared in his Annual Report the following year (WANHM 57, 1958, 99). The climax to Ken Annable’s time as Curator of Devizes Museum came with the award of Museum of the Year in 1984, one year before his retirement (festschrift, frontispiece). I believe that Ken’s contribution to the community through curatorship, excavation and scholarly writing went far beyond the call of duty and surely deserved much wider recognition than his Fellowship of the Museums Association (1968) and of the Society of Antiquaries of London (1962) reflect. In words which appear on many medals commemorating the tercentenary of the birth of Shakespeare in 1864, “We shall not look upon his like again’. Our successors will be the poorer for it. Ken’s wife Myra, also a devoted friend of this Society, and his three daughters survive him. Finale It was Myra who told me about Ken’s poetry and his unwillingness to have it known. However, she recalled a poem with which Ken began his unpublished history of St. Mary’s church, Bishops Cannings. It is not acknowledged, but she thinks that he wrote it. In this belief Myra has allowed me to add it to my memorial as a final affectionate act of homage to this special man. Laudate! O, preferable are the celestial cities of the Early English Gothic! Look, stranger, on these aery transepts now, This blessed Chantry of Our Lady Bower. Slim-line columns, fanfare of trumpet scallop, Still-leaf ornament, sculpted and jaunty, Looking as if it were alive, And crystal lancets; all, All leaping light and glad grace. Sweet friend, be reconciled: herein, Changeless from the beginning, Prevailing as the deeps, Breathes the moving Spirit of God. References EVISON, V., 1994, An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Great Chestertord, Essex (CBA Research Report 91) FOWLER, P.J., 1968, ‘Conservation and the countryside’, WANHM 63, 1-11 THOMAS, N., 1955, ‘The Thornborough Circles, near Ripon, North Riding’, Yorkshire Archaeological Jnl 38, 425-45 WHITTLE, A., ATKINSON, R.J.C., CHAMBERS, R., and THOMAS, N., 1992, ‘Excavations in the Neolithic and Bronze Age complex at Dorchester- on-Thames, Oxfordshire’, Proc Prehist Soc 58, 143- 201 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF KEN ANNABLE’S WRITING 1954 ‘The Roman pottery kilns at Cantley Housing Estate, Doncaster, Kilns 1-8’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 38, 403-12 1956 ‘Stone coffin at Bradford-on-Avon’, WANHM 56, 390-1 1956a ‘An ancient British forgery’, ibid, 391-2 1958 ‘Excavation and field-work in Wiltshire: 1957’, WANHM, 57, 2-17 1959 ‘Excavation and field-work in Wiltshire: 1958’, ibid, 227-39. This includes records of K.A.’s important work in Cunetio (Roman Mildenhall) and Savernake Forest 1960 The Romano-British Pottery at Cantley Housing Estate, Doncaster, Kilns 1- 8. Doncaster Museum Publications XXIV 1960a ‘Storridge Farm, Westbury. A Roman lead coffin’, WANHM 57, 402 1962 ‘A Romano-British pottery in Savernake Forest, Kilns 1-2’, WANHM 58, 142-55 1962a ‘Romano-British burials at Devizes’, ibid, 222-3 1962b ‘Bronze brooch found in Savernake Forest’, ibid, 226 1963 “The Romano-British pottery’, in F. de M. Vatcher, “The excavation of the barrows on Lamb Down, Codford St Mary’, 432-3, WANHM 58, 417-41 1964a ‘Pottery’, in P.M. Christie, ‘A Bronze Age round barrow on Earl’s Farm Down Amesbury’, 39-40, WANHM 59, 30-45 6 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 1964b ‘The Romano-British pottery’, in I.F. Smith and D.D.A. Simpson, ‘Excavation of three Roman Tombs and a prehistoric pit on Overton Down’, 79-81, WANHM 59, 68-85 1964c ‘Romano-British interments at Parsonage Farm, Winsley’, WANHM 59, 182-3 1964d F.K.Annable and D.D.A. Simpson, Guide Catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze Age Collections in Devizes Museum. Devizes 1965 ‘Romano-British pottery’, in G. Connah et al, ‘Excavations at Knap Hill, Alton Priors, 1961’, WANHM 60, 1-23 1966 ‘A first-century well at Cunetio’, WANHM 61, 9- 24 1966a ‘Romano-British interments at Potterne’, WANHM 61,95 1966b ‘A Romano-British interment at Bradford-on- Avon’, ibid, 95-6 1966c ‘A ? Romano-British interment at Maiden Bradley’, ibid, 96-7 1970 “The Roman pottery’, in J.X.W.P. Corcoran, “The Giant’s Caves, Luckington, (Wil 2)’, 54-6, WANHM 65, 39-63 1970a “The Romano-British pottery’, in G.J. Wainwright, ‘An Iron Age promontory fort at Budbury, Bradford- on-Avon, Wiltshire’, 163-4, WANHM 65, 108-66 1971 ‘Pottery’, in N.P. Thompson et al, ‘Archaeological research in the Pewsey Vale’, 68-9, WANHM 66, 58- 15) 1972 Review: Bronze Age Metalwork in Salisbury Museum, by C.N. Moore and M. Rowlands, WANHM 67, 189-90 1974a ‘A bronze military apron mount from Cunetio’, WANHM 69, 176-9 1974b E.K. Annable, A.M. Burchard and P.E. Cray, ‘The 1965 excavations and finds’, in M.R. McCarthy et al, ‘The medieval kilns on Nash Hill, Lacock, Wiltshire’, 146-60, WANHM 69, 97-160 1976a ‘A bronze military mount from Folly Farm’, WANHM 70/71, 126-7 1976b ‘A late bronze buckle fragment from Cunetio’, ibid, 127-8 1980 ‘A coffined burial of Roman date from Cunetio’, WANHM 72/73, 187-91 1991 The Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, Bishop’s Cannings. Devizes 1993 Following publication of this church guide, Ken spent about a year researching the history of the church in depth on behalf of the Parish Council, with a book in mind. Its title was to be The Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, Bishop’s Cannings, a Celebration AD 1091-1993. Unfortunately the ms would have proved too costly to publish and the project was shelved. A number of copies were distributed locally, including the Parish Council archive: and a copy has been given by Myra to WANHS. 2003 (forthcoming) Romano-British pottery derived from agriculture around the barrow cemetery, in N. Thomas et al, Snail Down, Wiltshire, The Bronze Age Barrow Cemetery and Related Earthworks in the Parishes of Collingbourne Ducis and Collingbourne Kingston. Excavations, 1953, 1955 and 1957. WANHS Monograph 3 Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 7-18 A Wiltshire ‘Bog Body’?: Discussion of a Fifth/Sixth Century AD Burial in the Woodford Valley by Jacqueline I. McKinley During a watching brief occasioned by the construction of an amenity lake at Lake, in the Woodford Valley, near Salisbury, the waterlogged remains of inhumation burial with a wooden ‘cover’ were discovered. In the absence of associated artefacts, radiocarbon analysis showed the burial to be of 5th-6th century date. This paper considers the nature of the burial and others from ‘watery’ contexts, together with its potential significance within the contemporaneous landscape and society. INTRODUCTION Project Background Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Morrows, on behalf of a client, to undertake archaeological investigations on land adjacent to the River Avon, at Lake in the Woodford Valley, near Salisbury (centred on SU 4137 1388; Figure 1). The investigations were stipulated by Salisbury District Council, on the advice of the County Archaeological Service of Wiltshire County Council, as part of the planning permission attached to the construction of an amenity/trout lake. The site lay on alluvium (calcareous alluviai gley soils) over Valley Gravels and Upper Chalk at c.60.4m aOD, and before excavation of the lake the land was under rough pasture. The project comprised two stages of investigations: an earthwork survey of the proposed area of construction to record traces of a relict water meadow (undertaken July 1996) and a watching brief during the mechanical excavation of the lake (August 1996). During the course of the latter timbers were noted in a section of the excavations. These proved to be part of a grave containing the remains of an inhumation burial. Archaeological Background Lake lies within the area of the ‘Stonehenge Environs’, in which there is ‘a remarkable concentration of archaeological remains’ (RCHME 1979, ix). The earliest finds from the vicinity comprise Palaeolithic flint implements, including handaxes and flakes, found at Lake in the 19th century. Four Bronze Age bowl barrows lie within 300m of Lake, with the Lake Down and Wilsford Barrow Groups to the north west. Remnants of prehistoric field systems have been recorded within the vicinity, for example at Lake Bottom, Lake Down and Rox Hill. A number of Iron Age hillforts are known within the area, the nearest being Ogbury Camp which lies to the south-east of Lake. Evidence for Roman activity in the immediate area is limited, although individual finds of coins and pottery indicate some continuity from the earlier period (Richards 1990, 280, fig. 17; Wainwright 1971, 76). The Domesday Survey describes two estates in Wilsford, the Deserted Medieval Village in Lake Bottom probably being associated with one of them. The Lake estate passed through a number of hands, including the earls of Salisbury who remained overlords throughout the 12th to 14th centuries. Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, SP4 6EB THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Stonehenge - Wilsford > Lake Group ss Wilsford cum Lake eo : whe Wilsford Group * «= Spring Bottom Lake Downs - Group ¢ Lake Bottom Burial Village: Earthworks : ® ; Barrow : : CH Built up area 0 Barrows : : ‘ : : jal ay =) | Contours in m O.D. 500 m } Fig. 1. Site location and archaeological landscape The water-meadow system dates to the 17th John [Duke] had condoned the building of the bay century (Pugh 1962, 218); a ‘lawsuit of 1697 about and weir there’ (ibid). A plan of 1752 and large the making of the water-meadows in Woodford ... scale Ordnance Survey maps of 1887, 1901, 1925 said that although it damaged the excellent fishing, and 1939 all show the major elements of the system. A WILTSHIRE ‘BOG BODY’?: A BURIAL IN THE WOODFORD VALLEY 9 RESULTS OF THE FIELD SURVEY AND WATCHING BRIEF Field Survey A number of linear earthworks pertaining to the water meadow system were recorded comprising two carriages (east and west), one tail drain and a length of spillway all running approximately north- west to south-east, and 23 drains on approximately north-east to south-west alignments (terminology according with Cowan 1982; Figure 1). The western carriage, 2.5m wide and between 0.1-0.3m deep, ran roughly parallel to a large tail drain up to 6.5m wide and 0.4m deep. The drains were largely denoted by patches of sedge and longer grass within the otherwise fairly closely cropped meadow, being visible as earthworks (c.0.1m deep) only towards their western ends where they fed into the deeper tail drain and spillway. There were no traces of the carriers used to draw water from the carriages but these small features would have silted up quickly without regular maintenance. A constriction towards the northern end of the western carriage may represent the remains of a small sluice or hatch by which the flow of water from the main carriage was controlled, possibly indicating the facility to ‘drown’ only half of the meadow while the other half remained dry. Watching Brief Observations at various locations in the area of the lake showed the topsoil (0.20m thick) overlaying a redeposited clay (c.0.45m thick) - probably imported to build up the water meadow system — above a highly humic/peaty layer (202; c.0.20m thick) containing Romano-British pottery, and burnt and worked flint. The latter overlay a blue- grey, waterlain clay (203; c.0.25m thick) with inclusions of worked flint, above the undisturbed natural valley gravels. All the worked flint (40 fragments, 1374g) derives from local gravel sources and is generally in a fresh condition. The pieces consist of undiagnostic flakes and possible core fragments, suggesting a broad date range of Neolithic to Bronze Age. An extensive layer of undiagnostic, unworked burnt flint on the eastern shore of the lake lay at the interface of the natural valley gravels and the waterlain blue-grey clay (203). All the pottery (26 fragments, 312 g) is of Romano-British date and is either unstratified or associated with layer 202. With the exception of a single sherd of samian (1st or 2nd century AD) and one sherd of New Forest colour coated ware (mid 3rd to 4th century AD), the small assemblage comprises a range of coarsewares including both early and late vessel types. These finds indicate that the shores of this stretch of the River Avon were the site of extensive activity in the prehistoric period and fairly regular use in the Romano-British period, the relative stability of the plant matter in the latter phase contrasting with the blue-grey clay which characterised the earlier shore. ‘The absence of later finds suggests that the area went out of use in the post-Roman period, with no further evidence of the land having being used until the postulated deposition of imported clay to build the water meadow in the 1690s. THE BURIAL The Grave At the time of excavation the grave, situated on the north-western margins of the lake, was under several centimetres of water (Plate 1) requiring the insertion of a partial coffer-dam allowing the water within the enclosed area to be pumped out (Plate 2). The grave cut (c.2.20 x 0.80m) was not clear, the margins largely being defined by the slight change in character between the grave fill (a fine, blue-grey silty clay) and the surrounding deposit (203). The majority of the 14 loose oak timbers recovered lay longitudinally over the skeletal remains (Figure 2; Plate 3), those to either side apparently resting against the sides of the grave cut through the clay (203).The timbers comprise radial and tangential planks of varying dimensions (maximum c.2m), each having at least one cut end (sawn or chopped) with little other signs of working beyond the primary splitting. One squared timber has been worked the length of one face and facets from a metal axe or adze are visible. The size and form of the timbers suggests they were re-used, but the absence of any distinguishing features precludes deduction of what their previous function may have been. The nature and disposition of the timbers indicated they did not represent a coffin; rather, 10 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE A WILTSHIRE ‘BOG BODY’?: A BURIAL IN THE WOODFORD VALLEY Detail plan of skeleton & —— Upper grave planking Lower grave planking Skeleton 0 SS Scale 1:20 0 Scale 1:10 Above: Fig. 2. The burial; skeletal remains and plank cover Far left: Plate 2. Coffer-dam and pumping mechanism after removal of plank cover (from south) Left: Plate 3. In situ burial after partial removal of upper planking (from north) 11 12 they appear to be the remains of a cover, perhaps originally resting on the side timbers. The grave appeared to be sealed by the humic layer (202). The Human Remains The burial was made fully prone and extended, on a south-north alignment; the left arm was flexed with the hand resting on the abdomen and the right arm extended (Figure 2, Plate 2). The bone was in good condition, though stained brown by the humic conditions and slightly friable due to the waterlogging. Some of the articular surfaces had fragmented, and the left distal parietal vault was damaged and slightly warped possibly in consequence of the collapse of the timbers overlying the body. The skull was the only part of the skeleton to protrude above the level of the timbers (Plate 3). The position of the burial, within an active water- meadow, the circumstances of identification and — despite ‘whole-earth’ recovery of the grave fill — the unusual nature of the excavation inevitably resulted in the loss of some of the smaller bones of the hands and feet. Approximately 94% of the skeleton was recovered, representing the remains of a young adult (20-25 years) female (ageing criteria from Beek 1983, McMinn and Hutchings 1985, and Brothwell 1972; sexing criteria from Bass 1987), with an estimated stature of 1.58m (5ft. 2% inches; Trotter and Gleser 1952, 1958; from fibula). The singular absence of the atlas vertebra (first cervical) from the spine may be viewed as significant, possibly reflecting some peri-mortem or immediately post- mortem damage, but it is difficult to see how this could have been affected without damaging the skull or adjacent vertebra. A few minor pathological lesions were observed; dental calculus, periodontal disease, Schmorl’s nodes (degenerative disc lesions) in the L4-5 and osteophytes (new bone) in the L5. A piece of undiagnostic worked flint was found close to the skull, and a tiny sherd of undatable pottery and a fragment of burnt, unworked flint were retrieved from the whole-earthed grave fill, but the finds are all residual and the burial had no directly associated artefacts. Dating It was not possible to obtain a reliable dendrochronological date from the timbers within the grave as all the wood was taken from a single 2 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE tree whose ring pattern could not be matched with the national data base. A sample of 10-15 outer rings of the tree was taken from one of the timbers (<2001>) and submitted for radiocarbon dating (Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre). A result of 1560450 BP (GU-4921) was obtained, with a calibrated date of AD 450-610 (calibration using the 20 year atmospheric calibration curve using CALIB 2.0, expressed at the 95% confidence limit with the end points rounded out to 10 years following the internationally recognised form (Mook 1986)). When the probability distribution is plotted using OxCal v2.10 it indicates a near perfect, steep gaussian curve and gives added confidence to a date around AD 500, indicating the burial was made in the early post-Roman period. DISCUSSION Contemporary Burial Practices ‘The most commonly adopted burial posture within Anglo-Saxon cemeteries of the 5th-6th centuries comprised supine, extended burials on an west-east orientation (i.e. head to west; Hogarth 1973, Craddock 1979, Down and Welch 1990), from which position it is believed the body would ‘rise’ to face the dawn (Welch 1983). The rite reflected a continuation of the Late Romano-British burial tradition and that adopted in parts of earlier and contemporary pagan Germany and Gaul (ibid.). Variations in posture did occur however (e.g. Harman et al. 1981), with many cemeteries including at least a small proportion of north-south and/or south-north burials, for example c.8% of the burials at Droxford, Hampshire (Aldsworth 1979) and 26% at Charlton Plantation, Downton (Davies 1985), whilst on occasions more substantial numbers may be observed as at Petersfinger, Salisbury (Leeds and Shortt 1953), where almost 50% of burials had been made south-north. Rare crouched burials have also been found (e.g. Piggott and Piggott 1944; Green 1984; McKinley 1994, 138). Burials were generally made within groups of variable size, some with associated barrows (e.g. Portway, Andover; Cook and Dacre 1985), and they frequently incorporated grave goods (Wilson 1992). Isolated lone burials dated to this period are rare. Several small groups and a few individual 5th century Anglo-Saxon burials have been found in A WILTSHIRE ‘BOG BODY’?: A BURIAL IN THE WOODFORD VALLEY 13 Wiltshire, all in the vicinity of Salisbury, including east-west and north-south extended, supine burials with associated grave goods (Musty and Stratton 1964, fig 2; Davies 1985, fig. 1; Eagles 1994, fig. 1.1). Cemeteries, and by implication settlements, became more widespread in the 6th century, the distribution of at least the former tending to be focused on the rivers, the Avon apparently marking the western boundary of expansion at this time (Eagles 1994). However, not all 5th-6th century burials in the Wessex region would have been of incoming Saxons. There is a growing corpus of evidence indicative of the — not surprising — continued presence of earlier communities (1bid.). The two largest 5th-8th century cemeteries in Dorset, Ulwell, near Swanage (Cox 1988), and Tolpuddle Ball, near Dorchester (Herne and Birbeck 1999), both contained supine, extended burials with very few or no grave goods, indicating a continuation of the Late Romano-British burial tradition amongst the indigenous population. In these two cases, as with others in the region — such as the 5th-7th century crouched burial made amongst a small group of Iron Age graves at Tinney’s Lane, Sherborne (McKinley 1999) — the burials may easily have been attributed to the wrong phases without radiocarbon dating. Lone, unaccompanied burials such as that reported here are particularly susceptible to such erroneous allocation of date; single burials tend to be found unexpectedly as in this instance, and where there are no finds they tend to be dismissed as of little significance in expanding archaeological understanding of population groups. This attitude, however, overlooks their ritual significance which as singletons may be limited, but as temporally or geographically linked groups may offer significant insights into the social and religious views of those making such burials. Although prone burials were not the ‘normal’ mode of deposition at this time they are not uncommon in Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon cemeteries (Harman et al. 1981, Philpott 1991). The possible reasons suggested for pronation include stopping the dead from walking, sacrificial victims (generally females) and criminal executions; implicitly the individual so treated was in someway ‘different’. South-north and/or north-south burials were common in many Romano-British cemeteries, for example Bath Gate, Cirencester (23% N-S, 40% S-N, McWhirr et al 1982, 76), and the Eastern ~ cemetery in London (44% N-S/S-N; Barber and Bowsher 2000), in comparison with their generally less frequent occurrence in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries (see above). Whilst the use of wooden coffins became relatively common in the later 2" century, there was a marked decline in their use in the Late Romano-British period (Philpott 1991, 53). The use of wooden covers or vaults in both Romano- British and Anglo-Saxon graves has been indicated or implied either by the presence of wood stains, nails or brackets, and ledges or slots believed to act as supports (Hogarth 1973; Aldsworth 1979; Philpott 1991, 69-70). Elsewhere, the patterns of bone destruction and the ‘relaxed’ anatomical position of the skeleton have indicated that the grave fill was not immediately around the body (McKinley forthcoming). In many cases the covers or containers are implied rather than apparent, and the surviving cover in the Lake burial may not be as unusual as it appears. In this case the horizontal timbers may have rested on those to the side and have been roped together, subsequently collapsing on to the human remains. The apparent recognition and continuity in use of mortuary areas from early periods is a common theme within the Anglo-Saxon period with, for example, burials frequently being made in (e.g. Osgood 1999, table 1) — or in proximity to— Bronze Age barrows as at Christchurch and Swallowcliffe (Eagles 1994, 17 and 25) and Winterbourne Gunner. Burials in ‘Watery’ Contexts With the exception of disarticulated human remains — predominantly skulls — dredged-up from river deposits (e.g. c.299 finds from the Thames and its tributaries in the London region: English Heritage Gazetteer; Bradley 1990, 108-9; O Floinn 1995) and coastal waters, burials from ‘watery’ contexts focus on peat deposits, the so-called “bog bodies’. Accumulated data show in excess of 1500 such ‘burials’ concentrated in north-west Europe (Sanden 1996, 71), with c.121 individuals recovered from some 66 sites in Britain (Turner 1995, fig. 46). Locations include intertidal areas, upland peat and blanket bog, lowland raised mires and fenland peats, with a marked absence of finds in southern England (ibid.) corresponding with the lack of peat formations here (Sanden 1996, fig. 24), though none has been found in the small areas of peat deposits in the south-west. The date of these finds covers a broad range from the Neolithic to the post- medieval period, those in Continental Europe 14 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE appearing to form two concentrations, in the Neolithic and between 300 BC and AD 400 (Sanden 1995.). In contrast, the British finds (Turner 1995) have concentrations in the Bronze Age (c.15), with about ten across the Iron Age to Romano-British period and one dated to the 7th century AD (Jubilee Tower, Lancaster); almost all the 16 Scottish examples are post-medieval. In general, a relative small proportion of these finds have been reliably dated, many having been found in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The posture of these ‘burials’ varies considerably (Sanden 1995 and 1996, 97) inciuding extended, flexed, supine, prone and ‘seated’. There are several cases in Europe where wood — posts, branches, twigs —has been recovered from over the body, below or adjacent to it (Sanden 1996, 99), two being in oak coffins. A large proportion of the bodies show no indication of clothing, though this cannot necessarily be taken to mean they were naked; traces of linen, for example, would be lost even in the anaerobic conditions of a bog (Sanden 1996). In c.20 cases there was evidence for mortal injury, for example by strangulation, stabbing or slitting of the throat, and the hair of several individuals appeared to have been shorn (ibid.). Immature and adult individuals, males and females are amongst those identified, but children are rare and males predominate (Sanden 1995). The major differences between the Lake burial and these other ‘watery graves’ are the date and location; the predominant date for the majority of these finds is pre-AD 400 or post-medieval and there are no records of burials on river-bank locations. To these observations must be added the caveat that most of the finds have come to light as the resuit of peat extraction, whilst river-bank or river valley activity is generally limited to pastoral agriculture. Burials in such locations were probably at greatest risk of disturbance during the construction of the water-meadow systems, though whether they would have been recorded or not is open to question. Similarly, the lack of secure dating of many of the bog burials and other lone graves may make the post-Roman date of the Lake burial appear more unusual that it really is. The body posture and associated presence of wood has similarities with some of the bog burials, but also with other more ‘conventional’ contemporaneous burials. There is no physical evidence of violence to the skeleton and the absence of artefacts cannot be taken as indicative of the woman being naked at the time of deposition, since the form of her dress may not have included any inorganic fastenings and organic fabrics would be unlikely to survive in these burial condition. Landscape Context The ritual significance of water and watery places to the ‘Celtic’ peoples is well attested (Magilton 1995), with the veneration of pools, springs and lakes, which were viewed as liminal places forming entrances to and exits from the Otherworld. Votive deposits were commonly made at river crossings and wet places (Bradley 1990; Haselgrove 1996, 76). Tacitus, in his Annales, makes reference to two German tribes who were at war over the control of a frontier river, their reason being that such locations were closest to heaven and the easiest place from which to communicate with the gods (Sanden 1996, 174). Saxon cemeteries are noted for their location close to rivers (Eagles 1994) and it may be significant that the Avon apparently formed the western margins of Saxon expansion in the area in the 6th century, suggesting its importance as an interface between two groups of peoples set within what, even at the time, would have been recognised as a rich ritual landscape; the dry valley, at the eastern end ef which Lake lies, forms a direct route via Lake Bottom and Spring Bottom to Stonehenge Bottom through a landscape containing some of the densest concentrations of Bronze Age barrows in England (Figure 1; Woodward and Woodward 1996, fig. 6). In addition to their ritual significance, the pragmatic importance of rivers — particularly the ‘East/Wiltshire’ Avon — as highly significant communication and trade routes has been discussed by Sherratt (1996). Although the pre-eminence of the Avon river system as a Communication route is believed to have been in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age (ibid.) it is likely to have maintained at least a provincial significance into later periods. Significance of the Burial to Participants The suggested reasons for the bog burials are various and partly dependent on date. Many of the prehistoric cases, particularly in Britain, appear to represent formal ‘burials’, though perhaps of a type not commonly seen (Sanden 1996, 177). The later medieval and post-medieval cases are generally A WILTSHIRE ‘BOG BODY’?: A BURIAL IN THE WOODFORD VALLEY 15 accepted as the victims of accidents or perhaps muggings/murder (Turner 1995). Much of the focus of discussion lies with those bodies dated or presumed to date to the Iron Age/Roman period. Tacitus makes reference to a form of punishment in which ‘the coward, the shirker and the unnaturally vicious are drowned in miry swamps under a cover of wattle hurdles’ (Germania 12, trans. Mattingley 1948). Evidence for shaven heads and individuals being stripped of clothing has been cited as supporting the punishment theory (Sanden 1995). The possible sacrificial, and/or implicit and explicate indications of ritualistic activity elicits the greatest interest. There are those who have argued (Briggs 1995) that many of the supposed ‘ritual’ aspects of these deposits could be explained as failed attempts at rescue — the presence of ropes or wooden poles representing items thrown out as lifelines. Branches and poles could represent materials simply laid over graves to deter animal disturbance such as may be seen in some contemporary Central-Eastern European cemeteries (personal observation). However, Tacitus writes of human sacrifices in the ‘Celtic’ regions though he does not state they were made into bogs; Magilton (1995, 186-7) gives reference to ritual drownings, and a document pertaining to Wulfran’s visit to Fresia in AD 690 talks of two children bound to a stake on the beach to be engulfed by the sea in sacrifice for ‘the common good’ (Sanden 1995). Burial or sacrifice, the loan and liminal location of many of these deposits, and their association with water, suggests the individuals selected for such treatment were viewed as being in some way ‘different’. They may have been considered as ‘restless’ spirits who needed to be rendered harmless (Sanden 1995, 148), criminals, suicides, victims of violence or accident, or perhaps those with ‘special’ abilities. The singularity and mode — prone and covered — of the Lake burial strongly suggests this individual was ‘different’. The location, at a potentially interface between two cultures and ina spiritually liminail situation on the river bank — 1.e. both of ritual and possibly territorial significance (see above) — imply a deliberate choice in the place of burial. There is no evidence to suggest the woman was subject to physical violence or coerced into position; she was carefully buried in what were almost certainly waterlogged conditions adjacent to the river, and on its western bank in what, at this time, is likely to have been territory predominantly occupied by the indigenous population. The pronation of the body and presence of a heavy plank cover may signify an attempt to confuse the spirit and stop it wandering in ‘this’ world. However, if she had been buried in this situation as one who could communicate with the Otherworld it may be expected that the head be placed towards rather than away from the river. Whilst it cannot be categorically denied that she may have been ‘sacrificed’, perhaps not unwillingly, she may also have died a natural death. Either way, she may have been seen as sufficiently ‘different’? — perhaps due to her possessing some particular skill — to necessitate special treatment and to represent one who was suitable to treat with the Otherworld on behalf of those in this world. THE REBURIAL The excavation of all human remains in Britain requires either a Church Faculty for remains buried in consecrated ground or a Home Office licence (Garratt-Frost 1992, McKinley and Roberts 1993), both of which will include some stipulation regarding the subsequent treatment of the remains. A recent survey of archaeological organisations in Britain (by the writer on behalf of the British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology) showed that reburial of human remains over the past two years has only occurred where the burials were known to be Christian (medieval and post-medieval) and at the request of the Church who also comprised the client in almost all cases. The Home Office licence obtained for the Lake burial, in common with most, stated that ‘The remains shall, if of sufficient scientific interest, be conveyed to a museum for archival storage ...or they shall be conveyed to a place where burials may legally take place and there be reinterred’. The client was of the opinion that the human remains should, if possible, be returned to rest close to the original burial position and it was considered that, though the burial was clearly of significance, the skeletal remains were not of sufficient scientific interest to warrant archive storage in a museum. Consequently, following osteological examination and the production of a report, application was made to the Home Office to allow reburial. Initial discussion resulted in the statement that reburial close to the original location was not possible and that the remains would have to be reinterred in a ‘legal burial place’ as was stipulated in part 2d of 16 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE the Licence (see above). Further discussion sought to highlight how inappropriate it would be to rebury such ancient, clearly non-Christian remains in a modern cemetery and application was subsequently granted on condition of approval from the local Director of Housing and Health (Salisbury District Council) to confirm the burial would pose no risk to public health. The human remains were reburied in October 1997 approximately 70m south of the original grave on an island in the newly constructed lake, it being impractical to rebury the woman in the same grave or in exactly the same manner in which she was originally interred. The remains were placed in a specially constructed wooden box made from local timber. A record of the location and nature of the reburial, together with known details of the original were placed in the county archives, with the deeds of the property and with the skeletal remains themselves. Licences for the removal of human remains (relating to non-Church property, see above) are granted to those who remove them (i.e. in such cases as this, the archaeological organisations) not the developer or client on whose behalf the investigations are being conducted. Consequently, the responsibility — legal and moral — for the care and appropriate treatment of such remains lies with the excavators. In addition to ensuring a sufficiently appropriate standard of osteological procedures and recording has been undertaken (information pertaining to which is also requested on application for a licence, often including the name of the appointed osteologist — in this case the writer), in the rare cases of reburial which may occur it is necessary to ensure an appropriate location is used, that physical packaging is of a standard which will maintain the integrity of the remains, and that any attendant rites and rituals followed during the reburial are appropriate to the date and probable beliefs of those being reburied as deduced from their archaeological context. In the latter, the probable beliefs of the dead are tantamount and should take precedence over those of the living who may not share the same beliefs. CONCLUSIONS The accidental discovery of this burial resulted from a rare intervention into the flood-plain alluvium of the Woodford valley. These deposits have rarely been subject to any archaeological investigation due to their situation and the associated type of landuse (i.e. not subject to ‘development’). Prior disturbance is likely to have been limited to the insertion of the water-meadow systems in the late 17th and early 18th centuries when isolated deposits of this type, with no associated earthworks or artefacts to attract attention, are likely to have passed un-noticed or have been ignored. There is high potential for further archaeologically significant deposits along the Woodford valley bottom given the general ritual significance of rivers and of the surrounding landscape, and the apparent territorial importance of the Avon — or the Avon valley — as a boundary between the Saxon migrants and the existing population in the 5th-6th centuries AD.Whilst not necessarily under dispute, the valley may have represented an interface between the two cultures. The bodies currently known from ‘watery’ contexts clearly do not all fall into one category of deposit type. Each case needs to be assessed individually in terms of date, mode of deposition, associated features and artefacts and, as highlighted by the Lake burial, location. The date of individual deposits should not be assumed from such potentially misleading features as burial position, which is likely to have been at variance from the ‘norm’ in such burials anyway. Whether the burial at Lake should be considered as a ‘bog-body’ is debatable, but it is hoped that this article has demonstrated that the significance of a burial is not defined by the accident of preservation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due to the client for funding the site investigations and the production of this report. The assistance of Mr. Stammers is also gratefully acknowledged. The project was managed by Antony Firth on behalf of Wessex Archaeology. The field survey was undertaken by Vaughan Birbeck and David Murdie, the latter also maintaining the watching brief in which the grave was initially identified. The excavation team comprised Antony Firth, Natasha Meader, Jacqueline I. McKinley and David Murdie. Contributors towards this report included Michael J. Allen (Sedimentary Analysis), Lorraine Mepham (Artefacts) and Karen Walker who initially compiled the archaeological background. The drawings were prepared for publication by Karen Nichols, while plates are by Elaine Wakefield. A WILTSHIRE ‘BOG BODY’?: A BURIAL IN THE WOODFORD VALLEY 17 Bibliography ALDSWORTH, F.R., 1979, The Droxford Anglo-Saxon cemetery, Soberton, Hampshire. Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 35, 93-182. BARBER, B., and BOWSHER, D., 2000, The Eastern Cemetery of Roman London; Excavations 1983- 1990. London: Museum of London Archaeological Services, Monograph 4 BASS, W.M., 1987, Human Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society BEEK, VAN G.C., 1983, Dental Morphology: an illustrated guide. Bristol: Wright PSG BRADLEY, R., 1990, The Passage of Arms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press BRIGGS, C.S., 1995, Did They Fall or Were They Pushed? Some Unresolved Questions about Bog Bodies, in R.C. Turner and R.G. Scaife (eds), Bog Bodies; New Discoveries and New Perspectives, 168- 182. London: British Museum Press BROTHWELL, D.R., 1972, Digging Up Bones. London: British Museum Natural History COOK, A.M., and DACRE, M.W., 1985, Excavations at Portway, Andover 1973-1975. Oxford: Oxford University Archaeological Committee, Monograph 4. COWAN, M., 1982, Floated Water Meadows in the Salisbury Area. Salisbury: South Wiltshire Industrial Archaeology Society, Historical Monograph 9 COX, P.W., 1988, A 7th century inhumation cemetery at Shepherd’s Farm, Ulwell, near Swanage, Dorset. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 110, 37-47 CRADDOCK, J., 1979, The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Saxonbury, Lewes, East Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 117, 85-102 DAVIES, S.M., 1985, The Excavation of an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery (and Some Prehistoric Pits) at Charlton Plantation, near Downton. WANHM 79, 109-154 DOWN, A., and WELCH, M., 1990, Chichester Excavations VII: Apple Down and The Mardens. Chichester: Chichester Council EAGLES, B., 1994, “The Archaeological Evidence for Settlement in the Fifth to Seventh Centuries AD’, in M. Aston and C. Lewis (eds), The Medieval Landscape of Wessex, 13-32. Oxford: Oxbow Books ENGLISH HERITAGE, Gazetteer of burials and cemetery sites in England. (Last update 1994) GARRATT-FROST, S., 1992, The Law and Burial Archaeology. London: IFA Technical Paper 11 GREEN, C.S., 1984, Early Anglo-Saxon Burials at the ‘Trumpet Major’ Public House, Allington Avenue, Dorchester. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 106, 149-152 HARMAN, M., MOLLESON, T.I., and PRICE, J.L., 1981, Burials, bodies and beheadings in Romano- British and Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. Bulletin British Museum Natural History (Geol) 35 (3), 145-188 HASELGROVE, C., 1996, Iron Age Coinage: Recent Work, in T.C. Champion and J.R. Collis (eds), The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends, 67- 85. Sheffield: University of Sheffield HEARNE, C.M., and BIRBECK, V., 1999, A35 Tolpuddle to Puddletown Bypass DBFO, Dorset 1996-8. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Reports 15 HOGARTH, A.C., 1973, Structural Features in Anglo- Saxon Graves. Archaeological Journal 130, 104-119 LEEDS, E.T., and SHORTT, H. de S., 1953, An Anglo- Saxon cemetery at Petersfinger, near Salisbury, Wilts. Salisbury: South Wilts and Blackmore Museum MAGILTON, J.R., 1995, Lindow Man: the Celtic ‘Tradition and Beyond, in R.C. Turner and R.G. Scaife (eds), Bog Bodies; New Discoveries and New Perspectives, 183-187. London: British Museum Press McKINLEY, J.I., 1994, The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham Part VIII: The Cremations. East Anglian Archaeology No. 69. McKINLEY, J.I. 1999, Excavations at Tinney’s Lane, Sherborne, Dorset. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 121, 53-68 McKINLEY, J.1I., forthcoming, Archaeological Investigations at The Bostle, Bronze Age and Anglo- Saxon barrow cemeteries, Balsdean, East Sussex: 1997. Sussex Archaeological Collections McKINLEY, J.I., and ROBERTS, C.A., 1993, Excavation and post-excavation treatment of cremated and inhumed human remains. London: IFA Technical Paper 13 McMINN, R.M.H., and HUTCHINGS, R.T., 1985, A Colour Atlas of Human Anatomy. Wolfe Medical Publications McWHIRR, A., VINER, L., and WELLS, C., 1982, Romano-British Cemeteries at Cirencester. Cirencester: Cirencester Excavation Committee MOOK, W.G., 1986, Business meeting: recommen- dations/ resolutions adopted by the twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon 28, 799 MUSTY, J., and STRATTON, E.D., 1964, A Saxon Cemetery at Winterbourne Gunner, near Salisbury. WANHM 59, 86-109 O FLOINN, R., 1995, Recent Research into Irish Bog Bodies, in R.C. Turner and R.G. Scaife (eds), Bog Bodies; New Discoveries and New Perspectives, 123- 132. London: British Museum Press OSGOOD, R., 1999, The Unknown Warrior? The Re- evaluation of a Skeleton from a Bell Barrow at Sutton Veny, Wiltshire. WANHM 92, 120-123 PHILPOTT, R., 1991, Burial Practices in Roman Britain: a survey of grave treatment and furnishing AD 43- 410. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 219 PIGGOTT, S., and PIGGOTT, C.M., 1944, Excavations of barrows on Crichel and Launceston Downs, 18 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Dorset. Archaeologia 90, 47-80 PUGH, R.B., (ed.) 1962, A History of Wiltshire Vol 6, The Victoria Histories of the Counties of England, 213-221. University of London Institute of Historical Research RCHME 1979, Stonehenge And Its Environs. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press RICHARDS, J., 1990, The Stonehenge Environs Project. London: English Heritage, Archaeological Report 10 SANDEN, W.B. van der, 1995, Bog Bodies on the Continent: the Developments since 1965, with Special Reference to the Netherlands, in R.C. Turner and R.G. Scaife (eds), Bog Bodies; New Discoveries and New Perspectives, 146-167. London: British Museum Press SANDEN, W.B. van der, 1996, Through nature to eternity; The bog bodies of northwest Europe. Amsterdam: Batavian Lion International SHERRATT, A., 1996, Why Wessex? The Avon Route and River Transport in Later British Prehistory. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15 (2), 211-234 TROTTER, M., and GLESER, G.C., 1952, Estimation of stature from long bones of American whites and Negroes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 10(4), 463-514 TROTTER, M., and GLESER, G.C., 1958, A re- evaluation of estimation of stature bases on measurements of stature taken during life and of long bones after death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16(1), 79-123 TURNER, R.C., 1995, Recent Research into British Bog Bodies, in R.C. Turner and R.G. Scaife (eds), Bog Bodies; New Discoveries and New Perspectives. 108- 122. London: British Museum Press WAINWRIGHT, G.J.,; 1971, The excavation of prehistoric and Romano-British Settlements near Durrington Walls, Wiltshire, 1970. WANHM 66, 76- 128. WELCH, M.G., 1983, Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 112 WILSON, D. 1992 Anglo-Saxon Paganism. London WOODWARD, A.B., and WOODWARD, P.J. 1996, The ‘Topography of some Barrow Cemeteries in Bronze Age Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 275-292 Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 19-25 The Eyes and Ears of the Lord: Seventeenth- Century Manorial Stewards in South Wiltshire by J.H. Bettey The various functions performed by stewards (such as John and Leonard Snow of Downton) for their manorial lords are examined. These included estate management; the movement of livestock; legal disputes; opinions on personal matters; agricultural improvements such as the introduction of new crops and the creation of water meadows; the policing of tenants and cottagers, especially in connection with squatting on wasteland; and the management of parliamentary elections in the lord’s favour. Stewards in seventeenth- century South Wiltshire were of crucial importance, and far more formidable than non-resident landlords. In the parish church of Tormarton in Gloucestershire near the Wiltshire border, there is a large memorial to Gabriel Russell who died in 1663, aged 88. For ninety years members of the Russell family had been stewards to the Marquess of Newcastle, and the inscription on the memorial gives an indication of the crucial position of a steward in managing the estate of a non-resident landlord. Here Gabriel Russell lies, whose watchful eyes Were William, Marquess of Newcastle’s spies. Over three parishes his onely hands Were here entrusted with his lordship’s lands. Full ninety yeares my father and I Were sarvants to that nobility. But all that knew them did them witness bare, Of their just dealing, loyalty and care. And for their comfort here below, One and twenty children could they show. The memorial emphasizes the importance of the steward as the landlord’s representative and his involvement in all aspects of manorial government. For non-resident landlords, preoccupied with other matters, reliable and trustworthy stewards were essential for the efficient management of large estates.! The survival of a number of account books and other records kept by seventeenth-century stewards in the district around Salisbury, provides evidence of the range of their concerns and of their importance in manorial and estate management. Some were gentlemen, such as Sir Walter Raleigh’s elder brother, Carew Raleigh (died 1626). He was the steward of various Duchy of Cornwall manors in Dorset and Wiltshire, including Mere during the reign of James I. He also possessed land of his own, and leased the rectory and tithes of Downton from the Bishop of Winchester.’ William Thynne, steward on the Longleat estate during the 1660s, was a kinsman of Sir James Thynne. Others were lawyers with small estates of their own, such as Henry Sherfield, a prominent Salisbury lawyer who was steward for the Earl of Salisbury’s estate on Cranborne Chase. He also owned land at Winterbourne Earls. Henry Sherfield’s brother, Richard, served as bailiff or under-steward on the Earl of Salisbury’s estates.’ Another owner of a small estate who was involved with the administration of some of the Cranborne estate, including the manor of Damerham, was Samuel Stillingfleet who lived near Cranborne.* Some stewards were affluent yeomen farmers, such as John Bennett of Motcombe who was steward on the widespread estates of the Arundell family of Wardour from 1663 to 1676.’ John Snow Clayley Cottage, Hunstrete, Pensford, Bristol BS39 4NX 20 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE and his son, Leonard, who served as stewards on the Ashe family estate at Downton from 1665 to 1727 were also prosperous farmers living at Loosehanger near Redlynch, south-east of Downton.° The salaries paid to stewards were often modest, but prestige of the office and the social status it conferred was a further reward, and, as will be shown, there were other opportunities for enrichment. John Bennett was paid £50 per annum by the Arundells, the Snows at Downton were paid £40 per annum for supervising all aspects of the estate on behalf of the non-resident Ashe family. Their account books and correspondence with members of the Ashe family show the range of their duties and the many ways in which they protected the landlord’s interests in Downton and the surrounding area, acting as the eyes and ears of the lord. I It was the involvement of John and Leonard Snow with the administration of Downton which produced the fullest and most informative series of records. Sir Joseph Ashe, who lived at Twickenham, was created a baronet by Charles II in 1669. In 1665 he had leased the manor of Downton from the Bishop of Winchester, and he represented the borough of Downton in Parliament from 1662 to 1681. Sir Joseph Ashe died in 1686, and his estates were left in the hands of his widow, Lady Mary Ashe, until their son Sir James Ashe succeeded in 1698. Sir James Ashe died in 1734.’ Since the Ashe family did not reside at Downton, all aspects of estate management were entrusted to John Snow, and later after John’s death in 1698, to his son Leonard. Much of the work carried out by the Snows involved presiding over the manorial courts, granting of tenancies, copyholds and leases, resisting encroachments, ensuring compliance with manorial regulations and collecting rents and fines. Sending money to non-resident landlords was fraught with difficulty. The Snows took money to Twickenham themselves or entrusted it to various Salisbury tradesmen who were visiting London. Later in the seventeenth century the money was transferred by bills of exchange, many of them drawn on Hoare’s Bank. An alternative method employed was to purchase goods such as cattle, sheep or cheese for dispatch to London where they could be sold.* John Bennett was involved in collecting rents and fines from the Arundell manors in Wiltshire, Dorset, Devon and Somerset. He sent considerable sums to Lord Arundell in London by the regular carrier service, although the carriers charged large sums to insure against highwaymen and footpads. For example, in 1663 he sent £3000 to London at the cost of £15; in 1677 it cost £4 10s. Od. to send £900 to London. More frequently, however, John Bennett hired a coach and, accompanied by servants acting as guards, took the rents and other income to Lord Arundell in London himself. In 1663 he recorded expenditure of £25 for coach hire, guards and expenses for two journeys to London.’ By 1670 the costs for coach, horses and guards, together with his own expenses, for journeys to London had risen to £26 10s. Od. Thomas Greene, steward to Sir John Nicholas, who possessed an estate around Gillingham and was MP for Shaftesbury during the last decade of the seventeenth century, adopted numerous informal arrangements to send rents to his master in London. He paid drovers, merchants, Shaftesbury tradesmen and other travellers to London for delivering sums of money to Sir John Nicholas.!° The regular carrier service was used to carry the Earl of Salisbury’s rents from Cranborne to Hatfield or to the Cecil family house in London. The Snows were also involved in sending cattle, sheep, cheese, apples and other goods to Twickenham for the use of the Ashe household. There are references to buying livestock, especially sheep, at numerous local markets and fairs, including Wilton, Salisbury, Ringwood and Weyhill. Cheese for dispatch to Twickenham was purchased from the cheese market at Marlborough and also from Somerset. In May 1692 John Snow bought two expensive black horses for Lady Mary Ashe’s coach. One came from Nicholas Moore of Durrington, the other from Henry Haitter of Witherington Farm, Downton. Each horse cost £18." II ‘The Snows’ accounts include numerous references to their role as agents for supplying sheep to dealers around London. For example, in August 1690 twenty ewes were purchased from John Doore of Stalbridge ‘warranted sound’ at 6s. 10d. apiece, and a further fourteen ewes ‘not warranted’ at 5s. Od. apiece. These were sent to John Robinson of Ham, Middlesex, and to John Gilles of Kempton Park. John Bennett sent beef, pigs, butter and fruit to Lord Arundell in London. His account book also records all sorts of miscellaneous expenditure for the Arundells. He paid keepers to take gifts of deer and swans to various local gentry. Gardeners were THE EYES AND EARS OF THE LORD: MANORIAL STEWARDS IN SOUTH WILTSHIRE 21 paid for planting fruit trees at Wardour and Ansty. In 1668 Lord Shaftesbury’s coachman at Wimborne St Giles was given 2s. 6d. ‘for showing my Lord Arundell the way to Lulworth Castle’. He also paid a farmer 5s. 0d. when one of his sheep was killed by Lord Arundell’s dog. On 29 May 1670, ‘Oak Apple Day’, when the Restoration of Charles II was commemorated, the celebrations involved many expenses. The bowling green keeper at Shaftesbury was given 2s. 0d.; the keepers and ‘the servants of the house’ were rewarded; the “Hare finder’ was paid 5s. Od. ‘when you killed a brace of hares’ and a further 1s. Od. ‘for playing the Knave’. In 1675 the steward spent £1 16s. 8d. for black cloth to hang around the chancel at Tisbury when Lady Arundell was buried, and on black cloth for the Minister who conducted the service. '” Stewards were frequently involved in law suits in defence of their masters’ interests. Such suits, with the inevitable fees and ‘sweetners’, could be expensive. For example, in 1677 John Bennett was concerned with a case at Salisbury Assizes over an unspecified suit described as ‘Mr Vaughan’s business’. The expenses came to nearly £200, and included the following: ‘Paid 17 of the Jury men and the Sheriffe in all 18, to each of them 5 guineas, the whole 90 guineas at £1 1s. 8d. per guinea make £97 10s. 0d’. The range of John Bennett’s concerns, covering all aspects of estate management for the Arundells, from care of house, household and garden to all the minutiae of manorial government, illustrates how indispensable a trustworthy steward was to his lord. Bennett was evidently trusted completely by Lord Arundell. Interestingly, although he was employed by a leading Catholic family, Bennett remained staunchly Protestant, calling his daughters by the Puritan names of Patience and Repentance, although he christened one of his sons Arundell. Occasionally stewards were called upon to deal with matters requiring great delicacy, such as involvement in marriage negotiations. In 1699 when Sir John Nicholas was anxious for his son to marry, he entrusted his steward, Thomas Greene, with the task of encouraging the young man and of suggesting suitable brides for him. Likewise, in 1695 Lady Mary Ashe consulted her steward, John Snow, about a possible marriage. She wrote: I have a grand-daughter of £3000 fortune, very Handsome, Good Humour, and the best Huswife and manager I ever saw, and would Look no where else for my sonn, if weare Not so near a kin. Snow’s opinion was sought on the suitability of ‘young Mr Goole’, and he was asked to send particulars of this possible bridegroom: ‘give me your oppinion of it [the match] and what estate he has’."* An additional source of income for landlords is illustrated in the accounts kept by John and Leonard Snow. They lived at Loosehanger where Sir Joseph Ashe possessed a large park and considerable woodland. The grazing in the park was let to ‘cow- keepers’ and the accounts record their names and the number of cattle in detail. Likewise, pigs were allowed into the woodland during the autumn months to fatten on the acorns and beech nuts. Owners were charged from 6d. to 1s. 0d. per week for each pig, although ls. 6d. a week was charged for a few ‘great pigges’. With so much money passing through their hands in rents, fines, timber sales and miscellaneous manorial dues, there were numerous perfectly legal opportunities for stewards to make temporary use of it to enrich themselves. The best examples of this come from the account books of John Bennett. Although his annual salary as a steward was no more than £50, Bennett was lending large sums at interest to many people. Evidently he was well-known as a money lender, and his dealings ranged from Bristol to the south coast. He lent Lord Arundell various sums, including £1,000 in 1665, while other loans ranged from £800 to £20. Some were to relatives, such as ‘my brother, Anthony £000’, or ‘my sister Barren £300’. Other loans were to Arundell tenants to cover arrears of rent. All were charged 6% per annum. His complex financial affairs and long lists of loans fill many pages of his account book. Henry Sherfield, the Salisbury lawyer who was steward to the Earl of Salisbury, also had an extensive money-lending business. His clients ranged from Lady Weld of Lulworth Castle to the poor of Salisbury, and he generally charged 8% per year.” Il Through their stewards many seventeenth-century landlords encouraged the introduction of new crops and better farming methods. Improved stock and increased yields meant that tenants could afford higher rents for their farms. Thus Henry and Richard Sherfield, steward and under-steward to the Earl of Salisbury for his Cranborne estate actively promoted the growing of woad by their tenants. In particular they supervised the conversion to arable of a large area of downland at Blagdon Hill between Pentridge and Martin. This was divided into small plots and let to tenants for 22 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE growing the profitable but labour-intensive woad. Henry Sherfield himself set an example by growing large crops of woad on his own land at Winterbourne Earls. One of his letters still has attached to it a sample of cloth dyed with his woad and retaining its attractive soft, blue colour.'® Henry Sherfield was also interested in introducing other new crops. He sent his step-son, George Bedford, to the Low Countries to obtain roots of madder, and seeds of rape and cole for cultivation in England, and his account book contains references to the cultivation of sainfoin, vetches, grasses, peas and different varieties of corn.'’ John Bennett’s accounts show that he encouraged enclosures, drainage and improved woodland management. Evidence for improved farming comes from the account book for the Arundell demesne farm at Ansty, covering the years 1694 to 1706, which contains numerous references to sowing recently- introduced fodder crops such as French grass or ‘sainfoin’, vetches, rye grass, hop clover and peas.'® Bennett’s account book also includes references to woodland management, planting saplings, coppice work, and the sale of timber, faggots, charcoal, hurdles and rakes. In particular, he took a close interest in the estate woodland at Hooke near Donhead St Andrew and Castle Ditches near Swallowcliffe. Sales of timber, oak bark for tanning and logs for firewood were an important source of income for landlords. The Snows regularly sold wood from Downton and Loosehanger to charcoal burners, and there are many references in their accounts to the income from ‘colewood’. The correspondence of Thomas Greene, steward at Gillingham to Sir John Nicholas, is full of references to the woodland. He was constantly concerned to protect the woods from cottagers desperate for firewood, and to preserve the young trees from the inroads of sheep and cattle. The most remarkable example of the encouragement of new husbandry practice comes from the manor of Downton. Starting in 1665 the steward, John Snow, presided over an elaborate and expensive scheme for watering meadows all along the Avon valley. His plan was not finally completed until the 1690s, and involved taking water from the Avon near Alderbury, and the creation of a new channel along the side of the valley to Downton, a distance of some three miles. From this main channel water was supplied to the manorial farms at Witherington, Standlynch, Barford and New Court. This remarkable and expensive project involved not only the creation of the water courses, but also the building of hatches, channels and drains, levelling and ensuring the flow of water over the meadows, making of bridges, paying compensation to millers, commoners and owners of fishing rights. The scheme involved John Snow in a great deal of work and bargaining. The eventual cost was more than £2000, and Snow wrote to Sir Joseph Ashe in 1674 explaining why the work ‘came to nere duble the expense as was at first proposed’. He mentioned the difficulty of getting the levels right, the cost of additional hatches, the expense of bringing gravel to improve the drainage, and the necessity of building bridges along the towpath for bargemen and their horses using the canal or ‘navigation’ from Salisbury. He went on, however, to point out the value of the early grass produced by the water meadows, the improvement the increased supply of fodder for winter feeding would bring, and the fact that 194 acres of meadow which had been worth £218 per year were now worth £428. If they could not be let for this sum, John Snow undertook to rent them himself.!” All the complex negotiations for creating the water meadows along the Avon above Downton fell entirely upon John Snow. One part of the scheme alone required 41 agreements to be made with landowners, tenants and millers, for rights to make water courses, and install stone hatches, compensation for disturbance to commoners and those entitled to the herbage who were described by John Snow as ‘the Earbidgers of Alderbury’. The use of water for each meadow had also to be agreed; the periodic winter watering beginning on 1 November and ending on 6 March, and the brief summer watering to be during the period 3 May to 25 May each year. It must have required great enthusiasm and skilful diplomacy on the part of the steward to bring such complex negotiations to a successful conclusion. The series of letters from Sir Joseph Ashe shows that he took a close interest in the progress of the scheme and was a regular critic, but he did not handle the arrangements himself. He obviously placed great trust in John Snow, but nonetheless complained constantly over the costs. For example, in March 1677 he wrote from London to John Snow: ‘I thinke this Cursed Wateringe hath given me 10 tymes the trouble that all the other concernes of my life hath done...’ Again in April 1678 he wrote: ...When you will consider the perpetual trouble and constant laying out of money, and noe coming in, you need not wonder I am sicke of those designs and THE EYES AND EARS OF THE LORD: MANORIAL STEWARDS IN SOUTH WILTSHIRE 23 let other men fall into my circumstances and they will be as weary as my selfe. But those that enjoy a profitt and quiett may be ever content, and when that tyme comes, soe will I.*° There are few better examples of the high capital cost of creating water meadows, and of their value in improving agricultural productivity. Interestingly, in most places where water meadows were developed along the downland valleys during the seventeenth century, their main purpose was to provide early feed for the sheep flocks; at Downton, however, where nearby Salisbury provided a ready market for milk and butter, the meadows were valued as providing early grass and an abundant hay crop for the milking cows. In 1676 John Snow summarised the advantages which water meadows would bring as follows: 1. There would be a great increase in crops of hay. 2. Men could keep more sheep and cattle. 3. There would be an increase in corn and grass for fattening cattle and for butter and cheese.”! IV With so much power over all aspects of manorial life delegated to the stewards, and so much money passing through their hands, it was inevitable that there should be criticism and complaint. An anonymous letter received by Humphrey Weld at Lulworth Castle in 1706 protested that the steward was acting ‘contrary to all rules of Christianity and Honesty’. The writer concluded: ‘.. . he will make you a poore Lord and himself a rich steward’.*? A century earlier, Sir Carew Raleigh had been dismissed as steward of the Duchy of Cornwall manors in Dorset and Wiltshire when an enquiry found that he had been taking bribes from the tenants in return for granting copyhold leases for very low entry fines.” Complaints of a different kind were made against Richard Sherfield, under-steward of the Cranborne estate. In 1623 several tenants at Cranborne and Damerham wrote to the Earl of Salisbury at Hatfield House to protest against Sherfield’s actions. Having been appointed to his post in 1620, Sherfield had begun an enthusiastic campaign to maintain the Earl’s rights in his manors and to prevent the encroachments and infringements of which the tenants were guilty. Sherfield’s legal attempts to preserve and increase - the Earl’s profits provoked a storm of criticism. The Earl was anxious to preserve good relations with his tenants, maintain his political influence in the locality, and act in a benevolent manner consistent with his wealth and status. He therefore appointed a commission to inquire into Sherfield’s actions. Although the commissioners found nothing illegal, they reported that Sherfield’s proceedings were: ‘directly opposite to your truly noble disposition by pressing and enforcing such strict penalties and lawquirkes, that he hath justly drawne on him the hate and ill opinion of that parte of the country’. Notwithstanding Sherfield’s diligent regard for the Earl’s interests, he was sacked from his post. His fate illustrates the tight-rope which a steward had to traverse in maintaining good relations with both landlord and tenants.*! Particularly difficult for stewards to deal with were the substantial and well- connected freehold tenants on each manor. The complaints about Richard Sherfield at Cranborne had been led by Thomas Hooper of Boveridge, whe as well as a freehold estate also leased many of the demesne lands of Cranborne. Richard Sherfield’s insistence on the Earl’s rights had quickly provoked protests from Hooper, whom Sherfield referred to as ‘the old devil who lives on the hill at Boveridge’. As steward of Damerham, Samuel Stillingfleet faced a barrage of criticism in 1638 from Denzil Holles, a younger son of the Earl of Clare. Through his wife Holles had acquired the tenancy of a house and land on the Earl of Salisbury’s estate at Damerham. As his political career showed, Holles was a proud, passionate and quick-tempered man, and when Stillingfleet delivered to him a letter complaining that he had cut down timber and committed other misdemeanours at Damerham he reacted furiously. He complained bitterly to the Earl of Salisbury that the style and content of the letter failed to appreciate his rank: ‘for beginning, middle and end, inside and outside, are all below me’. He claimed that the timber had been necessary to repair the property, ‘a rotten house not fit for a gentleman to live in’, and totally refused ‘to run to your officer in Cranborne, or I know not where, to beg a tree and tarry his pleasure to assign it to me’. Stillingfleet’s response to this onslaught is unknown, but it is clear that he was no match for a man so conscious of his rank and position as Holles.” Dealing with cottagers, paupers, poachers and squatters on the woodland, waste and common land of manors also presented intractable problems for stewards. Thomas Greene at Gillingham had constant difficulty in defending the woods of his master, Sir John Nicholas, from depredation by wood-stealers and poachers. Likewise, the stewards at Longleat had enormous difficulty in defending 24 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE the woods from thieves, and the deer, hares, rabbits and game birds from poachers.”° At Downton, where there were large areas of waste and common in the east of the parish, John and Leonard Snow were concerned about the number of poor families who illegally took up residence there. In 1695 John Snow wrote to Lady Mary Ashe at Twickenham stating: There are in the whole of Downton waste above 100 cottages besides many small enclosures. . . Every summer enlarges the number of cottages and encroachments, so that some effectual course must be taken at great Expense to stop these proceedings. In 1698 Snow reported how a group of people attempted to erect a timber-framed house on the common at Downton in spite of his warnings. Clearly, this was little more than a hovel, to be erected overnight in the mistaken but widely-held belief that such subterfuge conferred a legal title. Six men were to be involved in erecting the structure, the owner, a carpenter, his apprentice, a thatcher, a plasterer, and a man who was to dig the holes for securing the flimsy edifice to the earth. Snow’s response to the influx of paupers was to apply to the justices for licence to demolish the illegal dwellings. The fact that such requests were often granted is evident from the references to ‘plucking downe the Cottages’ which appear in Snow’s accounts. An example occurs as early as 1670, when John Snow applied to the justices in Salisbury for ‘pulling downe John Moore’s cottage on the waste within the manor of Downton’. The considerable costs included bringing John Moore to court, rewards to lawyers, court officials and witnesses. Finally, in 1672 the following payments were made concerning John Moore’s house: 8 May 1672 Paid John Eastman and Thomas Hatcher for helpinge to pull downe the materialls 2s. 8d. John Browne for cuminge to carry away the materials 1s. 6d. Such actions, however, provoked widespread condemnation. There were petitions to Lady Mary Ashe at Twickenham, to the Bishop of Winchester and to the justices in Salisbury. In 1694 a freeholder, Benjamin Wyche, wrote to Lady Mary Ashe deploring the fact that it was intended to ‘turne out a great many poor Creatures out of the small Cottages built upon Downton waste’. He urged Lady Mary not to listen to the advice of John Snow, ‘who is little moved with the Cryes of the poore where a little small interest is concerned’. The churchwardens and overseers of the poor of Downton also wrote desiring that the poor might be allowed to remain, ‘beinge poore persons within our said parish and want houses for their habitation’ .*’ V In addition to their other duties, stewards were also expected to play their part in securing the return of their master to Parliament at borough elections. They reported gossip, kept him abreast of local events and did their best to retain the support of local voters. Unlike Old Sarum, whose representatives in Parliament were little troubled by electors, Downton had more than 100 men who, by occupying particular tenements, qualified as burgesses and possessed a vote. Sir Joseph Ashe seldom came to Downton, but he was at pains to secure the gratitude and votes of the burgesses by supporting local charities and by his concern for the welfare of the borough. Accordingly, he had founded a school in Downton, and in 1676 obtained the grant of two annual fairs, to be held on 12 April and 21 September each year.*® With so many voters, he depended upon John Snow to keep their goodwill and ensure their continued support. He was keen to be kept informed of local affairs, gossip and opinions. In 1680 when there was a rumour in Downton that Sir Joseph had not attended many sessions of Parliament, he wrote a letter for Snow to take to every elector. Addressed to ‘My lovinge friends the Burgesses of the Borough of Downton’, the letter justified his absence from Parliament on the grounds that there had been little business of any importance to discuss.” The trust which the Ashe family reposed in John Snow over political affairs at Downton is illustrated by a letter of Sir James Ashe concerning a by- election in 1698: One of your members of Parliament is dead. I here have sent down my man post to let you know that I would stand to be chosen either this or the ensuing parliament. Pray let me know what interest you can make and if you think fit I will come down presently and stand. Pray see about and make what friends you can.” At Shaftesbury Thomas Greene distributed beef or money to the poor at Christmas on behalf of the MP, Sir John Nicholas. He also contributed generously to local charities. When Sir John Nicholas retired in 1701 and was succeeded as MP THE EYES AND EARS OF THE LORD: MANORIAL STEWARDS IN SOUTH WILTSHIRE 25 for Shaftesbury by his son,Edward, Thomas Greene took the new member to call on all the burgesses who had voted for him.’! The role of a steward as election agent, and the expense involved in securing votes, can be illustrated from the accounts kept by John Snow at Downton during the election of 1670. The election was called for 15 December 1670, and the campaign to obtain votes started a month earlier. Dinners were provided for voters at local inns, and the costs included wine, ale, tobacco, oysters, venison, turkey, cheese and fruit. No delicacy was denied to the voters, and there are references in the accounts to Canary wine, claret, burnt claret, white wine, oranges, and even to ‘two dozen larks’. Even the poor in the borough received charity, although they did not have a vote. On election day, dinner was provided for 160 men at a cost of £12 17s. Od. The total cost of the hospitality provided for voters by John Snow came to nearly £200.The expenditure was not in vain, and Sir Joseph Ashe was duly returned as member of Parliament for the borough of Downton.” In conclusion, the evidence concerning the varied activities of seventeenth-century stewards in the Salisbury area amply demonstrates their crucial importance in estate management. For most tenants of the major landowners whose properties covered so much of the west country, the ever-present, vigilant steward was a much more formidable figure than the non-resident landlord. A trustworthy steward, with a careful eye to all aspects of his master’s business, treading a delicate path so as not to alienate the major tenants, was indispensable for the functioning of great estates and manorial government during the seventeenth century. References ' D.R. Hainsworth, Stewards, Lords and People, 1992. 2 Public Record Office, E123/28 fol. 358; E178/2457. R. Hoyle, The Estates of the English Crown 1558-1640, 1992, 178, 209-10; E. Kerridge, “The Movement of Rent 1540-1640’, Economic History Review, 2nd Series, 6, 1953, 32. > J.H. Bettey, ‘Henry Sherfield of Salisbury’ Hatcher Review, 9, 1980, 19-27; Hampshire Record Office, 44M69/XLIV/16-18 Henry Sherfield’s Accounts 4 J.H. Bettey, ‘Manorial Stewards and the Conduct of Manorial Affairs’, Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Proceedings, 115, 1993, 15- 19; see also J. Chandler, Endless Street, 1983, 169, 201-4; L. Stone, Family and Fortune, 1973, 126-9. The information concerning Stillingfleet, the Sherfield family, and the administration of the Cranborne estate is derived from Cranborne Accounts 1611-59, Hatfield House, especially General 18/26, 27/8, 83/ 22, 88/24. 88/26 and Legal 234/17. > Wiltshire & Swindon Record Office, 750/1; 413/507- 10, Accounts of John Bennett. ®° W.S.R.O. 490/842; 490/909-12, Accounts and Correspondence of John and Leonard Snow. 7 Victoria County History, Wiltshire, XI, 1980, 24, 29, 41. 8 W.S.R.O. 490/842. ° W.S.R.O. 750/13 413/507-10. '0 John Rylands Library, Manchester, Letters from Thomas Greene of Gillingham to Sir John Nicholas 1698-1701. Photocopies in Dorset Record Office. WS R.O. 490/842. 12, W.S.R.O. 413/507. 5 W.S.R.O. 413/509 4 W.S.R.O. 490/909. ' W.S.R.O. 490/842; 750/1; 1946/Box 12 (5); Hampshire Record Office, Henry Sherfield’s Account Book 44/ M69/XXV. 'o H.R.O. 44/M69/XXX/76. '7 J.H. Bettey, “The Cultivation of Woad in the Salisbury Area during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, Textile History, 9, 1978, 112-117. 18 W.S.R.O. 2667/12/97 Ansty Farm Accounts 1694- 1706. I am grateful to Steven Hobbs for drawing my attention to this source. '° For an account of the creation of water meadows and their importance in seventeenth-century farming see J.H. Bettey, “The Development of Water Meadows in the Southern Counties’, in H. Cook & T. Williamson eds., Water Management in the English Landscape, 1999, 179-95. The creation of the elaborate system of water meadows above Downton produced a mass of documentation. See especially W.S.R.O. 490/756- 7; 490/890; 490/903-12; 1946/Box 12 (5) (10). VCH Wilts. XI, 1980, 71-7. 20 W.S.R.O. 490/909. 21 W.S.R.O. 490/890; 490/896. 22 Dorset Record Office D/WLC/E12. 3 Public Record Office E123/28/fol. 358; E178/2457. *4 For detailed references to this affair see J.H. Bettey, ‘Henry Sherfield of Salisbury’ Hatcher Review, 9, 1980, 19-27. 2 The correspondence between Denzil Holies and the Earl of Salisbury over this dispute is summarised in Calendar of State Papers (Domestic), Vol. 393, 1638, 55, and Vol. 400, 1638-8, 2. 20 D.R. Hainsworth, op.cit., 208-15. 27 W7.S.R.O. 490/909; 490/925; 490/932. 8 VCH Wilts., XI, 1980, 24, 29, 41. 29 W.S.R.O. 490/909. 30 Ibid:. 31 —D.R. Hainsworth, op.cit., 154. 32, W.S.R.O. 1946/Box 12 (5) (10). t THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE ‘hat > ' (2661 Aeus0D 402) ‘wooe seousjep UBWOY 2}e7] PAV A RAE rr ne Dees REE SN Aer RC aunt me praesent tay —— (z'614 98s) yOuss} UOIJEAPOXA QO sesjew ul sino}UOD \ - ee syrewdoig sBuipjing uewoYy Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 26-32 Excavation of Roman Features and Deposits on the Outskirts of Cunetio (Mildenhall), Marlborough, in 1997 by Nicholas Cooke with contributions by Moira Laidlaw and Jacqueline I. McKinley Evidence of Roman occupation to the west of the Roman small town of Cunetio was revealed in 1997 along the line of a sewer pipeline. Early Roman features were located on both sides of a large, possibly defensive, ditch, but were concentrated to the west where they included ditches, pits and postholes, as well as two graves forming part of a larger cemetery. Fewer later Roman features were revealed, including an urned cremation burial. In 1997 Wessex Archaeology undertook a programme of archaeological works, comprising excavations and a watching brief, in advance of the construction of a new sewer pipeline at Mildenhall, near Marlborough. The work was commissioned and funded by Thames Water Utilities. The proposed pipeline ran for approximately 910m on the south side of the River Kennet, from OS Grid Ref. SU 2151 6958 at its northeast end to SU 2069 6914 at its southwest end (Figure 1). At its northeast end it lay within c. 30m of the Roman small town of Cunetio. BACKGROUND The extent of the Roman small town of Cunetio is known primarily through the interpretation of aerial photographs, there having been very little archaeological excavation, although much of the evidence of its origin and development has recently been collated (Corney 1997). Pre-Roman settlement in the area is thought to have focused on the univallate enclosure at Forest Hill and its associated earthworks, c. 1km to the southwest, which may have acted as the focus for a late Iron Age oppidum. The enclosure was subsequently occupied in the Roman period by a winged corridor ‘villa’. The exact date of the origin of Cunetio is uncertain, although limited excavations have demonstrated occupation from the second half of the Ist century AD onwards. It has been suggested that the initial occupation of the site may have been military in character (Corney 2001), with a post- Conquest fort controlling the river crossing, although no traces of a fort have been identified on aerial photographs. There is good photographic evidence, however, for two successive defensive circuits for the town, along with a number of buildings and a street grid. The earlier earthen defences formed a double ditched enclosure of some 6ha, and may be of 2nd or 3rd century AD date. The later defensive circuit, dated by excavation to after c. AD 360, consisted of a substantial stone wall with projecting bastions, although its position appears to show little regard for the extant street system or the line of the earlier defences (Burnham and Wacher 1990, 150). Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, SP4 6EB 28 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Aerial photographs reveal extensive cropmark evidence for occupation to the west of the town in the form of roads, possible enclosures, buried walls and possible buildings (Cox 1997). Although these cropmarks could not be traced in Plots 1-3 (Figure 1), any features in these fields, which all slope steeply down to the river, may have been masked by colluvial and alluvial action. Excavations in 1951 identified a late Iron Age or early Roman inhumation cemetery in Plot 3, with associated artefacts of 1st century AD date (Meyrick 1955). Seven of the burials were aligned east-to-west, four of them being flexed. The eighth, a prone burial, was aligned north-to- south. Although their exact locations were not reported, the cemetery was described as being ‘low and quite near the present course of the Kennet, with a brook only about 20 yards away’ (ibid, 20). METHODOLOGY A two-stage programme of archaeological works was undertaken, emphasis being placed on establishing the location of important deposits, and the targeted excavation and recording of those threatened with disturbance. The first stage involved the stripping and excavation of the area of the highest archaeological potential — some 310m of the pipeline route, incorporating Plots 1, 2 and 3. Topsoil was stripped under close archaeological supervision from a 1.6m wide trench to the surface of the archaeological remains. In Plot 1, this involved the excavation of a considerable depth of modern ‘made ground’ overlying alluvial deposits and gravels, while in Plots 2 and 3 the subsoil deposits above chalk ranged from 0.2m to 1m in depth, generally increasing in depth from east to west. All archaeological features were defined, planned and recorded, and those threatened by the proposed course of the pipeline were sample excavated in order to establish their form, function and date. All human remains were fully excavated. Excavation ceased at 1.2m below ground level, the installation depth of the pipe. The entire remaining length of pipeline not subjected to archaeological excavation was monitored during topsoil stripping and subsequent trenching, but no archaeological deposits or features were identified during this stage. RESULTS Plot 1 Plot 1 lies immediately adjacent to the present course of the River Kennet. Topsoil stripping revealed a relatively intact sequence of deposits. A light-medium grey silty clay and a medium grey silt, both containing modern pottery and ceramic building material, overlay a thick band of dark grey fine silty clay containing quantities of Roman pottery, animal bone, driftwood and roof tile. This in turn overlay an unsorted gravel in an orange silty clay matrix, which may represent a decalcified solifluction deposit of the last glaciation. Although archaeological remains were recovered from these deposits, none was demonstrably in situ, and their matrices were consistent with either having been lain down or truncated by a change in the course of the river. Plots 2 and 3 These plots lay on the lower slopes of the valley immediately above the bluff of the floodplain. A number of archaeological features were identified, excavated and recorded in both plots, although there was a concentration towards the west of Plot 3 (Figure 2). Most date to the early Roman period (1st and 2nd centuries AD), although a few later Roman and medieval features were also recorded. Early Roman (Ist and 2nd centuries AD) The dominant feature of the early Roman period was ditch 43, running northwest-southeast. It was 9.8m wide at the top, and although excavated to a depth of only 1.2m, auguring indicated a depth of at least 2.4m.The upper part of its profile was sealed by accumulations of ploughsoil that had migrated downslope, slumping into the in-filled ditch. This contained significant quantities of lst and 2nd century AD Roman pottery, with a smaller proportion of 3rd century AD pottery. It also contained a very small copy of a 4th century AD coin, bearing heavily stylised lettering and engraving. The upper fill of the ditch proper, which contained pottery dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, consisted of a spread, 7.2m wide and up to 0.15m deep, of charcoal and burnt material, including charred plant remains (mainly grain). This material also yielded a carbonised wooden pin EXCAVATION OF ROMAN FEATURES AND DEPOSITS ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF CUNETIO, 1997 29 Key: @ 1st-—2nd century AD @ 3rd-4th century AD B@ Medieval aie ae Z| Pict? Old pipe aN Lt 7 (fs 2S. Fig. 2. Archaeological features in Plots 2 and 3 30 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE (Figure 3), its head formed by two simple notches on either side of the circular shaft which tapered towards the missing tip. The origin of this burnt material is unclear. It sealed a much deeper secondary fill containing pottery of lst and 2nd century AD date. The underlying layer of re- deposited chalk rubble, filling much of the eastern half of the ditch, contained considerably fewer finds, although of a similar date range. The rubble may have derived from a chalk-built rampart to the east of the ditch that was subsequently used to backfill the ditch. 0 50mm Sea Fig. 3. (1) Complete Black Burnished ware cremation vessel, pit 14, (2) carbonised wooden pin, ditch 43 Four features excavated to the northeast of ditch 43 may date to the Ist and 2nd centuries AD. The most substantial was well 35, which was c. 4m across with vertical sides. The earliest recorded fill, a silty loam, appeared to represent a circular shaft in the centre of the well. After the well had gone out of use it had been backfilled with sarsen boulders and flint nodules. Both fills contained pottery of the Ist and 2nd centuries AD. No traces of a timber or stone lining were identified within the depth excavated. Pit 21, the earliest in pit group 158, was 2.4m in diameter, 0.6m deep and contained ten sherds of lst and 2nd century AD pottery. Pits 40 and 42, which lay outside the line of the pipeline at the northeastern end of the trench and were therefore not excavated, yielded small quantities of pottery of a similar date from their surfaces. (As sherds of this date were often recovered from later contexts and features, the early dates for pits 40 and 42 are by no means secure.) The only feature within 40m of ditch 43 on its western side was pit 51, a sub-circular, possibly natural, feature producing six small sherds of undiagnostic pottery. The majority of the early Roman features lay further to the west, in an area where the overall density of features is higher. Apart from ditch 75, which ran east-west, all the early Roman ditches in this area were aligned northwest-southeast. Ditch 75, which was 0.9m wide and 0.45m deep, was cut by the slightly deeper ditch 77, measuring 0.8m wide and 0.73m deep, both ditches containing early Roman pottery. Ditch 68, c. 3m to the west, was very similar in form and alignment to ditch 77, measuring 0.8m wide and 0.54m deep. Two ditches further to the southwest, 96 and 110, also dated to the early Roman period. Of these, the former is relatively shallow, at 0.25m, while the latter is deeper, at 0.89m. Each of these ditches, possibly all drainage features, differed slightly in form, and did not appear within the limits of the trench to form any coherent arrangement. A number of similar but undated ditches in the same area may have been contemporaneous. Two shallow sub-circular pits in this area were firmly dated to the Ist or 2nd century AD: pit 101, c.1.8m across and 0.24m deep; and pit 141, c.2.2m wide and 0.62m deep, from which fragments of re- deposited human bone belonging to two individuals were recovered. Later Roman (3rd and 4th century AD) In contrast to the early Roman period, only six features can definitely be dated to the 3rd or 4th centuries AD. All of them, apart from pit 71, which at 0.92m in depth was the deepest excavated pit of this date, were located at the northeast end of the trench. Acremation burial, consisting of cremated bone from an adult and a neonate, had been placed in a Black Burnished Ware jar (Figure 3) in a shallow cut (feature 15) with a dump of pyre debris. The burial was adjacent to pit 14, a steep-sided sub- circular pit, c. 1.3m in diameter and 0.3m deep, also containing pyre debris, including quantities of burnt human bone from an adult, as well as the square base of a glass vessel, hobnails, nails, a copper alloy fitting, a coin of Constantine I (AD 306-337), sherds of pottery and small quantities of unidentifiable burnt animal bone. EXCAVATION OF ROMAN FEATURES AND DEPOSITS ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF CUNETIO, 1997 31 Although no direct joins were found between the fragments of adult bone from the two features, there was no duplication of skeletal elements, and the age and general morphology of the bone was similar in both contexts, suggesting that it originated from the same cremation. The combined weight of the bone, 654.3g, represents a maximum of 65% of the expected weight from an adult cremation (McKinley 1993), suggesting that some bone, particularly skull fragments which were under- represented, was removed for disposal elsewhere. The combined cremation of an adult and an immature individual represents the most commonly occurring type of dual cremation (McKinley 1997), and may indicate that a mother and child died and were cremated together. Pit 14 cut two earlier pits — pits 16 and 30. Pit 30 may have been a rubbish pit, while pit 16, the base of which was lined with a layer of tile and sarsen stones, may have been used for some form of storage. Pits 25 and 27, in pit group 158, also contained later Roman pottery. Pit 25, 2.4m wide and 0.6m deep, cut pit 27, 1.2m in diameter and 0.4m deep. Their function is uncertain, although the material recovered from them suggests that they were rubbish pits. Medieval Two ditches, both aligned northwest-southeast, and one pit (pit 104) contained sherds of 12th and 13th century AD pottery. Ditch 121 was 1.9m wide and 0.8m deep with a V-shaped profile. Ditch 108, c. 5m to the southwest, was 0.7m wide and 0.65m deep. They probably represent activity peripheral to a nearby agricultural settlement. Undated Many of the excavated features, most of them to the southwest, could not be closely dated. These included two truncated, intercutting shallow graves, both aligned roughly east-west, immediately west of, and disturbed by, medieval ditch 108. Much of the bone in grave 60, which had the upper torso to the east, was disturbed by the later grave 67. Grave 60 also contained bone from two further individuals, possibly derived from other truncated graves in the vicinity. (Five sherds of medieval pottery recorded as having come from the grave are likely to have derived instead from ditch 108, which was not initially recognised as truncating this grave.) Grave 67 was in a slightly better condition, with significant portions of the skull and the left arm surviving in situ, although again the inhumation was too badly preserved to establish the precise body position. The small size of the whole unburnt bone assemblage (which includes the bone from early Roman pit 141, as well as that from two individuals from undated ditch 149) and nature of the deposits —miostly disarticulated and redeposited — precludes much demographic discussion. Individuals were of both sexes, and ranged in age from neonatal to older adult. The majority of the pathological lesions, none of which was severe, were of a degenerative nature most commonly associated with age-related wear and tear (Rogers and Waldron 1995).This evidence suggests the assemblage represents part of a ‘normal domestic’ cemetery, which, including the eight burials already recorded (Meyrick 1955), gives a total to date of 15 individuals. Other undated features included further pits and ditches, including ditch 90 which had two postholes dug into its base, suggesting the ditch may have had a structural function. Three other postholes were excavated in this area, but no other structures could be identified within the limits of the trench. DISCUSSION The limited extent of the excavation makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions as to the significance of the features uncovered. However, the excavation has shed considerable light on the nature and extent of Roman activity west of Cunetio, extending the area of known archaeological remains to some 300m from the town’s defences, and northwest towards the floodplain of the River Kennet. Ditch 43, which may have continued up to the river, appears to have had a chalk rampart on its northeastern side and could have formed a major defensive boundary to the nucleated settlement in the 2nd century AD, possibly protecting a river crossing. There were no other contemporaneous features within 15m to the northeast of the ditch, beyond which the evidence of occupation consisted of a well and a number of rubbish pits. To the southwest, the concentration of early Roman features, possibly associated with a domestic settlement, is separated from the ditch by a gap of some 50m, the gap possibly acting as a defensive zone in front of the ditch. The two undated graves to the southwest have a similar alignment and 32 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE location to the 1st century AD burials previously excavated (Meyrick 1955, 20), and they may be associated with the first phase of Roman settlement within the river valley. The presence of re-deposited human bone in a number of other features in this area, including early Roman pit 141, supports this dating for the burials, and also suggests that there may be further truncated burials in the immediate vicinity. There was less evidence for settlement extending as far to the west in the later Roman period. The later Roman features were fewer and less informative, most appearing to be rubbish pits, although they point to some continued activity in the western hinterland of the town. The main exception was the cremation burial towards the northeast end of the trench. Cremation burial was relatively unusual in the 4th century AD, with inhumation the predominant mode (Philpott 1991, 50), although later Roman cremation burials were found at Winterbourne Down (Algar 1961, 470), Lankhills in Winchester (Clarke 1979) and Owslebury, Hampshire (Collis 1977, 27). It was impossible to establish whether the cremation burial was an isolated feature or part of a larger extra- mural cemetery. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Wessex Archaeology would like to acknowledge the co-operation of Thames Water Utilities, in particular Mr Alan Young (Project Manager) and Ms Juliet Roper (Senior Conservation and Heritage Scientist). The collaborative role of Mike Lang Hall (Archaeological Consultant), Roy Canham and Duncan Coe (Wiltshire County Council) is also acknowledged, as is the assistance of the Resident Engineer, Mathew le Port (Gleesons). Aerial photographic transcription was undertaken by Chris Cox, Air Photo Services, and her assistance during the course of the project is acknowledged. Mark Corney is acknowledged for his helpful comments and advice on the results of the fieldwork. The project was managed for Wessex Archaeology by Roland J.C. Smith and was directed in the field by Phil Harding with the assistance of Nicholas Cooke, Chris Ellis, Jim Stedman, Julie Lovell, James Wright and Cornelius Barton. The illustrations were prepared by S.E. James. A more detailed report on the results of the work (Wessex Archaeology 1998) has been deposited with the Wiltshire SMR. References ALGAR, D.J., 1961, Winterbourne Down: Roman cemetery. WANHM 58, 470 BURNHAM, B.C., and WACHER, J., 1990, The Small Towns of Roman Britain. London: Batsford CLARKE, G., 1979, Pre-Roman and Roman Winchester Part II: The Roman Cemetery at Lankhills. Oxford: Oxford University Press COLLIS, J., 1977, ‘Owslebury (Hants) and the problem of burials on rural settlements’, in R. Reece (ed.), Burial in the Roman World, 26-34. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 22 CORNEY, M., 1997, The origins and development of the ‘Small Town’ of Cunetio, Mildenhall, Wiltshire. Britannia 28, 337-50 CORNEY, M., 2001, “The Romano-British nucleated settlements of Wiltshire’, in P. Ellis (ed.), Roman Wiltshire and After: Papers in Honour of Ken Annable, 3-38. Devizes: WANHS COX, C., 1997, ‘Mildenhall Rising Main SU 2068, 2069, 2168, 2169 Wiltshire, Aerial Photographic Assessment’. Unpublished Air Photo Services Ltd. Client Report 967/13 MCKINLEY, J.I., 1993, Bone fragment size and weights of bone from modern British cremations and its implications for the interpretation of archaeological cremations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3, 283-7 MCKINLEY, J.I., 1997, Bronze Age ‘barrows’ and the funerary rites and rituals of cremation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 129-45 MEYRICK, O., 1955, Romano-British burials at Werg. Marlborough College Natural History Society 96, 19- 20 PHILPOTT, R., 1991, Burial Practices in Roman Britain: A Survey of Grave Treatment and Furnishing A.D. 43 — 410. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 219 ROGERS, J., and WALDRON, T., 1995, A Field Guide to Joint Disease in Archaeology. Chichester: Wiley WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY, 1998, Excavation of Roman features and deposits on the outskirts of Cunetio (Mildenhall), Marlborough, Wiltshire 1n 1997. Unpublished Client Report No. 43455 Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 33-39 Etruscan and Other Figurines from Avebury and Nearby by Paul Robinson The paper re-examines the history and provenance of a number of bronze figurines and related objects originally in the collection of Joshua Brooke. All are purported to be of Roman date and to have been found in and around Avebury during the late 19th and early 20th century. Whilst genuine Etruscan, Roman and Chinese antiquities, in each instance the provenance can be shown to be false. It is evident that Brooke was being sold antiquities with false findspots, a practice designed to increase their value that was not uncommon at the time. There are in the Society’s museum a group of bronze figurines and related objects which purport to be of Roman date and which were said to have been found at Avebury and in one instance, Bishops Cannings, the adjacent parish. They came to the museum in 1916 from the collection formed by Joshua Brooke and had previously been displayed in the private museum in his house at Marlborough. Most of these objects have been published at different times as genuine Wiltshire finds from Avebury or nearby. It is not however insignificant that they were all omitted by M.E. Cunnington (1932) and L.V. Grinsell (1957) in their gazetteers of archaeological finds made in the county, although most were included by Mrs Cunnington in 1934 in the catalogue of the museum collections of which she was joint author. It is now appreciated that there were important Roman buildings both in and near Avebury and it is therefore opportune to reconsider this group and their recorded provenances to consider whether there is indeed any possibility that any may be genuine finds from Wiltshire. Joshua Brooke built up an extremely important collection of artefacts and coins, many of which were found in Wiltshire and West Berkshire. Some _of these came from excavations that he himself undertook: some were given to him by landowners while others he purchased from dealers or the workmen who had found them. He was perhaps unfairly and rather summarily dismissed by O.G.S. Crawford as ‘a rather crazy and disreputable collector. .. he did not appreciate the importance of recording the exact sites of his finds; many of these were obtained from road workmen and others, and the sites of many are suspect’ (Crawford 1955, 27f). Brooke did however fully appreciate that the objects from Avebury which are the subject of this paper were potentially of very great importance in understanding the history of the monument and the region around it in Roman times. While few of these objects, and indeed a small proportion only of the objects and coins in his collection do have precise findspots, most do have relatively close findspots. Where the findspot is more general, this is almost certainly because he had been given only generalised information by the donor or vendor. Certainly in his manuscript notebooks, which are preserved in the library of the WANHS, Brooke records findspots, evidently in as much detail as he was able to. While he was certainly knowledgeable about coins and artefacts, he does appear at times to have been gullible with regard to some provenances and fanciful in some of his identifications. In this respect he is perhaps no different from many other collectors, archaeologists The Museum, WANHS, 41 Long Street, Devizes, Wiltshire, SN10 1NS 34 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE or provincial museum curators of his time, when they have been faced with archaeological finds either made by members of the public or offered for sale by dealers. The group of objects is as follows. They are listed in the order given to them by Brooke in his catalogue of his collection. a i a } Fig.1. Italic figurine of a priest or genius from ‘Avebury 1. Italic bronze figurine depicting a priest or genius (Figure 1). Height 65mm. It is said to have been found at Avebury but the purported exact findspot is not recorded. Neither the finder’s nor the vendor’s name is recorded. Accession number: Brooke collection 117. Published: 1. Cunnington and Goddard (1934, 226); 2. Green (1976, 191) as ‘a white metal statuette with a radiate head’. Professor E.A. Richardson has kindly reported on this figurine as follows (pers. comm.): ‘The bronze, with spiky crown, patera in the right hand and an acerra (incense box) in the left hand is a battered example of the common type of ‘priest’ or ‘genius’ found at Latium and Etruria in quantities. A few have dedicatory inscriptions in Etruscan or Latin. Some come from the Latin sanctuary of Nemi, some from Orvieto and many have no provenance. It is a type apparently invented in the 2nd century B.C, Other examples of comparable Italic figurines are recorded as having been found at Chester and London (Pitts 1979, 69, no. 96). They were however not found in the course of archaeological excavations and cannot be seen as confirming the genuineness of the Avebury findspot. The figurines were made as dedications, not for trade or domestic use and they are extremely unlikely to have been brought to England in late Iron Age or Roman times. They must be seen almost certainly as recent imports into Britain, given false findspots to make them marketable to collectors of locally found artefacts. The figurine must be considered in association with the following Etruscan figurine: Fig. 2. Etruscan figurine of a standing warrior from ‘Bishops Cannings’ ETRUSCAN AND OTHER FIGURINES FROM AVEBURY AND NEARBY 35 De Etruscan bronze figurine depicting a warrior standing on a lead base (Figure 2). Height of figurine 73mm. The findspot is given either as ‘Shepherds Shore, Bishops Cannings’, ‘near Devizes Waterworks’ (Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette, 6 July 1905), or ‘near Devizes’ (ibid. 17 April 1916). Neither the finder’s nor the vendor’s names are recorded. Accession number: Brooke collection 118. Published: 1. Cunnington and Goddard (1934, 224 and pl. LXXIII, 4) as ‘a soldier’; 2. Green (1976, 191) as ‘a bronze Mars’. Professor E.A. Richardson reports on the figurine as follows (pers. comm.): “Che warrior with the patera in his right hand is a rather battered example of a type of which I know only three other examples — one in Florence, one in Verona and one in Paris. They wear a leather cuirass with shoulder guards and two rows of lappets (pteryges), fastened at the waist with a belt which is tied with a fancy knot in the Paris and Verona examples, but stiff and smooth with raised edges in Florence 338. The helmet is high-crowned: the Paris example looks like a Corinthian parade helmet: the others do not look like anything but an inverted pot. All have lowered cheek pieces fastened under the chin. The weight is on the right leg, hip out, left knee bent, foot to the side. The left arm is raised to lean on a spear: the right (arm) down and out to hold a patera. The type is a descendant of the Mars of Todi, “Warrior pouring a libation”. It is Etruscan and dates tentatively to the 3rd century B.C,’ As with the italic figurine above, such Etruscan bronze figurines were made as dedicatory offerings, not for trade or as personal objects. It is unlikely to have been an ancient loss in Wiltshire in the Iron ‘ Age but most probably is a recent import into Britain which has been given a false findspot. The figurine may be compared with the Etruscan bronze figure of Turms (Hermes) said to have been found ‘by a labourer near Uffington’, i.e. not too far distant from Avebury, and now in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. It is soundly discounted as a genuine find, together with a number of other Etruscan figurines with purported English findspots in Rigby, Swaddling and Cowell 1995. Be Roman bronze affix from a vessel in the form of a bearded male bust surmounted by a small modus, representing the Romano-Egyptian deity Serapis Fig. 3. Bronze affix depicting Serapis from ‘Avebury’ (Figure 3). Height 48mm, width 34mm. It is said to have been found at Rogers Meadow, Avebury and was purchased by Brooke from C.H. Paradise, who was a blacksmith at that village. Accession number: Brooke collection 119. Published: 1. Cunnington and Goddard (1934, 224 and pl. LXXIII, 3); 2. Green (1976, 191 and pl. 22f) as ‘a bronze male bust, probably Serapis’. The provenance is given on page 50 of Brooke’s notebook: ‘Aug 25 1911. Obtained from C.H. Paradise a small bronze head and bust of Jupiter Capitolinus which was found at Rogers meadow, Avebury. It appears to have some red enamel on the bust. CHP was offered £3 for it. I obtained the specimen for £3.10.0 much above its value, yet this with a similar specimen of a vestal virgin ?? Juno may have an immense bearing on the perpetuated meaning of Avebury in early Roman times.’ The ‘similar specimen of a vestal virgin’ is described below. The red enamel appears to be ink or paint and is not ancient. It may be the remains of an early collector’s accession or catalogue number. No other finds of Roman date have been recorded from Rogers Meadow at Avebury. Paradise is known to have sold to Brooke another bronze 36 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE figurine said to have been found at Avebury (see no. 7 below), making it most likely that the provenance of this bronze affix is not genuine. There is in addition some doubt that a bronze figurine depicting Serapis would be likely to be found on a rural site in Wiltshire. Representations of the god are rare in Britain and are predominantly from urban sites. The only other purported image of the god from Wiltshire is a sculpture made from Egyptian porphyry, said to have been found at Highworth. This too is considered to have been most probably given a fraudulent provenance (Cunliffe and Fulford 1982, no. 113). Fig. 4. Bronze steelyard weight depicting Cybele from ‘Avebury’ 4. Bronze steelyard weight in the form of a draped female bust, probably representing Cybele (Figure 4). Height 53 mm, width 33 mm. The findspot is given only as ‘Avebury’ and neither the finder’s nor the vendor’s names are recorded. Accession number: Brooke collection 120. Published: 1. Cunnington and Goddard (1934, 224 and pl. LX111, 1) where the findspot is incorrectly stated to be the Roman town of Cunetio; 2. Green (1976, 191). The steelyard weight is to be identified as ‘the similar specimen of a vestal virgin ?? Juno’ mentioned above, suggesting that it had been found and acquired by Brooke before 1911. There is no hard evidence to condemn the findspot, merely the facts that there is no satisfactory evidence confirming that the bronze was indeed found in Avebury, coupled with the unlikelihood that an object depicting Cybele should be a genuine ancient loss on a rural site in Wiltshire. 5. Incomplete copper alloy figurine depicting the winged Cupid (Figure 5). The right arm is raised and the left leg bent. The right hand and the right foot are both missing. Height 48mm, width 37mm. The findspot is given only as Avebury and neither the finder’s nor the vendor’s names are recorded. Fig. 5. Bronze figurine of Cupid from ‘Avebury’ ETRUSCAN AND OTHER FIGURINES FROM AVEBURY AND NEARBY 37 Accession number: Brooke collection 121. Published: 1. Cunnington and Goddard (1934, 224 and plate LXXIII, 2); 2. Green (1976, 192) where the findspot is incorrectly given as Liddington. The figurine is possibly one of a pair of figurines depicting Cupid which originally flanked a larger bronze figurine of a classical god in a Jararium or domestic shrine. There are no positive arguments for denying that this is a genuine find from Avebury. There is at least one Roman building in the parish — that near Silbury Hill — which was evidently of sufficient importance that it would be a plausible place where the figurine might have been found. The recent discovery near Avebury of a Roman gold finger ring with an intaglio depicting Fortuna has confirmed that finds of particular quality might be found in the parish. However, the fact that there is no further information about the discovery of the figurine confirming the genuineness of the findspot and its association in Brooke’s collection with figurines to which a false provenance at Avebury has been applied suggest that the recorded findspot is probably not genuine. 6. Fragment of a cheekpiece in copper alloy in the form of a hippocamp, probably manufactured in the 6th-5th centuries B.C. in Magna Graecia (the Greek cities in South Italy) rather than in Etruria (Figure 6). Height 59mm, width 49mm, thickness 7mm. The findspot is given only as Avebury and neither the finder’s nor the vendor’s names are recorded. Accession number: Brooke collection 122. Published in Cunnington and Goddard (1934, 226: _not illustrated) as the ‘well-modelled Head of a Horse; perhaps an affix or handle from a vessel’. There is an almost identical cheekpiece in the Greek and Roman department at the British Museum (accession number 1975. 12-3.12) which is unprovenanced. A complete bridle with slightly less similar cheekpieces in the same department (accession number 1937.5-14.1) is also unprovenanced but catalogued as ‘Etruscan or South Italian’. A tore with terminals in the form of hippocamps similar to that on the cheekpiece was found at Belmonte-Picenza and it is suggested that it was manufactured in Magna Graecia, perhaps in Campania in the 6th century B.C. (Anon 1959, 127 and fig. 100). As with the Italic and Etruscan figurines above it is highly unlikely that this could be a genuine ancient loss in Avebury. Fig. 6. Fragment of a cheekpiece from Magna Graecia, found in ‘Avebury’ es Two fragments comprising the head and one shoulder of a bust of Buddha made of copper alloy with traces of gilding and red paint (Figure 7). It has been identified by Shelagh Vainker, Chinese curator at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, as ‘Chinese... probably Ming, 15th —16th century’. As well as having been broken into pieces, the face has been heavily battered and the left eye is missing. Height (of head fragment) 107mm, width 72mm, depth 48mm. It is described on the accompanying label as having been ‘found near Avebury’ and in Brooke’s notebook as from ‘under Monkton Hill in...Avebury’. Brooke purchased it from Barnard, ‘a local curio dealer’, who in turn had purchased it from C.H. Paradise, the Avebury blacksmith. It appears not to have been given a catalogue number by Brooke, who initially believed it to depict the Roman god, Mars. The importance of the piece is that its full provenance is recorded and that it illustrates the unreliability of those who supplied Brooke with antiquities for his collection. Brooke records in his notebook (page 80): ‘March 14, 1894. Barnard Curio dealer brought in the remains of a Bronze Eastern like head which he said had been ploughed up under Monkton Hill in the parish of Avebury. He said that it was only a 38 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 7. Two fragments of a bust of Buddha found in ‘Avebury’ portion but the whole could be obtained. From what I gleaned, the figure when found was put up as an Aunt Sally and knocked to pieces by ploughboys in their dinner hour. ‘March 29. I made searching enquiries at Avebury and ascertained that Barnard had obtained the specimen from Paradise (Blacksmith). I offered 10/- for the remainder and called again when I received a portion of the shoulder. I was informed by Paradise that the whole was laid on his bench for months and that he had made many attempts to put it together. In fact he had the pieces not a fortnight previous. The find was made about 18 months ago and Paradise bought it from Monkton, The figurine was also sketched in his notebook (as figure 8) and entitled ‘Figure of Mars’. Although not a genuine find, the bronze is nevertheless of some interest as a documented example of a Chinese antiquity which had reached Britain prior to 1894. The practice of deliberately giving false findspots to archaeological objects is a long established one. It was first exposed by Franks (1858): ‘The numerous local antiquaries who have sprung up since archaeology has been more carefully studied, are anxious to obtain antiquities from some particular locality. Spurious localities are therefore invented, and Greek, Etruscan, Egyptian, and Italian antiquities are palmed off on the unwary as having been found in his native soil. I have been informed by dealers in curiosities that labourers frequently come to their shops and purchase miscellaneous rubbish to be retailed to any stray archaeologist who should venture near their work. I remember some years since being shown a modern Abyssinian sandal duly steeped in oil which purported to have been found in Roman London; and I have even seen Greek vases, which were said to be found in digging the foundations in the city; one of them I strongly suspect to have been recently brought from Cyrenaica, and another had all the marks of having been through the hands of an Italian restorer of modern times. Such frauds are carried on to a great extent in coins, and the recent works in the city have supplied a profitable outlet for the rubbish of coin sales.’ The paragraph illustrates that the antiquities which were already in the mid-19th century being given false findspots and ‘palmed off on the unwary’ included items originally from Italy, which had been purchased from Victorian curio shops. The addition of a spurious findspot in Britain not only made them easier to sell but gave them an enhanced value as ‘exotic’ finds. In the 19th century the number of potential purchasers of antiquities and coins increased with the growth of local museums and the increase in the number of people interested in local history and archaeology. It was inevitable that unscrupulous people would emerge to satisfy this demand by dishonest means. Other early Italian items purporting to have been found in Wiltshire include the bronze spiked bit roller of the 6th-4th century BC purporting to have been found at Great Bedwyn (Evans 1881, 271f; Grinsell 1957, 73 — described as a socketed bronze ‘mace-head’) as well ETRUSCAN AND OTHER FIGURINES FROM AVEBURY AND NEARBY 39 as all but one of the Italic fibula brooches from Wiltshire — and other counties — which have already been dismissed as genuine local finds by Hull and Hawkes (1987), as well as by Rigby, Swaddling and Cowell (1995). The only Italic find from Wiltshire that is at present considered genuine is a fibula brooch with a ‘violin bow’, dated to the 12th century BC, and found in Avebury (!). An Early Bronze Age flint dagger, purporting to have been found at Avebury, exposed by Leslie Grinsell (1953-4), illustrates how British antiquities also were at times given false provenances. It would be very easy to condemn Brooke outright for his gullibility in accepting impossible local findspots for a few purported finds and to dismiss the rest of his collections as having unproven findspots. It is, however, likely that false findspots are restricted to a small part only of his collection. Brooke nevertheless has made a significant contribution to the archaeology of Wiltshire. Over a period of some thirty years he did record as accurately as he was able to do or as he believed was necessary, the findspots of a large number of prehistoric, Roman and Medieval objects and coins from the area of the North Wiltshire Downs and West Berkshire. His records of, for example, Mesolithic flints from Aldbourne and Roman finds from the site of Cunetio at Mildenhall still remain crucial for our appreciation of these sites. By purchasing objects found he ensured that they would be preserved in the county. For many years, for example, the hoard of Bronze Age socketed axes from Manton which he had purchased was the only complete hoard of metalwork of this period to be preserved in the county. Recent discoveries from Manton have given this find a particular importance. While private collectors of antiquities frequently receive a bad press, their contribution in the past to our knowledge of Wiltshire archaeology cannot be denied. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer is indebted to Professor E. Richardson, Dr Judith Swaddling and Ms Shelagh Vainker for their help in writing this paper and for permission to quote them here. Martin Henig read a draft and made suggestions for its improvement. Bibliography ANON., 1959, Piceni. Populo d’Europa. (Exhibition Catalogue). Luca CRAWFORD, O.G.S., 1955, Said and Done: The Autobiography of an Archaeologist. London CUNLIFFE, B.W. and FULFORD, M.G., 1982, Bath and the Rest of Wessex. The British Academy Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani — Corpus of Sculpture of the Roman World. Great Britain, volume 1, fascicule 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press CUNNINGTON, M.E., 1932, ‘Romano-British Wiltshire’. WANHM 45, 166-216 CUNNINGTON, M.E. and GODDARD, E.H., 1934, Catalogue of Antiquities in the Museum of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society at Devizes. Part II. Devizes: WANHS EVANS, J., 1881, The Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments, of Great Britain and Treland. London FRANKS, A.W., 1858, ‘Frauds and Forgeries of “antiques”. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 5, 5andi233 GREEN, M.J., 1976, The Religions of Civilian Roman Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 24 GRINSELL, L.V., 1953-4, ‘A Flint Dagger from Avebury’, WANHM 55, 176 and 291 GRINSELL, L.V., 1957, ‘Archaeological Gazetteer’, in R.P. Pugh and Elizabeth Critall (eds), A History of Wiltshire, Vol. 1, Part 1. London: Oxford University Press HULL, M.R. and HAWKES, C.F.C., 1987, Corpus of Ancient Brooches in Britain by the late Mark Reginald Hull, Pre-Roman Bow Brooches. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 168 PITTS, L.F., 1979, Roman Bronze Figurines of the Catuvellauni and the Trinovantes. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 60 RIGBY, V., SWADDLING, J.T., and COWELL, M., 1995, ‘The Blandford Forum Group: Are any Etruscan Figures True Finds from Great Britain and Eire?’, in J. Swaddling, S. Walker and P. Roberts (eds), Italy in Europe: Economic Relations 700BC —AD50. London: British Museum Occasional Paper 97 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 40 Grand Avenue, Savernake Forest, May 2000 Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 40-46 The Trees of Savernake Forest by Jack Oliver A complete list of the trees, including hybrids, recorded during 1999 and 2000 is provided with indications of frequency, situation and spread. These can be categorised in four groups which are described. Some individual trees of national significance are mentioned. The diversity both of tree types and habitats puts Savernake at least on a par with Stourhead and Longleat. INTRODUCTION Most of the present extent of Savernake Forest, 905 hectares, was notified as an SSSI in 1971 and again in 1988, largely on the grounds of exceptional biological diversity. The Forest is in private ownership (Lord Cardigan) although much of it is currently managed by the Forestry Authority. Savernake Forest has a very long history. The three old forms of the name Savernake are Saxon in origin and are — Savernoc, Savernac and Savernak; all of these have their suffixes alluding to the three old forms of oak, oc, ac and ak. Today, in addition to ancient oaks, there are many different types of trees of different sizes and ages growing in the forest. During 1999 and 2000 I spent many hours walking in Savernake Forest recording and measuring the trees. The following is summary of my findings. The trees can be categorised in four groups: Native species and natural variants. Forestry plantations. Naturalised and semi-naturalised species. Exotics, mainly (but not exclusively) found in the Savernake Forest Arboretum. NATIVE SPECIES AND NATURAL VARIANTS To NS Native oaks including the English (or pedunculate) - oak, the sessile (or durmast) oak, and intermediates which appear to be hybrids and back-crossings between the two. There is also the Savernake Cluster oak, a very rare mutant form of the English oak which can, however, reproduce itself. Some of the ancient oaks have been pollarded, some coppiced and some both, in past centuries. In fact both pollarding and coppicing increase longevity. Several of the oaks would go back to pre-Tudor times and one (the Big-belly) to the Saxon era. This has a coppice circumference of 14 metres. Twelve Savernake oaks have girths, at 5 ft from the ground, of over 7 metres, including one of almost 10 metres and two over 10 metres. Old names of some of these veterans include King of Limbs, Duke’s Vaunt, Amity Oak, Cathedral Oak, Queen Oak and Braydon Oak (see Oliver & Davies 2001, WANHM, for a much fuller account of the Savernake Oaks). Beeches and hornbeams were probably past introductions to Savernake Forest (see ensuing sections), but there are in the Forest not less than 25 further types of tree native to the area, including hybrids. In approximate order of commonness, these are as follows: - hawthorn, holly, elder, field maple, silver birch, (there is also downy birch and hybrid), pussy willow (also grey sallow and the hybrid), cherry (gean), hazel, ash, rowan, wych elm, English elm (suckers only, following Dutch Elm disease), crab-apple, yew, sloe, spindle, whitebeam, midland hawthorn (and the hybrid with the common hawthorn), buckthorn, and a single High View, Rhyls Lane, Lockeridge, Marlborough SN8 4ED 42 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE remaining small-leaved lime. A field maple in the south central part of the Forest is hollow, and one of the largest girth field maples in the country (4m at 6ft from the ground). The Savernake (true) crab- apple trees are exceptionally spiny, with cherry-sized or even smaller fruits. Hollow Field Maple FORESTRY PLANTATIONS Many of the plantations have broad designations such as ‘Mixed Broadleaves’ or ‘Mixed Conifer.’ Oak (mainly pedunculate, but often from foreign acorns) is the most commonly planted followed by beech. Other tree species, variants and hybrids planted include the following in approximate order of frequency: - birch (two native species, the hybrid, and four foreign species in an experimental plot), Scots pine, Norway spruce (Christmas trees), larch, (European, Polish and hybrids), Douglas fir, ash, sycamore, larch (Japanese), Corsican pine, western hemlock-spruce, hazel, gean, bird-cherry, American red oak, sweet chestnut, large-leaved lime, poplar, (black poplar hybrids), hornbeam, Lawson’s cypress and grand fir. NATURALIZED AND SEMI-NATURALIZED TREE SPECIES AND TYPES The following tree types reproduce naturally in Savernake Forest, but were not originally native to the area. The most important species is beech, which dominates many avenues and other parts of the Forest. The beech can be either broad and spreading or slender and graceful with narrow angled branching. Probably both management techniques and genetic factors are involved. A type of mutant beech with rough bark like an oak also occurs in Savernake Forest, (Oliver 2000). One of the finest and largest beeches in the British Isles is flourishing on the S.E. fringe of the Forest, the Warren Farm Great Beech. In the year 2000, this had a girth of 7 metres at 5ft from the ground. Some of the beeches south of Charcoal Burners Road have copper-tinged leaves, as have numbers of descendent saplings. Perhaps the most impressive trees in Savernake Forest are the sweet (or Spanish) chestnuts. Many have residual old coppice rings at the base and a few have huge fractured trunks or boughs. However most have straight tall trunks, with beautifully spiralled bark. Coppice ring circumferences can exceed 10metres and girths at shoulder height can exceed 7metres. Of equal or even greater heights are the Savernake common (hybrid) limes. These usually have their trunks largely hidden by dense masses of stem sprouts, often also with vigorous basal suckering. Seedlings can also be produced in abundance in spring, but voles nearly always eat them; so fewer than 0.1% survive their first summer. Many of the limes seem to have been planted as Plantation of young trees THE TREES OF SAVERNAKE FOREST grand avenues in the past, on account of their height and beauty. Hornbeams were once plantation trees introduced from other parts of Britain, but are now reproducing naturally, often with more seedlings and saplings than the commoner large beeches around them. Horse chestnuts only progress from seed (conker) to sapling rarely in the Forest, and I have only seen two seedlings of Turkey oak. However there is one Turkey oak with a buttressed base and this fine tree exceeds any of the native oaks in height. Descendants of eating apple trees are also to be found which could derive from discarded cores or from birds or rodents. Sweet chestnut None of the trees in this section compare with sycamore and Norway maple for naturalisation and survival of seedlings in the forest conditions. In parts of Savernake Forest, natural saplings of these two (once foreign species) can survive in dozens, thriving as if they were true natives. EXOTICS Occasional surprises in unexpected parts of _Savernake Forest include fine cedars of Lebanon and a tall imposing Monterey pine. There are also younger western red cedars and Lawson’s cypresses planted 43 Monterey pine at entrances or to screen the camping washrooms. However most of the unusual introductions were planted in the Savernake Arboretum or in the garden areas near the Forestry Offices. These areas include 30 more types of coniferous tree and 20 more types of broadleaf over and above those mentioned under the three previous headings. LIST OF TREE SPECIES AND HYBRIDS (INCLUD- ING TOTTENHAM PARR) The ensuing list covers Savernake Forest and its immediate fringing gardens both within the Forest, and its edges. Altogether the area considered is very diverse. Some species are found mostly or only at Tottenham Park; others have spread at Tottenham Park but not in the main Forest — for instance cherry and Portugal laurels, by extensive layering. Savernake Forest has many huge native and naturalized trees such as oaks, beeches and chestnuts, but very few large exotic trees, because the Arboretum is young. By contrast, Tottenham Park has several giant specimen non-native species (such as wellingtonias) but only a few really large native trees. ead The right hand columns give an immediate indication of the botanical (as opposed to the forestry or horticultural) importance of each taxon. THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE than 50 conifer species, which is common, widely distributed, and self-perpetuating, whereas this applies to nearly one third of the dicotyledonous For instance, yew is the only conifer out of more tree species and hybrids listed. Key Frequency Column C Common, likely to be seen in many parts of the forest O Occasional R_ Rare Situation Column W Widespread; (sometimes as a major plantation species) L_ Limited occurrences T Mainly or only Tottenham Park A Mainly or only Savernake Forest Arboretum P Confined to small or experimental plantations Natural Spread S Seedlings and/or natural saplings noted locally SS Seedlings and or natural saplings extensive, or frequently seen F Forest fringes and/or private gardens. H, used as hedging Ginkgoaceae Araucariaceae. Cupressaceae. Pinaceae V_ Limited vegetative spread, suckering, layering etc VV Extensive vegetative spread Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Araucaria araucana Monkey Puzzle, Chile Pine Chamaecyparis formosensis Formosan Cypress Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Lawsons Cypress Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Nootka Cypress Chamaecyparis pisifera Sawara Cypress X Cupressocyparis leylandii Leyland Cypress Cupressus macrocarpa Monterey Cypress Juniperus recurva Drooping Juniper Thuja plicata Western Red-cedar Thuja orientalis Northern White-cedar Abies cephalonica Grecian Fir Abies concolor var lowiana Low’s White Fir Abies grandis Grand Fir Abies nordmanniana Caucasian Fir Abies procera Noble Fir Abies veitchii Veitch’s Silver Fir Cedrus atlantica Atlantic (Atlas) Cedar Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Cedrus libani Cedar of Lebanon Larix decidua (incl ssp polonica) European Larch (including Polish Larch) Larix kaemferi Japanese Larch Larix x marschlinsii Hybrid Larch Picea abies Norway Spruce Picea brachytyla Sargent Spruce Picea engelmannii Engelmann Spruce Picea glauca White Spruce Picea jezoensis Hondo Spruce Picea mariana Black Spruce Picea omorika Serbian Spruce Picea orientalis Oriental Spruce Picea pungens Colorado Blue Spruce Picea sitchensis Sitka Spruce Pinus aristata Bristlecone Pine Pinus banksiana Jack Pine Pinus contorta Shore/Lodgepole Pine Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey Pine Pinus nigra ssp laricio & ssp nigra Black Pine (Corsican and Austrian Pines) Frequency Situation Natural Spread ar = A&F&T S [eel ned Bea leah losh [923 [eal 33 a0) q nm! ' 1%.) > > bb > > Hy > ae) ie] &T - rere rrrrgduvuid &T - O AAAAAAADAAAAARAOAADO AAAAAAAAAXAOCAXDOAXA CAAA é | rc PpPprpp THE TREES OF SAVERNAKE FOREST Taxodiaceae Taxaceae Magnoliaceae Lauraceae Platanaceae Fagaceae Betulaceae Juglandaceae Salicaceae Tiliaceae Ulmaceae Aquifoliaceae Ericaceae Rosaceae Pinus pinea Stone Pine Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine Pinus radiata Monterey Pine Pinus rigida Northern Pitch Pine Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Pinus wallichiana Bhutan Pine Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock-spruce Tsuga heterophylla Western Hemlock-spruce Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Red-cedar Cunninghamia lanceolata Chinese Fir Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood Sequoiadendron giganteum Wellingtonia Taxus baccata Yew Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree Laurus nobilis Bay Laurel Platanus x hispanica London Plane Castanea sativa Spanish Chestnut Fagus sylvatica & variants Beech Nothofagus nervosa Rauli Nothofagus obliqua x nervosa Hybrid Roble-Rauli Quercus cerris Turkey Oak Quercus coccinea ?Scarlet Oak Quercus x crenata Lucombe Oak Quercus ilex Holm Oak Quercus petraea Durmast Oak Quercus robur English (Pendunculate) Oak (Quercus robur ‘Cristata’ Savernake Cluster Oak, an endemic variant of the preceding) Quercus x rosacea Hybrid Native Oak Quercus rubra (borealis) American Red Oak Betula x aurata Hybrid Native Birch Betula ermanii Hermann’s Birch Betula lenta Cherry Birch Betula lutea Yellow Birch Betula maximowiczii Monarch Birch Betula papyrifera Paper Birch Betula pendula Silver Birch Betula pubescens Downy Birch Carpinus betulus Hornbeam Corylus avellana Hazel Juglans regia Walnut Populus nigra ‘Plantierensis’ Black Poplar Populus x canadensis Hybrid Biack Poplar Populus x jackii Hybrid Balsam Poplar Salix caprea Sallow; Goat or Pussy Willow Salix cinerea ssp oleifolia Grey Willow Salix x reichardtii Hybrid Sallow Tilia cordata Small-leaved Lime Tilia x europea Common (Hybrid) Lime Tilia platyphyllos Broad-lvd Lime Ulmus glabra Wych Elm Ulmus procera English Elm Ilex aquifolium Holly Rhododendron ponticum Rhododendron Crataegus monogyma Hawthorn Crataegus laevigata Midland Hawthorn Crataegus x media Hybrid Hawthorn Malus domestica Apple Malus sylvestris Crabapple 45 Frequency Situation Natural Spread OO OOZA OOOO AAA OOM A OOO AAA OOAnR MARA A ORO AO 7 Aa a AA 29 one) OOAANDNVOANA gg x >t iS rm PP Br geep <4pnk Re 4 pe rd ig ~ Vinge fh fa a4hrr gee 46 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Frequency Situation Natural Spread Prunus avium Gean, Wild Cherry (Cc W S,VV Prunus cerasifera (and vars) Cherry Plum O F,H SV Prunus laurocerasus Cherry Laurel O F&T,H 2S, VV Prunus lusitanica Portugal Laurel O F&T,H 2S, VV Prunus padus Bird Cherry R 1B S Prunus sargenti Sargent Cherry R A - Prunus spinosa Blackthorn, Sloe Cc W S,VV Sorbus aria Whitebeam O Ww S Sorbus aucuparia Rowan C Ww SS Sorbus hupehensis Hupeh Rowan R F - Sorbus intermedia Swedish Whitebeam R A - Sorbus x thuringiaca Bastard Service Tree R A - Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Laburnum anagyroides Laburnum O WwW - Celastraceae Euonynus europaeus Spindle O W S Rhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn R F S Hippocastanaceae Aesculus carnea Red Horse-Chestnut O F - Aesculus hippocastanum Greek Horse-Chestnut SC W S Aceraceae Acer campestre Field Maple Cc W SS Acer palmatum Japanese Maple R Jb - Acer pensylvanicum Moosewood R A - Acer platanoides Norway Maple (c; WwW SS Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore G Ww SS Oleaceae Fraxinus excelsior Ash G; W SS Caprifoliaceae Sambucus nigra Elder Cc W SS SUMMARY ‘Total Tree Species: 107 (11 species sometimes or usually shrubby). Total Tree Hybrids: 13 (2 hybrids sometimes or usually shrubby). Total Taxa, including Subspecies and important Variants: more than 130 Extensive natural spread: 18 species, 1 hybrid. Occasional natural spread: 24 species, 5 hybrids. In general, Savernake Forest is most noteworthy for the varieties of its habitats including wild areas, plantations, semi-managed locations, glades and fields, and its tree types, putting it on a par with places such as Stourhead and Longleat. Ancient oaks, especially hybrid native oaks, may be the most important single group, but the Forest should also be famed for its beeches and Spanish chestnuts. Given another 200 years, there will certainly also be some fine specimen trees, (including rarer species) in the Savernake Arboretum to rival those in other established collections in Wiltshire. But it is to be hoped that the diversity will be maintained for many centuries longer than that. Most large trees have been earmarked, mapped, tagged and described. There are fine (digital) photos of many of these, taken by Joan Davies. The colour tree maps, tag keys, taxonomic and descriptive text, historical accounts and photos have been retained at the County Archives at Trowbridge (see Oliver 2001, 2002, and Davies, 2001). ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My thanks to Joan Davies for preparing the illustrations for this paper. Bibliography DAVIES, J. M., 2001 Savernake Parish Millennium Project, Wiltshire &] S[windon] R{ecord] O[ffice] 3255 OLIVER, J.E. & DAVIES, J.M. ‘Savernake Forest Oaks’, WANHM, 93, 24-46 OLIVER, J. E., 2000 ‘Beech Tree Variants in Savernake Forest’, BSBI News, 85, 26-43 OLIVER, J. E., 2001 Savernake Millennium Tree Project, WSRO 3281 OLIVER, J. E., 2002 ‘Savernake Forest Millennial Tree Maps. Baselines for Future Research’, BSBI News, 90, 20 Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 47-53 Islam in East Knoyle: George Aitchison and the National School 1870-1873 by Elisabeth Darby The former national school at East Knoyle (1870-1873) is exceptional, both for being the work of the London architect, George Aitchison, and for its Near Eastern style. This article documents the commission and examines the inspiration behind this unusual village school. The national school at East Knoyle (1870-1873: Figs. 1& 2) was designed by George Aitchison (1825-1910) who, although better known as an interior decorator and furniture designer than as an architect, nonetheless rose to the height of his profession, becoming President of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1896.' Aitchison’s obituary in The Building News refers to the ‘many schools, warehouses and suites of offices’ designed by him,’ but East Knoyle appears to be his only known school. Even so, it does not appear in lists of his works and is only briefly mentioned in published literature.’ This article seeks not only to document the commission but also to explain the unusual style of the building which, with its overhanging eaves and ornamental windows in honey-coloured Ham Hill stone, draws inspiration from Near Eastern sources. As such, it pre-dates Aitchison’s more famous essay in this style — the Arab Hall at Leighton House, London (1877-79) - and thus occupies an important place in the architect’s career. The decision to erect a new school at East Knoyle followed the Education Act of 1870 which established boards in every district to provide schooling for children between the ages of five and thirteen. Canon R.N. Milford, who had arrived as rector of the parish in 1865, was a prime mover - behind the scheme to build the school,’ but it was at the suggestion of Alfred Seymour of Knoyle House that Milford wrote to George Aitchison in London on 3 November 1870 asking him to prepare plans.’ Alfred Seymour (1824-1888), described in his obituary as ‘in all respects a fine type of an English gentleman’,° was the younger son of Henry Seymour (1776-1849) who had built up the estates in the parish, and who was a descendant of Jane Seymour, wife of Henry VIII. Educated at Eton and Christ Church Oxford, Alfred was a Magistrate and Deputy Lieutenant of Wiltshire, and was MP for Salisbury between 1869 and 1874. Although Canon Milford was the initiator of the scheme, Seymour was the principal benefactor, providing the land and some materials for the school and donating over £500 to the fund. He was to be closely involved in the project, being consulted regularly on key issues and, in the circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that he should have nominated the architect. The choice of Aitchison is intriguing. On accepting the commission, Aitchison indicated that he had already ‘built some schools”’ - a fact that might have persuaded Seymour he was the right man for the job. On the other hand, up until this date (1870) Aitchison’s career as an architect had been largely limited to London buildings so the decision to employ an architect from the capital for a small country school was unusual. A more normal! practice would have been to commission a local architect, as was the case with the nearby and contemporary schools at Tisbury and Shaftesbury, The Old Malthouse, Sutton Mandeville, Salisbury SP3 5LZ 48 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE both of which were built by James Soppitt of Shaftesbury.*® There are several possibilities as to how Seymour and Aitchison became acquainted. When he accepted the commission for the school at East Knoyle, Aitchison was working in the vicinity, at indirectly, for the style of East Knoyle school. Aitchison had first met Leighton in Italy in 1853 when he was introduced to the painter as ‘an impoverished architectural student of twenty- seven’.!> The two were to become life-long friends and work together on several commissions: they Fig. 1 George Aitchison East Knoyle School c.1870. RIBA Library Drawings Collection Stalbridge, Dorset, the home of Richard de Aquila Grosvenor (1837-1912), the second surviving son of the second Marquess of Westminster.” Grosvenor was possibly acquainted with Alfred Seymour as, after the latter’s death in 1888, Knoyle House was periodically let out and he (now Baron Stalbridge) was one of the first tenants.!° Thus, it might have been at Grosvenor’s suggestion that Aitchison was engaged. Seymour could also have made the acquaintance of Aitchison through a distant relative, Percy Wyndham (1835-1911), to whom, in 1876, he was to sell his Clouds estate.'! In 1869 Percy Wyndham commissioned Aitchison to decorate parts of his London house at 44 Belgrave Square’ and Seymour (whose town house was in Eaton Square) may have been introduced to the architect there. Another possible intermediary, the painter and sculptor Frederic Leighton (1830-1896), is more significant, for he might also have been responsible, collaborated, for example, on the Wyndhams’ house in London. In 1864, as a consequence of the financial security and future success that followed the painter’s appointment as Associate of the Royal Academy, Leighton commissioned Aitchison to design his house and studio in Holland Park Road, London." Leighton was to use his house not only as a home and studio, but also as the venue for social gatherings, most notably Show Sunday (when artists opened their studios prior to the private view of the Royal Academy annual summer exhibition), and for his famous annual music party, held in his studio from c.1870.'° These events were important for attracting patrons and, as Leighton’s architect and friend, Aitchison would have been introduced into this wealthy, art-orientated circle. As a result, Aitchison’s career was to move in a new direction from the late 1870s and he was to enjoy a steady stream of commissions for interior decorative schemes, sometimes in collaboration with Leighton. It is quite possible that the Seymours visited ISLAM IN EAST KNOYLE: GEORGE AITCHISON & THE NATIONAL SCHOOL 1870-1873 49 Leighton House on Show Sunday, or perhaps attended one of Frederic Leighton’s parties, and were introduced to Aitchison by the painter. There is a further link to Frederic Leighton which comes through Alfred Seymour’s wife Isabella. When Leighton was raised to the peerage in 1896, he stated that it was Sir Baldwyn Leighton (1836-1897) who had suggested he adopt the title Lord Leighton, Baron of Stretton in the County of Shropshire. This was in reference to an unrelated Leighton family which had owned lands around Stretton in Shropshire for centuries.'® If Frederic and Sir Baldwyn’s acquaintance dated back to the 1870s, the latter may have introduced his sister Isabella, Alfred Seymour’s wife, to the painter who, in turn, may have introduced his architect, Aitchison. Moreover, Isabella, while married to her first husband Beriah Botfield, had had her portrait painted by G. F. Watts,'’ a close friend of Leighton since 1855, to whose studio in nearby Melbury Road Aitchison added a picture gallery in 1879.'* These connections, documented or conjectural, suggest that the Seymours were on the fringes of the artistic and aristocratic group that constituted the Holland Park circle in the later 19th century.'” They help to explain not only the unusual choice of a London architect for th school at East Knoyle but also the style of the building. The designing and building of the school was far from straightforward. Canon Milford’s original request was for ‘a school for 130 children - a residence for Master and Mistress - with two rooms in addition for the School mistress — as the wife of our present master does not teach — the School room — as it will be for Boys and Girls taught separately will have to be divided by sliding doors — It must also have two class rooms — It must be large nema = a a 7 : Fig. 2 George Aitchison plan for East Knoyle School c.1870. Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office F8/ 320/133 and lofty —so as to be fit for concerts and meetings’. He surmised that all this could be achieved for £700.” Aitchison, who visited the site and produced his first drawings soon afterwards, estimated the lowest cost for such a scheme would be £1120 plus £150 for carriage of materials.” Over the next few months, as the site for the school changed no less than three times, entailing new drawings on each occasion,*’ various means of reducing the cost were discussed. These included abandoning the two extra rooms for the school mistress,”* thinning the stone,”* substituting partitions for interior brick walls and omitting chimney pieces and grates,” and also paying workmen ‘more at a country jog’, that is, making smaller payments over a longer period.”° However, the most important discussions about reducing the cost centred on the windows. The original design for the school (which does not appear to have survived) seems to have included stone mullioned windows. Alfred Seymour felt strongly that ‘the only way materially to reduce the cost...will be to cut out the stone mullions altogether and have oak frames for the windows’. He believed that ‘if you have only stone frames...it will cost much less than mullions which must be of art stone’ but also that they would be more practical.*’ Aitchison was willing to comply but noted that ‘in a stone country it is a pity to spoil the ship for a ha’worth of tar’.** As built, opening wooden windows were set behind decorative pierced frames in Ham Hill stone. That the parish was able to afford these was probably in part because Alfred Seymour gave a rent-free cottage for the School Master, thus dispensing with the need and additional cost of a separate building.*? Further, Mrs. Seymour paid £50 for the two large windows in the gables at each end of the building.” The final cost of the building was about £1000, slightly less than Aitchison’s original estimate.’ Aitchison’s fee was £135 —2-11, but he made no charge for one set of drawings or his travelling time between London and East Knoyle. He also made a donation of £10 to the funds because, as he stated, he took ‘great interest in the education question’. The contractors for the building were Doddington and Farthing of Mere. The foundation stone was laid by Mrs. Seymour on 21 June 1872” and by December of that year the walls of the school and outbuildings were complete, ‘the mullions and perforated heads in’ and the main roof tiled.** The school was opened on 6 June 1873 by Alfred Seymour in a ceremony attended by Aitchison. The Salisbury Journal, commenting on the building, 50 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 3 Window of East Knoyle School singled out the ‘elegant, fluted columns in semi- relief, with beautifully carved capitals in Caen stone’ which flanked the entrance door. It noted also the ‘interesting novelty of style’ of the building, particularly evident in ‘the overhanging eaves and windows’, which it referred to as ‘Byzantine’.” The principal architectural interest of East Knoyle School lies in the presence and design of the windows (Figs. 1 & 3). Although at an early stage, with limited funds, Aitchison had acknowledged that ‘some of the finely ornamented work might have to be omitted’,*® in the event the building possesses an unusually strong decorative element for a small village school. Moreover, the style of this decoration is exceptional in the context of buildings of this type. At this date (the early 1870s), the more usual style would have been the Gothic Revival, not least because of its national and religious connotations. As Chris Brooks states ‘... there were hundreds of parish schoolrooms, often funded by the squire or parson, frequently designed by a local builder-architect, in which gothic identity and religious allegiance were indicated by little more than lancet windows and a pointed door below a gabled porch’.*’ At East Knoyle, however, Aitchison opted for a Near Eastern style which is apparent in the ogee arches of the small windows and in the stylised vase of flowers in the two large gable windows. The influence of the Near East had been evident in British architecture before 1870. Buildings such as Brighton Pavilion and Sezincote in Gloucestershire are conspicuous early 19th century examples, but from the 1830s, fostered by travel and an increasing number of scholarly publications, Islamic influence became more pervasive. It was particularly associated with private houses and, although Near Eastern styles were occasionally used for public buildings, it is rare to find it being employed for schools, especially country ones.** The Near Eastern style employed at East Knoyle school is, thus, exceptional. It appears to have been adopted as a direct consequence of Aitchison’s involvement with Frederic Leighton and is a style imported from fashionable circles in London. As already mentioned, Aitchison had built Leighton’s house in 1864-1866. Later, between 1877 and 1879, Aitchison added the Arab Hall, his best-known work and one of his few decorative schemes to survive. The Arab Hall was built to house Leighton’s collection of 16th and 17th century Syrian and Iznik tiles and is one of the most lavish examples of 19th century taste for the Near East.” The style had been prefigured a few years earlier, however, when Leighton had asked Aitchison to make some alterations to the building. Between 1869 and 1870 the studio was lengthened to the east and two stained glass windows were inserted into the walls as part of these modifications. The windows (Fig. 4), designed in 1870, consist of a row of Arabic characters with sprays of flowers beneath. Although the format is narrower and taller than the East Knoyle windows, the composition is similar. The flowers are also rather more geometric in treatment at East Knoyle but this may reflect the use of a harder material (stone) in the school. The floral composition of the windows at Leighton House and at East Knoyle school is reminiscent of the patterns found on Near Eastern pottery, particularly Iznik tiles of the type which Leighton had been collecting since the 1850s. Leighton’s interest in Near Eastern art and architecture had been awoken by his visit to Algiers in 1857 and intensified by further trips to Greece and Turkey in 1867 and Egypt in 1868. On these trips he acquired pieces of Near Eastern pottery*’ which Aitchison, as a close friend and his architect, would almost certainly have seen. Moreover, Aitchison was ISLAM IN EAST KNOYLE: GEORGE AITCHISON & THE NATIONAL SCHOOL 1870-1873 Dil familiar with Islamic work himself since he was to century Moslem palace of La Zisa near Palermo base the Arab Hall at Leighton House on the 12th which he had visited in 1854. is Fig. 4 George Aitchison Design for two windows for Leighton House 1870. RIBA Library Drawings Collection 52 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Thus, it would appear that Aitchison, having recently designed the windows for Leighton House, modified the composition for the school at East Knoyle. The question remains whether this was his own idea (possibly for economic or practical expediency) or was it at the suggestion of someone else, perhaps Alfred Seymour. It may be significant that, although Aitchison was more than competent in the Near Eastern style, he did not pursue it after the completion of the Arab Hall in 1879. Instead, the decorative schemes which occupied him from the late 1870s tended to employ classical forms and motifs or the Aesthetic Movement vocabulary of strong colours, ebonised wood and gilt details. It is accepted that many of the details at Leighton House were determined by the painter himself," and therefore one is tempted to think that the unusual style adopted at East Knoyle was also at the request of the patron, in this case, Alfred Seymour. In later life, Alfred Seymour, an asthma sufferer, spent time in Algiers’’ and an inventory of Knoyle House” which lists damascened brassware, presumably of Near Eastern origin (some of which was shown at South Kensington Museum in 1862), suggests that he might have travelled in those areas earlier. Did the Seymours admire the new windows at Leighton House and ask for something similar at East Knoyle because of their own interest in the Near East? Unfortunately, the surviving records do not provide the complete answer. It is hoped that this brief account has gone some way to explain the unusual architectural style of the school at East Knoyle. The building is a rare example of the adoption of the Near Eastern style in terms of building type and location. Moreover, it sheds further light on the largely undocumented career of the fashionable architect George Aitchison. The school closed in 1984. The building has lost its bell, both its gable ends have been reduced in height and the outbuildings are largely demolished. Fortunately, the original windows, which render the building so distinctive both locally and nationally, survive intact. Notes ' There is no published monograph on Aitchison. The most comprehensive accounts of his career appear in The Builder, 21 May 1910 p.592; The Building News, 20 May 1910, p.683; Royal Institute of British Architects Journal, 3rd series, XVII, pp.581-3; Margaret Richardson, ‘George Aitchison Lord Leighton’s Architect’ Royal Institute of British Architects Journal, January 1980, pp.37-40; Joanna Banham (ed.) Encyclopedia of Interior Design, vol. 1 (1997), pp.16-19 ° The Building News, 20 May 1910, p. 683 > The school is mentioned in The Victoria History of the Counties of England: Wiltshire vol. XI (Oxford University Press, 1980) p.97 & ill. opposite p.145; Caroline Dakers, Clouds The Biography of a County House (Yale University Press, 1993), pp. 117-8; and E. Young, East Knoyle School (Salisbury 1984), pp. 5-10, which discusses the building of the school but makes no mention of the architect. ’ E. Young, East Knoyle School, pp. 5-10 ° Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office [hereafter WSRO] F8/600/159/1/26/1 Milford to Aitchison 3 November 1870. Milford had already broached the subject with Seymour in September when he and ‘other gentlemen’ measured the site. E. Young, East Knoyle School, pp.8, 10. ° The Salisbury Journal, 17 March 1888, p.8 7 WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Aitchison to Milford 4 November 1870 8 The Building News, 15 March 1872 ° WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Milford to Aitchison 3 November 1870 writes ‘I understand that you are often now in our neighbourhood at Stalbridge’ . See also Aitchison to Milford 4 November 1870. Aitchison’s obituary in The Building News, 20 May 1910, p.683 refers to his work at ‘Stalbridge Park, Dorset, for Lord Richard Grosvenor’. '© Caroline Dakers, Clouds, p.131 '! Tbid, pp. 46-51 ' Aitchison’s designs for 44 Belgrave Square are in the RIBA Drawings Collection. ' L. & R. Ormond, Lord Leighton (Yale University Press, 1975), p.18 ' For the construction of Leighton House see L.& R. Ormond, Lord Leighton, pp.62-3, Survey of London vol. XX XVII Northern Kensington (1973), pp. 136-141. L. & R. Ormond Lord Leighton, pp. 64-65 '¢ Tbid, pp.143-4 '7 Tsabella (died 1911) was the second daughter of Sir Baldwin Leighton. She had married the bibliographer Beriah Botfield (1807-1863) in 1857, then, following his death, she married Alfred Seymour in 1866. Her portrait (as Isabella Botfield) by Watts was sold, together with a portrait of Sir Baldwin Leighton by J. Bridge after Watts, in 1945 (Pictures by Old Masters and Historical Portraits The Properties of the late Miss J.M. Seymour and the late Sir Robert A. Hadfield Bart. and from other sources, Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd., 19 January 1945 lot 102 : WSRO 1126/17). Through Isabella, Alfred Semour came into possession of considerable property and at the time of his death (1888) he owned estates in ISLAM IN EAST KNOYLE: GEORGE AITCHISON & THE NATIONAL SCHOOL 1870-1873 53 Northamptonshire, Dorset, Church Stretton in Shropshire in addition to those at Knoyle. The Salisbury Journal, 17 March 1888, p.8 '8 Margaret Richardson, ‘George Aitchison’, p. 40 19 See Caroline Dakers, The Holland Park Circle Arusts and Victorian Society (Yale University Press, 1999) 20 WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Milford to Aitchison 3 November 1870 21 Tbid, Aitchison to Milford 19 November 1870 22 [bid, Aitchison to Milford invoice stamped 18 March 1874 23 [bid, Milford to Aitchison 23 December 1870, 25 December 1870, 18 February 1871 4 Ibid, Aitchison to Milford 23 August 1871 25 Ibid, Aitchison to Milford 15 August 1871 2° Ibid, Aitchison to Milford 23 August 1871 27 Tbid, Seymour to Milford 27 November 1870 28 Ibid, Aitchison to Milford 30 November 1870. Milford evidently entertained the idea of building the school in brick initially, but Aitchison peruaded him to use stone: ‘if you have fully determined on brick I will make it of brick but it will not harmonise so well with the church’. Ibid, Aitchison to Milford 15 November 1870 ° Ibid, 4 December 1870 30 The Salisbury Journal, 29 June 1872, p.7 31 Ibid, 7 June 1873, p.7; WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 to Account of subscriptions *> WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Aitchison to Milford 26 November 1870; Aitchison to Milford 30 January 1874 and invoice stamped 18 March 1874 > The Salisbury Journal, 29 June 1872, p.7 ** WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Certficate signed by Aitchison 9 December 1872 *® The Salisbury Journal, 7 June 1873, p.7 *° WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Aitchison to Milford 26 November 1870 7 Chris Brooks, The Gothic Revival (Phaidon, 1999), p. 204. Brooks is referring to the 1830s and 1840s, but the comment holds true for the 1870s. For 19th century taste for the Near East see John Sweetman, The Oriental Obsession Islamic Inspiration in British and American Art and Architecture 1500-1920 (Cambridge University Press, 1988); Michael Darby The Islamic Perspective (World of Islam Festival Trust, 1983) On the building of the Arab Hall at Leighton House see L. & R. Ormond Lord Leighton., pp. 99-101; Survey of London, pp. 136-141 ‘0 Frederic Leighton 1830-1896 (Royal Academy of Arts exhibition catalogue, 1996), pp.174,179; L.&R.Ormond, Lord Leighton., p.99 4 Joanna Banham Encyclopedia of Interior Design., p.18 ® The Salisbury Journal, 17 March 1888, p.8 ® WSRO 1126/16 w& re) THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 54 Z ‘Bl4 88S S youas] sol njes4 dv HAS re cea youal| uoenjeag uonenys sil pue ays sy "[ “SL Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 54-62 Neolithic Pits at the Beehive by Michael Heaton! with contributions by Mark Corney’, Sheila Hamilton-Dyer’, Peter Bellamy’, Peter Higgins’ and Ros Cleaf Three Neolithic pits, identified during a staged evaluation, were investigated during the construction of the Beehive Park and Ride facility immediately north of Salisbury, during the summer of 2000. Small quantities of worked flint, animal bone, plant remains, molluscs and pottery were recovered. INTRODUCTION The Beehive junction is situated 3.5km north of Salisbury on the A345 Amesbury road at its junction with the A338 Philips Lane/Portway to Andover (Figure 1). It occupies the crest of a dissected ridge between the valley of the River Avon and that of its tributary, the Bourne, with ground levels at approximately 70mOD. The site comprises land immediately north-east and south-west of the junction that became encompassed within the Beehive Park and Ride facility and its associated road modifications, a total of 4.2ha centred on SU 144 333, within which the natural ground level was reduced to varying degrees during construction. It is 10km south of the major Neolithic monument complex centred on Stonehenge, and immediately south-east of a late Neolithic/early Bronze Age barrow cemetery and associated linear earthworks. Recent RCHME aerial photographic transcriptions have identified a network of undated linear features that cross the site, some of which appear to share the orientation of the road network and the post- Enclosure field layout recorded by the Tithes Survey. The demonstrable archaeological potential of the site rightly required evaluation prior to determination of planning permission. Following surface artefact collection and metal-detector survey, trenched evaluation of the site by ASI in 1999 identified a range of archaeological features including a Neolithic pit and undated linear features corresponding to the alignment and relative disposition of those shown by aerial photography. A programme of works was agreed with the County Archaeological Service, encompassing detailed investigation of the Neolithic pit and others that were considered likely to accompany it, prior to commencement of construction, and ‘strip-and- record’ planning of the other features during the initial topsoil strip. The following is a selective description of the significant features revealed, followed by summaries of the finds and environmental reports. More detailed descriptions of all facets of the project, including the evaluation reports and post- excavation assessment, are deposited with the archive at Salisbury Museum. ' ASI, Furlong House, 61 East Street, Warminster, BA12 9BZ * Centre for the Historic Environment, University of Bristol, 43 Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UU *5 Suffolk Avenue, Shirley, Southampton, SO15 5EF 451 Fordington High Street, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1LB ° Southern Archaeological Services Ltd., Unit 7, Kingsbury House, Kingsbury Road, Southampton, SO14 OJT ° Alexander Keiller Museum, High Street, Avebury, SN8 1RF 56 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE RESULTS The Pits In addition to the pit revealed during evaluation (502), two other pits (509 and 512) were investigated, together with a stratigraphically earlier amorphous feature (507) bearing the hallmarks of a tree-throw. The plan forms, profiles and dimensions of these are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. The pit fills were retained in their entirety for flotation separation. Pits 502 and 509 were each filled by single, homogenous deposits of friable, chalky, yellowish brown silty clay (503 and 508) from which small quantities of struck flint and pottery were recovered Fig. 2. Pit plans manually. Pit 512, the largest and deepest of the three, contained two deposits: an upper layer (510) of compact, very chalky, dark yellowish brown silty clay from which which animal bone, flint and pottery were recovered; and a lower layer (511) of dark greyish brown, fine silt with an ‘ashy’ texture, from which came pottery and flint. Both 510 and 511 displayed white fungal mycellia lining the sides of worm and root channels and, in the case of 510, as a ‘carpet’ extending across the feature, approximately 100-120mm below the ground surface. Other features Other features were revealed around the periphery of the site during topsoil stripping. In the south- west corner, a pair of broad linear ditches, one of which corresponded with the 3m wide and 0.60m deep V-shaped ditch 1604 identified during evaluation. On this occasion it was revealed to be turning sharply to the west at Philips Lane, with a similar feature apparently running parallel to it on its west side. NEOLITHIC PITS AT THE BEEHIVE Recent animal burrow Sif, Old animal burrows I n ls i ier aig /: cal }.|¢ | i 7 efi Sj 3 j Fig. 3. Pit sections Narrow, 0.3m deep, linear features filled with crushed flint and/or oyster shells, corresponding to those identified during field evaluation (403 and 1606/9) were exposed in the south-west and south- east corners of the site. These are considered to be waggon ruts, an interpretation supported by their proximity to, and alignment with, the present roads, both of which are ancient routes. Running E-W across the northern half of the site, also corresponding to a feature (1103) revealed during field evaluation, was an amorphous linear spread of degraded humic chalk, considered to be the line of a grubbed-out hedge. Pottery by Rosamund Cleal and Mark Corney Twenty one sherds of pottery were recovered; all but one of which were recovered from the pit group, the other, a single sherd from Ditch 1604. Their 509 Pit cross-sections 0 0.2 1m weights and stratigraphic distribution are summarised on Table 1. All were examined with a x10 hand lens. The fragment from Ditch 1604 comprised a small (2g) sherd of uniformly pinkish brown, sand/ flint tempered fabric with wavy combed external decoration, likely to be from a Beaker. The twenty sherds (123g) from the pit group are of a soft and slightly laminated fabric (mainly on the surfaces) containing rare angular, ill-sorted flint inclusions (maximum dimension 8mm) and grog. The grog is difficult to distinguish from the matrix but appears to be generally small (2mm). The exterior is orange-brown, the core dark grey to black and the interior surface orange with localised reduction. The one exception is a sherd from context 508, which is orange/brown throughout. One sherd, from 511, also bears the impressions on the internal surface of burnt-out organic material. Where the full thickness survives, the dimensions are notably consistent, averaging 10mm. Table 1: Summary of artefactual material Pit 502 503 (+ sample 2000) Pit 512 Pottery Peterborough Ware 2 (36g) 10 (20g) Flaked stone Flake - 3 Broken flake - 1 Blade - - Tool - 1 scraper 510 (+ sample 2001) Pit 509 511 (+ sample 2003) 508 (+ sample 2002) 4 (35g) 4 (32g) 1 1 1 = 1 scraper 2 retouched flakes 58 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE The condition of the material varies: the material from Pits 509 and 512 being unabraded, whilst the sherds from Pit 502 are abraded, both on the edges and the surfaces, suggesting that these had been exposed for some time before burial. The fact that they conjoin indicates that little lateral movement can have occurred to separate them. All are body sherds, the larger of which are decorated with horizontal rows of twisted cord impression; each is crescentic and probably created by partially pushing a loop of cord into the clay. The variation of width of the impressions is largely the result of weathering (i.e. the edges of some are more weathered than others). The impressions are Z-twisted indicating the cord to be S-twisted. The slight variations in paste and spacing of the decorative motifs suggest a minimum of three vessels are represented in the assemblage, all of Peterborough Ware. Flaked stone by Peter Bellamy The assemblage comprises 11 pieces of flaked stone, recovered from three contexts (508, 510, 511) in two adjacent pits 509 and 512. The raw material is all chalk flint with both cortical and thermal surfaces to the nodules. The pieces are all in mint condition, but are heavily patinated and some are covered in calcareous concretion. One flake from context 510 is burnt. All were examined macroscopically with the aid of ax10 hand lens ‘The classification is based on Andrefsky (1998) and Inizan et al. (1999). The assemblage composition is presented in Table 1. All the pieces appear to belong to the same non-specialised flake industry and the majority of the pieces recovered are core preparation and trimming flakes. The blades are in effect long flakes, rather than the result of deliberate blade manufacture. All pieces have plain or cortical butts with little evidence of platform preparation and almost all have feather terminations. The hammer mode is indeterminate. The number of pieces exhibiting traces of secondary retouch or use is very high in such a small assemblage, but the nature of the activities represented by these tools is unclear. The two scrapers have only minimal semi-abrupt retouch to round off naturally steep edges of flakes. One of the retouched flakes has abrupt retouch on a broken distal end of a long flake. The other has irregular serrations on the right side and small inverse retouch on the left proximal side, and perhaps should be regarded as use-wear rather than deliberate retouch. There are no diagnostic pieces present in the assemblage. However, the overall character of the technology would fit comfortably with the Later Neolithic date provided by the pottery. Animal bone by Sheila Hamilton-Dyer The material was recovered by hand and from the sieved fills of the pits, and is summarised in Table 2. The condition of the bone is generally very poor. Small calcined fragments of bone recovered from the sieved samples are in better condition but could not be identified. The small mammal remains from Pit 502 were also in relatively good condition which poses two questions. Firstly are they intrusive or are they, as seems likely, pit fall victims? If it is thought that they are contemporary then why are these tiny remains well preserved when larger bones are considerably damaged? The large mammal remains have meandering root-like dissolution tracks across their surfaces and the bone itself is chalky and fragile. This appearance is quite common for bones from similar contexts in the area and these bones are very similar to those from Crescent Copse where fungi associated with trees have been implicated in deposit destruction (Hamilton-Dyer 2000). Pits 502and 512 both contain a lower tusk of a mature female pig; indeed being left and right they could even be a pair. It is not possible to tell whether these are from wild or domestic animals, nor is it possible to say whether these were deliberate isolated items; tooth enamel is more resistant than bone and pig canines are especially large and sturdy elements which could survive when other material has completely disappeared. There is an incisor from 503 and both contain a few fragments of unidentified bone. The large fragmented bone from 510 could not be identified with any certainty but the size indicates a larger animal than pig. Cattle humerus seems the best match and the most likely in a Neolithic context, but horse and red deer should not be ruled out. Cattle and pig are usually the most frequent bones in Neolithic deposits, and pig may be associated with Late Neolithic ritual deposits (Richards and Thomas 1984). NEOLITHIC PITS AT THE BEEHIVE Table 2: Summary of palaeoenvironmental materials Pit 502 503 (+ sample 2000) Mammal Pig 1 1. right female canine Vole Shrew Unid. Plant Chenopodium cf album Rannunculus sp. Plantago sp. Agrostema githago Lathyrus sp. Rumex sp. Silene spp Stachys sp. Cruciferae Corylus evellana Spp indet Arthropod Dipterous larvae Mirripeda Coleopteran elytra Coleoptera erantarsus Mollusca % Discus rotundatus Vallonia costata Carychium tridentatum O. alliarus A. pura Aegopinella nitidula O. cellarius Pomatius elegans Pupilla musorum Cochlicopa lubrica Punctum pygmaeum Cochlodina laminata Cochlicopa lubricella V. pulchella V. pelucida Arianta arbustorum Euconulus fulvus O. helveticus Lauria cylindracea Other/Indet 7 individuals 1 mandible + frags 43 (2g) large mammal 35 Ne. .o ~) 00 CoN 16 (1g charcoal) 1 Pit 512 510 (+ sample 2001) 67 (9g) large mammal 4 (g) 86 (84 charcoal) 11 24 (1 complete) 1 511 (+ sample 2003) 1 1. left female canine 1 burnt 1. mammal; 3 s. mammal bo NOD 59 Pit 509 508 (+ sample 2002) 12 (charcoal) 60 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Plant, mollusc and insect remains by Peter Higgins The entirety of each of the pits fills was immersed in dilute hydrogen peroxide, passed through 250 and 500 micron sieves, the residues and flots air dried and then sorted under low magnification. Limacid slugs and the burrowing snail Ceciloides acicula were discarded. Fragments of slate, burnt clay and burnt stone, and what appears to be lime mortar, small enough to pass through worm burrows, were recovered from all samples. The assemblage is summarised in Table 2. Terminology follows Kerney (1976). Charcoal fragments were present in all three pits, the largest quantity in the upper layer (510) of Pit 512, but identifiable to species (hazel) only in Pit 502. Modern cereal fragments were present in large numbers in Pit 502, indicating potential contamination of the whole sample. Seed fragments were present in all deposits except the fills of Pit 509; the assemblage varies slightly, but Chenopodium and Rumex were common to all. The former generally demand nitrogen-rich soils, and the latter is commonly associated with damp conditions. Hazel was present in quantities small enough to suggest a handful of nuts taken as a snack, the shells discarded on a fire. No other obvious food species are present, although some of the Chenopodiaceae such as fat hen are known to have been used as a food source in times of dearth. The plant remains, as a whole, are indicative of an unkempt area, possibly a woodland margin. Dipterous larvae were present in all deposits; all were fragmentary, and had probably passed through the gut of small predators, such as the millipedes which were present in large numbers in Pit 512. The dominant mollusc species in all deposits prefer shaded environments, usually characterised as woodland. Accepting the Neolithic date indicated by the artefacts, we might expect the general environmental background to be a dry calcareous landscape enjoying a temperate climate (cf. Evans, 1991). Diversity indices (Table 3) might suggest a less diverse habitat affecting Pit 502. Despite the higher species count, the rest of the assemblage apparently derived from deciduous woodland, with diminishing diversity between the lower and upper layers of Pit 512. However, given the small volume of these features, their close spatial proximity, and the likelihood of contamination indicated by the modern cereals in Pit 502 and the building materials recovered from all samples, it is not possible to be more specific. DISCUSSION The linear features are of reasonably well- documented forms, and need not detain us much further. However it is pertinent to observe that, whilst corresponding in disposition and form with RCHME transcriptions of aerial photographic evidence, they are uniformly 12m-15m north and east of the positions suggested by those plots, a consistent discrepancy noted at other sites in the area (Heaton 1997). Whilst this might be an acceptable level of accuracy, it has methodological ramifications for the design of field evaluation strategies based on aerial photographic plots. The Neolithic pits, also, are a well documented, if still poorly understood (cf. Whittle 1988, 55-8), form of archaeological feature. Though this group is, perhaps, too small and restricted in deposit type to support discursive analysis of its content, some consideration of the extent to which these features fit into emerging theoretical models is required. With the exception of the singular Mesolithic examples at Stonehenge car park, small pits of this sort are a later phenomenon. They are commonly associated with earlier Neolithic pottery, Peterborough Ware and Grooved Ware, and less so with Beaker material. They are nothing to do with rubbish disposal, in the modern sense, nor with storage (Thomas 1999, 64). Though not conducive to detection through extensive survey, small pit groups of this sort are common in the central and eastern shires of southern England; and examples are also known in increasing numbers from the Midlands and northern England (e.g. Manby 1974, Tavener 1996). They typically occur in small groups of less than half a dozen, but larger groups have been identified at settlement sites, as at Yarnton (Hey 1997) and Broome Heath (Wainwright 1972). They have been recorded at numerous sites within the middle reaches of the Avon valley and adjoining areas of chalk upland in Dorset; within a 10km radius of the present site examples have been identified at Amesbury, Ratfyn, Winterbourne Gunner, Larkhill, Rollestone, King Barrow Ridge at Stonehenge, and Coneybury to name just a few (Stone and Young 1948, Harding 1988, Cleal and Allen 1994, Thomas 1999). The oil pipeline that NEOLITHIC PITS AT THE BEEHIVE runs through the present site exposed a group of three in 1967, less than 50m north of the present group, whilst a water pipeline under construction in the Spring of 2002 has revealed more at the base of Old Sarum, 200m to the south-west on the edge of the river valley (Cave-Penney pers. comm.). Whilst contemporaneous settlement contexts have been identified at Yarnton (Hey 1997) and Broome Heath (Wainwright 1972), in Wessex they are stratigraphically isolated but appear spatially proximate to larger monument groups. The latter may be simple bias: there are more evaluations and excavations close to major monuments, and pits are always an unanticipated result. Within this area of the Avon valley, they form the principal repository for Peterborough and Grooved Ware pottery, but never both (Thomas 1999, 176-7). Peterborough Ware, as occurs here, appears to be more secular in its geographic distribution compared with Grooved Ware which is frequently associated with major monuments (Thomas 1991), and it is the dominant fabric in the southern quarter of Darvill’s quadripartite Stonehenge landscape characterisation (1997), within which this site is situated. Profiles indicate them to have been excavated and backfilled rapidly; the worked flint within them typically includes a high proportion of finished tools; the pottery invariably comprises (deliberately?) broken fragments of several vessels; the animal remains represent high meat-yield parts of domesticates, often the same joint repeatedly; whilst the plant remains are generally the opposite, representing non-food species. These assemblages are contained within only one or two layers of ash- rich soils, though neither the features nor their components are burnt themselves. Thomas (1999, 64) considers the simple stratification to directly reflect the manner of backfilling, though some post- depositional mixing is likely in such shallow features, that would not pertain in their deeper Iron Age cousins (Heaton and Cleal 2000). These characteristics describe perfectly the pits revealed at this site. Although, admittedly, the animal bone assemblage here is too small to support any archaeological conclusions other than that the features have been burrowed into by shrews and voles, the floral material is not food-related and a high proportion of the worked flint displays secondary dressing, whilst the Peterborough Ware is compatible with the site’s 10km distance from the major monument groups to the north. The pits are the result of deliberate actions (you cannot dig a neat hole accidentally) and, whilst the ash and 61 artefacts are mementoes of the cultural activities, the composition of the fills may not necessarily be intentional. That these features contain only Peterborough Ware, indicates only that Peterborough Ware alone was being used in this area (cf. Darvill 1997); whilst Moore’s (1996) essay on use of fire in Neolithic landscape transformation provides a better explanation than feasting for the ash content of many - but not all - Neolithic pits. So, what are they for? Thomas (1999) has posited a non-utilitarian interpretation of these apparently functionless features, and the present author concurs with him entirely. They are a form of monument, but a personal one not intended to be seen, the monumentality of which is expressed and realised at the moment of creation as our Neolithic forebears become self-consciously aware of themselves as individuals in a landscape that they are transforming, slowly diverging from the rest of the natural world. They are, in effect, a form of ‘Junk Installation Art’. As such, they tell us more about the experience of the artist, than his or her aspiration. However, the author cautiously suggests, on a technical note, that the simple stratification of such small features is as likely to be the result of post- depositional modifications, as of single-episode back‘illing in the Neolithic. These features, at only 0.3m — 0.6m below the surface, are within the biotic zone of soils that have been under continuous cultivation for at least two thousand years. Furthermore, in addition to the efforts of smaller rodents evident here, extensive fungal mycellia were noted by the excavators and by Hamilton-Dyer, the effects of which on shallow archaeological deposits have already been broached by the author (Heaton and Cleal 2000). Methodologically, there is much here to comfort those struggling to match the intent and mechanisms of PPG16 with the objectives of archaeology and the reality of major construction schemes. The open-area manner of construction facilitated observation of the entire evaluated area; the absence of significant deposits from most of the site indicates that the combined results of aerial photography, fieldwalking and linear trenching, on this occasion, were reliable for the purposes of characterising the generality of the site’s archaeology, if not the detail. Nonetheless, it is salutary to note that had Trench 5 been positioned one metre to the west, Feature 502 would not have been revealed. 62 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE References ANDREFSKY, W., 1998, Lithics: macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press BARBER, M., 1997, ‘Landscapes, the Neolithic, and Kent’, in P. Topping (ed), Neolithic Landscapes, 77- 85. Oxford: Oxbow Books BOYCOTT, A.E., 1934, The habitats of land mollusca n Britain, Journal of Ecology 22 CARTER, S., 1990, The stratification and taphonomy of shells in calcarous soils: the implications for land snail analysis in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 17, 495-507 CLEAL, R.M.J., and ALLEN, M.J., 1994, Investigation of tree-damaged barrows on King Barrow Ridge and Luxenborough Plantation, Amesbury. WANHM 87, 54-84 DARVILL,T., 1997, “Neolithic Landscapes: identity and definition’, in P. Topping (ed), Neolithic Landscapes, 1-13. Oxford: Oxbow Books DOBNEY, K., HALL, A., KENWARD, H., and MILLES, A., 1992, A working classification of sample types for environmental archaeology. Circaea 9 EVANS, J.G., 1991, ‘An approach to the interpretation of dry-ground and wet-ground molluscan taxenes from central southern England’, in D.R. Harris and K.D. Thomas (eds), Modelling Ecological Change, 75-89. London: Institute of Archaeology HAMILTON-DYER, S. 2000, ‘Animal bone’, in M. Heaton and R. Cleal, ‘Beaker pits at Crescent Copse, near Shrewton, Wiltshire, and the effects of arboreal fungi on archaeological remains’, 78-9. WANHM 93, 71-81 HARDING, P., 1988, The chalk plaque pit, Amesbury. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 320-326 HEATON, M., 1997, ‘Milston Farm Buildings, Amesbury, Wiltshire’. Non-publication watching brief report ref: ASI 3042, Wilts County SMR HEATON, M., and CLEAL, R.M.J., 2000, Beaker pits at Crescent Copse, near Shrewton, Wiltshire, and the effects of arboreal fungi on archaeological remains. WANHM 93, 71-81 HEY, G., 1997, ‘Neolithic settlement at Yarnton, Oxfordshire’, in P. Topping (ed), Neolithic Landscapes, 99-111. Oxford: Oxbow Books INIZAN, M.-L., REDURON-BALLINGER, M., ROCHE, H., and TIXIER, J., 1999, Technology and terminology of knapped stone (Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée; 5). Meudon: CNRS KERNEY, M.P., 1976, Atlas of the Non-Marine Mollusca of the British Isles. London MANBY, T., 1974, Grooved Ware Sites in Yorkshire and the North of England. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 9 MOORE, J., 1997, “The Infernal Cycle of Fire Ecology’, in P. Topping (ed), Neolithic Landscapes, 33-40. Oxford: Oxbow Books RICHARDS C. and THOMAS J., 1984, ‘Ritual activity and structured deposition in Later Neolithic Wessex,’ in R. Bradley & J. Gardiner (eds), Neolithic Studies, 189-218. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 133 STONE, J.F.S., and YOUNG, W.E.V., 1948, Two pits of Grooved Ware date near Woodhenge. WANHM 52, 287-304 TAVENER, N., 1996, ‘Evidence of Neolithic activity near Marton-le-Moor, North Yorkshire’, in P. Frodsham (ed.), Neolithic Studies in No-Man’s Land, 183-7. Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group THOMAS, K.D., 1985, ‘Land snail analysis in archaeology: theory and practice’, in N.R.J. Fieller, D.D. Gilbertson and N.G.A. Ralph (eds), Palaeobiological investigations: research design, methods and data analysis, 131-56. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 131 THOMAS, J., 1991, Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press THOMAS, J., 1999, Understanding the Neolithic. London: Routledge TOPPING, P., (ed.) 1997, Neolithic Landscapes. Oxford: Oxbow Books WAINWRIGHT, G.J., 1972, The excavation of a Neolithic settlement on Broome Heath, Ditchingham, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 1-97 WHITTLE, A., 1988, Problems in Neolithic Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 63-68 Dragonflies in Wiltshire — Odonata recording past, present and future by Steve Covey A list of the different species is preceded by a brief history of dragonfly recording in the county. The more important species are then picked out for special mention and detailed information provided about their biology and habitats. Finally, a plea is made for more records. INTRODUCTION The bright, jewel-like appearance of dragonflies on hot, languid summer days inevitably makes them one of our most popular insects. And yet there are still a great many gaps in our understanding of this fascinating order, including the detailed distribution of each species. On a national scale the broader distributional ranges are now quite well known and documented (Merritt et al. 1996), as are detailed distributions for some counties such as Surrey and Dorset. In Wiltshire, however, the fauna is poorly understood largely because it has not had the benefit of a long term, sustained recording effort. Historical records have come from two main sources: the Reports of the Marlborough College Natural History Society between 1900 and 1934, which cover the Marlborough area with a few odd records from Coate Water (or Coate Reservoir, as it was then known) at Swindon, and A Check List of Dragonflies and Damselflies Recorded in the Immediate Neighbourhood of Dauntsey’s School, Wilts ‘published’ by Dauntsey’s School Natural History Society. (Darby, M., 2002). These records cover the years 1932 — 1947 and are primarily from the area around West Lavington. A few records from the Devizes area are also included. The Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre (WSBRC) holds records covering the period 1963 to 1988. The bulk of these date from the 1980s when there was a joint initiative by the British Dragonfly Society (BDS) and the National Biological Records Centre at Monks Wood to produce a national distribution atlas (Merritt et al., 1996). Since becoming county recorder in 1997 I have become the main source of new records for the county together with a growing network both of local observers making casual contributions, and of more formal recorders, often bird enthusiasts looking for additional interests during the ‘quiet’ summer period. Increased interest in dragonflies has been stimulated recently by the publication of two excellent, truly portable, field guides (Brooks and Lewington, 1997 and Powell, 1999). A BRIEF NATURAL HISTORY Dragonflies form the order Odonata meaning ‘toothed jaws’. They are among the oldest of the winged insects with fossil records going back to the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago. At that time some of these Dragonfly ancestors were true giants achieving wingspan measurements of 70cms — nothing else came close during this period. In Britain today the largest dragonfly is the Emperor with a 10cm wingspan. The Odonata are divided into three suborders of which two occur in Britain and Europe: the 130 White Edge Moor, Liden, Swindon SN3 6LY 64 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Zygoptera, or damselflies, and the Anisoptera, or dragonflies. To avoid confusion Dragonfly with a capital ‘D’ is the term used to cover both groups. The main differences between these two groups (regarding the adult flying insect) are size and the way the wings are held at rest. Damselflies are smaller and fold their wings back along the abdomen; dragonflies are generally much larger, more robust insects and perch with wings held out at right angles to the body, although there are some exceptions to this rule. It is not generally realised that the adult flying stage is comparatively short in the Dragonfly’s overall life cycle. Around two months is the longest life span and can be as little as two weeks for some of the Zygoptera. The aquatic larval, or nymph stage is generally much longer lasting from a few months to anything up to five years in some of the larger dragonflies. It is for this aquatic stage that we have the least amount of knowledge, including the ability to accurate identify similar species. That is why most recording is carried out by observing the adult insect, although different criteria are required for proof of breeding as discussed below. The Dragonfly larva is a fearsome beast and in some water bodies is at the top of the food chain. It has a modified lower jaw capable of being projected forward at great speed to impale its hapless victim, which can include prey as large as minnows and sticklebacks. Some species feed by actively hunting through the aquatic ‘jungle’, while others use the ambush technique, lying in wait among the bottom ooze and detritus before lunging out at passing prey. During its larval period the Dragonfly undergoes several moults, called instars. It is at the end of the final instar level, when certain conditions are right, such as day length and temperature, that metamorphosis is triggered. The most dramatic change is from a gill breathing creature to an air breathing one, and, after a certain point, the dragonfly has to emerge even if weather conditions worsen. While the wings and body are expanding and drying a Dragonfly is at its most vulnerable. Consequently, as soon as it is able it flies quickly away from the emergence site, leaving its empty skin or exuvia behind. Some fly up for hundreds of metres and are dispersed over a wide area by strong winds. This pioneering ability is required by those species that rely upon small, still water bodies that may dry up or be filled in. Other species move off into meadows, woodland clearings or forest rides where they will feed up and mature before returning Exuvia of Southern Hawker (Aeshna cyanea) to their natal site to mate. This is because for the first few days after emergence the wings in particular are liable to damage during territorial or mating clashes. The full breeding colours develop over a period of time. The bright coloured areas on a freshly emerged, or teneral, Dragonfly are generally duller with most males looking like females initially, although there are some exceptions where both male and female are equally brightly hued when mature. Mating and breeding strategies vary but usually occur over or near water, males of some species being territorial, but others wandering opportunists. Once mated the females oviposit by one of two methods; some species insert eggs into plant material while others just dip their abdomens into water and permit the eggs to wash off. The egg usually develops over a two to five week period, although the eggs of some late summer/autumn species arrest development — go into diapause — and wait until the following spring before the prolarva emerges and the whole cycle starts again. THE SPECIES LIST There are currently forty-nine species on the British and Irish list plus another three that became extinct during the 20th Century. Thirty of these have been recorded in Wiltshire, i.e. 61%, which is quite im- pressive when one considers that the county is often perceived as ‘dry’. The Wiltshire list as at August 2002 is as follows: ZYGOPTERA Beautiful Demoiselle Calopteryx virgo (L.) Banded Demoiselle Calopteryx splendens (Harris) Emerald Damselfly Lestes sponsa (Hansemann) White-legged Damselfly Platycnemis pennipes (Pallas) Large Red Damselfly Pyrrhosoma nymphula (Sulzer) Small Red Damselfly Ceriagrion tenellum (de Villers) Azure Damselfly Coenagrion puella (L.) Variable Damselfly Coenagrion pulchellum (van der Linden) DRAGONFLIES IN WILTSHIRE —- ODONATA RECORDING PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 65 Common Blue Damselfly Enallagma cyathigerum (Charpentier) Scarce Blue-tailed Damselfly Ischnura pumilio (Charpentier) Blue-tailed Damselfly Ischnura elegans (van der Linden) Red-eyed Damselfly Erythromma najas (Hansemann) ANISOPTERA Hairy Dragonfly Brachytron pratense (Muller) Common Hawker Aeshna juncea (L.) Migrant Hawker Aeshna mixta Latreille Southern Hawker Aeshna cyanea (Muller) Brown Hawker Aeshna grandis (L.) Emperor Dragonfly Anax imperator Leach Club-tailed Dragonfly Gomphus vulgatissimus (L.) Golden-ringed Dragonfly Cordulegaster boltonii (Donovan) Downy Emerald Cordulia aenea (L.) Four-spotted Chaser Libellula quadrimaculata (L.) Scarce Chaser Libellula fulva Muller Broad-bodied Chaser Libellula depressa (L.) Black-tailed Skimmer Orthetrum cancellatum (L.) Keeled Skimmer Orthetrum coerulescens (Fab.) Common Darter Sympetrum striolatum (Charpentier) Ruddy Darter Sympetrum sanguineum (Muller) Black Darter Sympetrum danae (Sulzer) Red-veined Darter Sympetrum fonscolombii (Selys) Not all the species listed have proof of breeding at any or all of the sites from which they have been recorded. The criteria currently required by the British Dragonfly Society for a species to be given breeding status are: a) final instar larvae to be present in the water body concerned. b) exuviae on emergent vegetation. c) very recently emerged adults by the emergence site. As will be appreciated, obtaining this information requires much more time than just observing flying adults. The effort so far has been concentrated on establishing the presence or absence of species at sites, in order to obtain a broad coverage of the county reasonably quickly. It is to be expected that the commoner species, such as Broad-bodied chaser, Southern hawker, and Large Red and Blue-tailed damselflies will occur at most suitable water bodies — particularly garden ponds — and will be widespread across the county. The scarcer species will require more diligent searching and not a little detective work. Some of our scarcer species are described in more detail below. It has not been thought worthwhile to include distribution maps at this stage. Variable Damselfly is represented by only one record for Wiltshire published in the Report of the Marlborough College Natural History Society, 81, 1932 (pp.36-37). The specimen was captured on 22 July 1932 at a pond behind the scout hut at College Field. The specimen has not been located to confirm the determination. The nearest known colonies are on the Somerset Levels, which gives some idea of this species’ habitat preference for drainage ditches or slow moving rivers near grazing meadows (at least in this region). Similar habitat exists in Wiltshire, namely the Britford water meadows just south of Salisbury, which have been searched on two occasions without success. One observer thought he saw this damselfly at Jones’s Mill, the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust (WWT) reserve near Pewsey, on 14 July 2000, but no others have been detected since. Identification of the species is hampered by the fact that it can resemble both the Azure and Common Blue damselflies — hence the name! Scarce Blue-tailed Damselfly has not been recorded in Wiltshire for some years. It is most often found in ephemeral aquatic habitats such as shallow water areas with little vegetation, and valley mire seepages subject to disturbance. Man-made sites include mineral extraction workings with spring- line seepages and small pools such as tyre ruts. This would explain why all of our records, which span the years 1985-88, have come from the Cotswold Water Park (CWP) in actively worked pits. In 1988 I found a colony utilising a caterpillar tractor rut 2m long by 0.5m wide! The following year it was gone. Unfortunately, since that time, access to such sites has been almost impossible due to more stringent Health & Safety Regulations. There was a possible sighting at a derelict industrial site at Bradford-on-Avon two years ago, but this was not confirmed and has not been repeated. Scarce Blue-tailed Damselfly (Ischnura pumilio), Cotswold Water Park, 6 June 1988 66 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE This diminutive insect is also shy and retiring which does not help in finding it — even at known locations. Neither does the fact that it looks quite similar to the very common Blue-tailed Damselfly! It is, in all probability, still present at suitable pits in the CWP and possibly elsewhere in the county. ‘To give an example, the national dragonfly recorder found a colony using disturbed spring-line seepages at a chalk quarry near Luton; chalk workings exist in plenty in Wiltshire and may prove to be useful sites for searching for the species. Hairy Dragonfly usually breeds in similar habitats to the Variable Damselfly. The only records for the Hairy Dragonfly in Wiltshire are from Braydon Pond, near Minety, in 1963 and 1967, and on the Kennet and Avon canal, near the Dundas Aqueduct, in1982.There was a possible sighting of a pair on 6 July 1999 in Gopher Wood on the North Pewsey Downs. This is quite a late date for the species as it is an early flyer for an Aeshnid — May and June — but July records are not unknown. Since this dragonfly is known to be expanding its range it will be one to watch out for during the coming seasons. Because of its early flight period, however, it can be easily overlooked and there may already be undiscovered sites for it in Wiltshire. Please contact the writer as soon as possible if you see a Hawker-type dragonfly in May/early June. Downy Emerald, which is another early emerger, is one of the recording success stories of the last decade in Wiltshire. The only records I was aware of when I became recorder were a vague record from Chippenham in June 1940 and from Braydon Pond on 20 June 1964. In 1997 I received records from the voluntary wardens of Blackmoor Copse WW'T reserve, which stated that Downys had been present at the reserve’s pond since 1995 as a response to woodland clearance the previous winter letting in more sunlight. I visited the site and confirmed its presence. Then, later that year at a County Recorders meeting, a chance comment led to the discovery of an environmental report for Stourhead NT site which mentioned the presence of Downy Emerald on the ornamental lakes in 1990. A visit in June 1998 confirmed a strong colony which had obviously been present for some years. Given the presence of colonies in the south-east and south-west of the county, it seemed likely that there must be colonies in between. This soon proved to be the case when the county bird recorder was mist netting in Clanger Wood near Westbury and saw a Downy patrolling a ride. Studying the relevant OS map showed a lake nearby at Fulling Bridge - Farm where a visit in June 1999 uncovered yet more of the species. Since then they have also been found at Landford Heath SSSI. An old sand quarry near Great Bedwyn, mentioned in the Marlborough College Reports as having a thriving colony in 1933 and 1934 (the last year Odonata were mentioned in the Reports) is now overgrown, and when I visited it in 2002 - in less than suitable weather conditions - no Downy Emeralds were in evidence. Since some Dragonflies can be quite tenacious, further visits will be made to see if it is still hanging on there. IF The Lily pond, Stourhead (National Trust), Downy Emerald breeding site, 12 June 1998 Any large pond or lake with trees partly surrounding the shoreline could hold this species and I feel sure other colonies will be discovered in the county. In the north, for example, they occur just over the border in the Gloucestershire section of the CWP, so that further searching there may prove worthwhile. Scarce Chaser, as its name suggests, is one of the UR’s rarer species: there are only six discrete populations all in south and south-east England. This is primarily a riverine insect, its preference being for the mature floodplain/watermeadow stages, and Wiltshire is privileged in having one of these colonies along a stretch of the Bristol Avon from Melksham, downstream past Bradford-on- Avon, and on into Somerset. Interestingly, it is not present along the whole section, there being some puzzling gaps — puzzling because, to the human eye, the stretches where they occur look the same as those on which they have not been found. Until 2001 the Scarce Chaser had only been found on the main river. In June of that year, however, an observer found the species on a stretch DRAGONFLIES IN WILTSHIRE — ODONATA RECORDING PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 67 Scarce Chaser (Libellula fulva), female at its confluence with the River Biss just west of Hilperton Marsh. She recorded several chasers on the Biss but none on the adjacent part of the Avon. This may have been due to the severe flooding which occurred in the area the previous winter displacing larvae from the main river. Sustained observation over the coming seasons should show whether this new colony will establish itself or migrate back to the Avon. Given the nature of the river one would think the Salisbury Avon would also support this species. It does occur further downstream in Hampshire/ Dorset but none have so far been found in Wiltshire, although possible sightings have highlighted the potential of watermeadows south of the Britford complex. Again, local observers would be able to provide the sustained effort required. Small Red Damselfly, Golden-ringed Dragonfly, Common Hawker, Keeled Skimmer and Black Darter are a group of species that, while not particularly rare on a national scale, are scarce in Wiltshire. This is purely because the habitat they all require, acid bog and heath, is available in only small pockets. One thinks initially of the extreme southeast tip, where the New Forest just spills over the county boundary, which contains such sites as Landford Bog and Landford Heath, but due to little quirks of geology some of these species can also be found in other parts of Wiltshire. Longleat Forest has long been planted with large tracts of conifers and these, combined with a sandstone ridge running through the area, provides the right conditions in places for Golden-ringed Dragonfly and Keeled Skimmer. Black Darter has also been reported from within the Centre Parcs complex. Spye Park/Chittoe Heath is another area situated on a sandstone outcrop and although breeding sites have yet to be discovered, there have been regular sightings of Golden-ringed Dragonfly and Common Hawker in woodland rides and meadows. Golden-ringed Dragonfly (Cordulegaster boltonii), Landford Heath SSSI, 14 August 1997 There may be other oases of low pH value in the county, and the writer would be pleased to hear of such sites. Red-veined Darter brings the Wiltshire recording effort up to date. Until this year (2002) it was absent from the county list and before the mid-1990s was not considered as a likely candidate. It is predominantly a southern European species but is a regular migrant to northern Europe, often reaching Britain, but in small numbers with mostly a south-westerly coastal distribution. Then, in 1995 and subsequent years, larger influxes occurred and a few regular breeding colonies were established including inland sites such as Pirton Pools near Worcester. The usual explanation for this range 68 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE expansion is global warming, and both Holland and Northern France now have more substantial populations than in the past which may be acting as the reservoir for our increases. Armed with this background knowledge most observers now look out for this species from June onwards. One recorder was rewarded for his vigilance by spotting an adult male at a small lake in Chippenham on 1 June. There were several other sightings in southern England at the same time suggesting that this individual was part of an obvious influx. A second male was seen on 17 June, again coinciding with other sightings elsewhere, by the same person — but frustratingly both had vanished before anyone else could enjoy them. All was quiet for many weeks until finally the recorder’s persistence paid off with a sighting of a teneral male on 31 August, quickly followed by three more records; 1 male and 2 females, all freshly emerged. (SOUS a Chippenham Lake, Red-veined Darter site, 2 September 2002 The lake was created as a landscape feature for a business park adjacent to it. It is fairly shallow so heats up quite quickly — vital for a species which is double brooded and so requires these conditions for rapid larval development. Most of the second brood will disperse away from the emergence site so that there are no guarantees for a continuous presence though one hopes so. THE FUTURE Global warming offers the potential for several additions to the Wiltshire list. The Small Red-eyed Damselfly (Erythromma viridulum), has already started to colonise the south-eastern counties and is gradually spreading westwards (Covey, 2001). Others are ‘waiting in the wings’, so to speak, just across the English Channel. While the discovery of new species is always an exciting prospect, it is important not to lose sight of the prime function of the recording scheme, which is to map and understand the distribution and densities of our regular species and to provide data, for example to aid in combating threats from development. To this end further developments to existing methods of electronic data storage and transfer will be very beneficial, particularly as compatibility and ‘user friendliness’ improves. But, of course, before that one has to have records! There is a growing band of dragonfly observers, but more are always needed and, with this in mind, I undertake several field identification workshops each year under the auspices of the BRC. As an added stimulus it is hoped that a regular newsletter will soon be produced including provisional distribution maps. Putting a dot on a blank area of a map is often a good incentive for going out in to the field! In the longer term, it is also hoped to produce a county atlas. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Michael Darby for providing me with the sources for the historical records, and WANHS Library for helping locate the relevant volumes. I am also grateful to all those landowners who grant access to their sites. But most of all I wish to thank all those who have sent and continue to send me records. Bibliography BROOKS, S. and LEWINGTON, R., 1997. Field Guide to the Dragonflies and Damselflies of Great Britain and Ireland. Hampshire: British Wildlife Publishing. COVEY, S., 2001, ‘Red-eyed in Wiltshire’, in Darby, M., (ed.), Recording Wiltshire’s Biodiversity 6, 13-15. DARBY, M.., 2002, ‘A Brief History of Dauntsey’s School Natural History Society (fl.1933-1963)’, in WANHM 95, 259-268. MERRITT, R., MOORE, N.W. and EVERSHAM, B.C., 1996. Atlas of the dragonflies of Britain and Ireland. London: HMSO. POWELL, D., 1999. A Guide to the Dragonflies of Great Britain. Essex: Arlequin Press. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 69-76 The Chantry of the Holy Trinity at Hungerford by Norman Hidden The history of a well documented 14th-century chantry foundation in Hungerford parish church is described. It was established by Sir Robert de Hungerford, who endowed it with land at Hopgrass, and elsewhere in Wiltshire and Berkshire adjacent to Hungerford. The implications of the chantry for landownership, taxation and clerical provision and discipline are discussed, and the complicated descent of its lands is traced after the chantry’s dissolution. A chantry, at its simplest, was a service which arose from an endowment for a priest to sing masses or obits for the souls of the dead. This involved a cantarist or chantry priest and a place where these obits might be sung. Sometimes a chantry chapel was built especially for this office; more often use was made of an altar or chapel of an existing church. Income from the endowment was used primarily to provide a living for the cantarist, but also to furnish the altar or chapel where necessary. A foundation charter usually laid down conditions for ensuring the exact and proper use of the endowment throughout the years to come. Towards the close of the thirteenth century foundation of a chantry came to be seen by the wealthy as an act which combined spiritual and worldly aspirations, both piety and fame. For well- to-do landowners it provided a way to dispose of surplus wealth and at the same time to ensure their own spiritual salvation. It enabled them to acknowledge their subservience to God and to calm their fears of purgatory or everlasting hell. The very permanence of the institution they thus created opened up an endless vista of rents and income, chaplain after chaplain, prayer upon prayer, until the end of time. In this way they set up a sort of eternity of their own selves against the eternity of death, the murmur of continual prayers against everlasting silence, the illumination of an undying wax candle against an endless darkness. Men who could afford the luxury of such a mind- blowing idea hastened to fulfil it. With some, however, the dream became an obsession. In the 14th century Sir Robert de Hungerford, who had acquired vast estates in Berkshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, and Somerset, showed in his later years a zealous fervour for the foundation of one chantry after another. His foundations included chantries at Calne, Easton, Heytesbury, all in Wiltshire, another at Hungerford, and finally the chantry which bears his name in the great cathedral of Salisbury. Sir Robert de Hungerford had connections, particularly through landownership, with each of these places where he founded a chantry. The chantry at Hungerford was sited within the parish church, but his estate (later known as Hopgrass) lay just within the Wiltshire border on the northern or Wiltshire bank of the River Dun. The church, then as now, stood on the river’s opposite or Berkshire bank, clearly in view to him and his manorial tenants. It is with this chantry at Hungerford that the present paper is primarily concerned. Its foundation is particularly well documented and may serve as a good example of the mind-set of its founder; and there are good records of its subsequent history during the two hundred or so years before its dissolution. 99 Pole Barn Lane, Frinton on Sea CO13 9NQ 70 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE That this foundation was not purely an exercise in altruistic piety by Sir Robert de Hungerford may be illustrated by the fact that an earlier chantry of St Mary already existed in Hungerford, available for anyone who paid a small obit, ‘for the celebration of the mass in the chapel of St Mary and for one wax light before the altar of St Anne in Hungerford church’.' His intention was both more specific and more personal, viz. that the chantry priest should celebrate divine service ‘daily before sunrise’ in honour of the Holy Trinity, and should pray for the souls of himself and Geva his wife, those of his ancestors and — an addendum required by the church — of all the faithful departed.* Thus the chantry of the Holy Trinity was essentially a private foundation, whose services were at a secluded hour, whose explicit function was to honour the Holy Trinity, but implicitly to glorify the Hungerford family name (he had no children) and to maintain their obits for ever. The chantry was situated on the south side of the nave of the parish church. It contained a monument of its founder, resting on an altar-tomb within an elegant arched canopy. Above it was an inscription in Norman French, which promised that those who prayed for Sir Robert de Hungerford while he lived and for his soul after death should be granted (on the word of fourteen bishops) 550 days of pardon. There is no mention of any of his manors in the inscription, it will be noted, and no wifely replica alongside him in the tomb. The guarantee by the fourteen named bishops and the inducement of 550 days’ pardon to pray for the knight, alive or dead, foreshadow the hard sell and cunningly devised warranties of more material benefits which are familiar to a later age. This practical approach in Norman French is itself contained within an outer circle which returns to the piety of the Latin creed, stating a belief in resurrection, in the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and, of course, in Judgement ‘by works.’ It was by his ‘works’, in particular the foundation of chantries, that Sir Robert particularly hoped to be saved. Walter Money, in his Historical Sketch of the Town of Hungerford (1894), gave a detailed account of the chantry as it once stood on the south side of the church, and then described how the marble tablet in his day was lying on the floor of the chapel on the north side of the church, along with the badly mutilated effigy of Sir Robert. The elegant canopy had disappeared. Money’s description makes the best of what remains from such vandalism. This most interesting sculptured figure, which is unfortunately much maimed, particularly in the lower extremities, represents the departed knight as cross- legged, at his feet a lion, the hands conjoined in prayer on his breast, on his left arm a middle-sized shield, a sword and surcoat, with the head resting on pillows. Although so much broken, yet one may perceive it to have been of most excellent workmanship. This crossed-legged attitude, it may be observed, does not necessarily denote the crusader; and possibly in this case, as in many others, may indicate the founder and great benefactor of churches or chapels, or as an expressive token that the person commemorated, having lived a true son of the church, died professing the Christian faith.’ Like heavenly salvation, earthly fame, too, was obtained at a price. In de Hungerford’s case in order to fund his endowment it was necessary for him to bypass the law of mortmain. As far back as Edward I (1272-1307) the Crown had realised that where land was granted by individual lay owners to ecclesiastical corporate bodies it remained free of manorial services, or payments in lieu of services due to the Crown. To prevent this loss of income, the Crown had promoted legislation involving penalties for causing land to come under mortmain (literally the ‘dead hand’, which held tight for ever what it had thus acquired). The king was prepared, however, to waive the general law in a specific instance and, for a fee or fine, grant a licence (i.e. permission) to an applicant to alienate (or transfer) property into mortmain. In 1325 Robert de Hungerford obtained a licence for alienation in mortmain of 2 messuages, 3 acres of land, 5 acres of meadow and 70 shillings of rents in Hungerford, Sandon and Charlton for his new chantry of the Holy Trinity.’ In 1331 he applied to increase the chantry’s original endowment, and a licence was granted to him in respect of an additional endowment of 1 messuage, a mill, 9 acres of arable land, 6 acres of meadow, 10 shillings in rents, plus the price of 5 quarters of wheat from lands or properties in Hungerford, Balston, Sandon and Charlton. This income was to be used for the maintenance of John de Pewelle as minister of the chantry.’ The licence for this cost him a fine of £5 to the king. A third licence granted in 1336 permitted him the right to alienate a further 4 houses, 10 acres of arable land, 4 acres of meadow and 10 shillings of rent in Hungerford, Sandon and Charlton.° Even though such licences cost money, the advantages of land alienation in this way were great. THE CHANTRY OF THE HOLY TRINITY AT HUNGERFORD il By passing his property into mortmain on such a large scale as his various chantries required, or could be made to appear to require, the lands thus granted became untaxable, liable for no services and inalienable. It seems clear from a later inquisition that the Holy Trinity chantry did not in fact acquire all, or even many, of the properties to which the second and third licences applied. There would seem to be something of a book-keeping transaction here which no doubt left the incidence of taxation satisfactorily vague. Certainly the value of the original benefaction was generously adequate, at the time at which it was made, for the support of a single full-time chaplain. In presenting John de Pewelle to the chaplaincy of the chantry, Sir Robert de Hungerford was providing an income for an existing member of his household. John de Pewelle was a trusted household clerk who was also appointed chaplain of the de Hungerford-founded hospital at Calne. Furthermore he had probably received legal training as his name occurs as a party in several feet of fine where he was clearly acting on behalf of his lord.’ The process involved in the appointment of a clerk to an ecclesiastical benefice normally passed through four stages — presentation, admission, institution, and induction. Presentation involved the patron of the benefice presenting to the bishop the name of his nominee. The bishop then had to satisfy himself that the nominee was suitable, i.e. was ordained, was of age, free-born, and of good life and conversation. ‘Conversation’ in this context meant more than good clean speech; it implied honest and trustworthy conduct. The bishop also required to know the nature of the foundation, the value of its income and the nature of the chaplain’s proposed duties. Admission occurred upon his approval of these circumstances. Institution could then occur: i.e. the bishop would commit the benefice to the cleric who had thus been presented and admitted. The final stage was the induction or ceremonial introduction of the new incumbent into his benefice. In 1337 de Pewelle died and Sir Robert de Hungerford presented to the ecclesiastical authority his nomination as replacement to the Holy Trinity chaplaincy, Henry de Bradenham.® Although nothing is known of de Bradenham’s antecedents, the likelihood is that, like de Pewelle, he was in Sir Robert’s employ. The vicar of Hungerford was sent a mandate requiring him to report on both the priest and the chantry, and on whether the right of presentation did indeed belong to Sir Robert de Hungerford as had been alleged. He was asked for details of the previous presentation, the age of the priest, his manner of life and conversation, the value of the foundation, whether a curate was employed or not, and what the chaplain’s duties were.” Within a matter of days the vicar had replied, stating that the vacancy arose from the death of Sir John de Pewelle, the previous chaplain, which had occurred on the eve of All Hallows. He confirmed that Sir Robert de Hungerford was patron of the chantry, and as such had previously presented de Pewelle. Sir Henry de Bradenham, he reported, was aged 40, a man of good life and honest conversation, who held the rank of ordained priest. The chantry’s foundation consisted of 2 messuages, 3% acres of land, one piece of meadow, 66s. 8d. annual rents, with certain other unspecified appurtenances in Hungerford, Sandon and Charlton, which all together were worth, according to common estimate, 100s. per annum. The chaplain’s duties were to celebrate mass daily in the church for the wellbeing of Sir Robert and his wife Geva during their lifetime, and for their souls after death, and for the souls of all the faithful departed. The chaplain was required to be present in the parish church at morning and evening service to assist the vicar, along with other chaplains, once on Sundays and feast days and twice at requiems for the dead. He should maintain a curate to celebrate mass daily before sunrise at the altar of Holy Trinity in St Lawrence’s church, the Lord’s day and feast days excepted. The chantry had been ordained by the Bishop and there was nothing prejudicial in the appointment, ‘if the said ordination of the chantry is observed in all respects’.!” Until the Reformation the parish church of Hungerford was fortunate to possess a number of clergy carrying out their duties within it. There was the vicar; two chaplains, one each for the chantries of the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Virgin Mary, both of which were located in the parish church; and there was also the prior, warden or chaplain of the priory or free chapel of St John. In addition there were chapels, and their concomitant chaplains, in outlying areas of the parish, such as North and South Standen (Standen Hussey). The parish itself was part of the diocese of Salisbury but formed a peculiar, exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, and subject instead to that of the prior of Ogbourne. The Crown or its Duchy of Lancaster presented in respect of the priory of St John, while the chaplaincy of the chantry of the Blessed Virgin Mary seems to have been in the 72 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE hands of the burgesses whose foundation it was; and that of the Holy Trinity chantry was in the gift of the bishop. For records of these appointments, therefore, different sources have to be examined: for the vicars in the manuscript collection of the Deans and Canons of Windsor; for the priory of St John in the royal Patent Rolls; for the chaplaincy of the chantry of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the town muniments; and for that of the Holy Trinity chantry in the registers of the bishops of Salisbury. One result of this curiously scattered and divided source of clerical supply was that the bishop had, as far as appointments were concerned, the merest toe-hold within the parish, and this by virtue of his gift of the chaplaincy of the Holy Trinity chantry. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the event of disputes occurring in Hungerford, the bishop may have had occasion to rely on the loyalty of the chaplain of the Holy Trinity chantry. This is noticeably apparent in a dispute in 1408 involving vicar Robert Napper and chaplain William Brown.!! In 1399 Brown had become chaplain of the Holy Trinity chantry, continuing in this office until 1411.'° During most of this time he was contemporaneous with Robert Napper, who was presented to the vicarage in 1403,'*? and was referred to in a document of 1420 as ‘perpetual vicar of Hungerford’.'? In 1408 a dispute arose in which the defendants were William Soper of Hungerford and Alice Sawser of the tithing of Hidden. The defendants were summoned by William Brown to appear before the bishop’s commissary; two days later they were similarly summoned by Brown to appear before the bishop himself. When, after a third summons, Alice Sawser did not appear, the bishop’s commissary decreed that she should be excommunicated for her contumacy. However, it would seem that the vicar of Hungerford neglected (or refused) to make the customary declaration of her excommunication, and so the bishop’s commissary ordered the vicar himself to be summoned for contempt and disobedience. At a special court to deal with the matter, certificates were received from William Brown detailing the failure of Napper, whom he termed ‘the alleged vicar of Hungerford’, to make the summons of William Roper and Alice Sawser in the case mentioned above. Since Napper did not appear in court, he too was excommunicated. The vicar appealed to the Archbishop’s Court of Audience where the case proceeded to several legal actions. Napper appealed even further to the Apostolic See. In the end Napper made his formal submission to the bishop and was absolved from excommunication after he had sworn to obey the laws of the church.” There are two other minor elements to be noted here regarding the history of the Holy Trinity chantry. Firstly there was apparently an attempt to provide an addition to the original endowment. In 1350 Peter Farman granted | virgate of land called Ponzardesland to Robert de Hungerford on condition that Robert should in his own lifetime and at his own expense appropriate it to the chantry of the Holy Trinity. Robert de Hungerford died in 1354 without having fulfilled this condition and after various legal processes the estate was restored to Peter Farman by the Crown, who had taken it on de Hungerford’s death. Secondly, John Aubrey, in his Wiltshire Collections, described the Sir Robert Hungerford foundation at Calne in all its magnificence: In 1336 Sir Robert de Hungerford gave to John de Pewelle, the custos of the hospital, 40 acres at Stock, Quemerford, Calstone, etc. for maintenance of a daily mass for his soul at the altar of St Edmund in the church of Calne, the mass to be said by the second presbyter in rank. Also a set of robes and green hanging powdered with small white crosses. . . In 1442, however, the altar had become so neglected that Walter, Lord Hungerford, obtained leave to transfer its endowment to a chantry founded by him at Heytesbury.!’ Heytesbury was the family seat, and this act was a melancholy but realistic admission that a chantry devoted to the Hungerfords was not necessarily assured of survival into perpetuity once the presence of its founder was removed from the area. II The records of Sir Robert de Hungerford’s endowment, based on the rent from lands and properties which he had alienated to the chantry, provide glimpses of persons and places during a particularly sparse and misty period. Names of tenants and of properties occur and sometimes recur throughout the centuries. In some cases these can be assigned to sites inhabited today. Unfortunately, the references to chantry properties are not only scattered in time but also differ from one another in purpose, and so are not always easily comparable. For instance, the vicar of Hungerford’s report to his bishop in 1337 in connection with the appointment of Henry de Bradenham as chaplain THE CHANTRY OF THE HOLY TRINITY AT HUNGERFORD 73 corresponds, more or less, though not exactly, with the details of the original grant of 1325. This raises the question of what happened to the additional grants licensed in 1331 and 1336. In the Register of Bishop Beaumont of Salisbury a later scribe has entered an undated grant made by Robert de Hungerford to John de Pewelle, the first chaplain of the Holy Trinity chantry. This grant consisted of 66s. 8d. in rents plus 5 quarters of wheat. The total of rents corresponds with that in the vicar’s report of 1337, and the 5 quarters of wheat were mentioned in the 1331 grant, but the document’s special interest is the detailed breakdown it gives of the names of tenants with details of their holdings: from Robert Hopgrass for 1 virgate in Charlton, one- sixth of the manor of Charlton, / virgate and 6 acres in Charlton: 5 quarters of wheat and 40s.; from Richard le Fode for certain unspecified holdings in Hungerford, 10s.; from John Gifford for 1 messuage and curtilage in Hungerford, 5s.; from Walter Grimmesden [rectius Brimmesden], 6s.8d; from John and Margaret Grimmesden [Brimmesden] for 1 messuage in Hungerford and 1 acre of land, 4s.; from William le Taylour for 1 messuage in Hungerford, 12d. Total: 66s.8d. Another account appeared in 1331 in Chancery Inquisitiones ad quod damnum, which stated that the properties licensed to the chantry in that year were all held of John Maltravers the elder by service of one half of a knight’s fee, except for 8 acres of land which were held of Henry, Duke of Lancaster, by service of 3d. per annum. The premises were said to be worth 5s. 7d. besides the rents; the wheat (in an average year with wheat at 4 shillings a quarter) was worth £1. Since John Maltravers held the manor of Charlton, and the Duke of Lancaster that of Hungerford and Sandon Fee, this determines the amount of chantry land at that time in the manor of Hungerford as 8 acres, all the rest lying in Charlton.!° The religious upheavals in the reign of Henry VIII not only led to the final dissolution of the monasteries but also affected the chantries, dissolution of which followed in the reign of his successor, Edward VI. The Act for their dissolution was passed at the end of 1547 and commissioners were appointed by the Crown to survey their possessions. Early in 1548 the commissioners had completed their survey of the two Hungerford chantries, of the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Virgin Mary, and issued a certificate of their findings. The commissioners stated the objects of the Holy Trinity foundation, ‘as reported to them’ (thus making it clear that they had not seen the foundation deed itself). They did not assert that the reported object of the foundation, viz. celebration of divine service, was still being observed (as by comparison, they reported it was being observed in the neighbouring chantry of the Blessed Virgin Mary), nor did they report the existence of a chantry priest to perform this duty. Ornaments, plate, jewels, goods and chattels belonging to the chantry were said to appear in another, presumably separate, inventory and were not appraised. The value of the lands and tenements belonging to the chantry (in addition to 5 quarters of wheat) was £10 3s. Od. After deduction of what was described as the king’s ‘tenth’, viz. 16 shillings, there remained £9 7s. 0d., ‘which was employed as well towards the fynding [maintenance] of the chantry priest there as also towards the repairing of the houses to the said chantry belonging.”° Upon the return of the Commissioners’ certificate, the next step for the Crown was to consider petitions from prospective purchasers or lessees. These often were middlemen, and the first to get in a bid for the Holy Trinity chantry was Roger Chaloner, an official of the Duchy of Lancaster, resident in London, and himself a commissioner to enquire into chantries in Hertfordshire and Essex. The customary procedure on receipt of a petition from a prospective purchaser was for the Pipe Office to draft a ‘particular’ or detailed account of the properties, which were then rated at a purchase price equivalent to so many years’ rental. Following this, a draft lease was prepared for the Lord Chancellor’s approval. In the case of the Holy Trinity chantry this was a 21-year lease granted by the Duchy of Lancaster to Roger Chaloner, to commence at Easter 1548.7! The draft lease on which the sale to Chaloner was based contains two main sections, rent from individual tenements let on a tenant-at-will basis, and rents from small blocks of property leased by indenture. There were fourteen individual items in the first category (of which twelve appear to be houses with or without accompanying lands, one a parcel of meadow and one the rent in cash and wheat from Hopgrass); these fourteen rents totalled £8 19s.8d. In the second category were two blocks or groups of property whose rents amounted to £3 17s.4d., the two sets of rent thus amounting to a grand total of £12 17s.0d. However, this includes 5 quarters of wheat at 6s. 8d. per quarter (total £1 74 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 13s.4d.) and so, to compare this figure with that of the Commissioners’ certificate, £1 13s.4d. should be deducted, providing a figure of £10 3s.8d. It would seem, therefore, that the two figures do not differ to any significant amount. The Victoria County History of Berkshire has stated that there exist three different valuations of the chantry’s endowments, viz. £10 3s.0d., £12 7s.0d., and £8, a puzzle which it leaves unexplained.”! In quoting the figure £12 7s. Od., however, the V.C.H. is guilty of a slip. Its reference is to the draft lease quoted above, and in fact the total in that document is £12 17s.0d. Thus the first two of the ‘differences’ may be reconciled, as has been shown. The third valuation of £8 is given in the Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1535 as net income and it must be on this net valuation that the one-tenth tax was fixed at 16s.” When the lands were let to Chaloner it was, as might be expected, the higher or gross figure of £12 17s.0d. that was used in the rental calculations. In the category of tenants-at-will contained in the draft lease the annual rent from the manor of Charlton, or (as it was by this time called) Hopgrass, viz. 40s. plus the value of 5 quarters of wheat priced at 3s. 8d. per quarter. The 1548 particular has a section difficult to transcribe which seems to refer to the rent from one virgate of land in Charlton, ‘once belonging to Alexander de Marishe, and afterwards to Hopgrass’, a one-sixth part of the manor of Charlton, and another 2 virgate of land in the same manor.*! The reference to one-sixth part of the manor is interesting because it is known that Robert Hopgrass died in 1349 holding five- sixths of the manor as tenant of the heir of John Maltravers. His inquisition post mortem in that same year shows him also holding what is presumably the remaining one-sixth, viz. 1 messuage, 80 acres of land, 3 acres of meadow, 7/2 acres of pasture, 33 acres of wood and 7s. rent, ‘held of Sir Robert de Hungerford by service of 40s. and 5 quarters of wheat per annum.’ The above mentioned references to the tenancies of Charlton, alias Hopgrass, are particularly useful because neither the rental of Hungerford which took place c.1470, nor the town surveys of 1552 and 1573 include either the vill of Charnham Street or the lands that were within the manor of Hopgrass; and it was in this area that a substantial portion of the chantry’s holding lay. In the town rental of c.1470 the Holy Trinity holdings in Hungerford and Sandon Fee amounted to eight burgage holdings in the town and ‘certain lands’ in Sandon Fee. The town survey of 1552 attributed to the chantry eleven tenements in town and ‘a piece of meadow’ in Sandon Fee. The extra tenements, as compared with c.1470, arose from each of two burgages having been divided into two tenements, and an extra tenement (that occupied in 1552 by ‘Thomas Hedache) that had in 1470 been attributed to John Warnewell, the ownership of which may have been in dispute. Thus the town survey of 1552 compares closely with the draft lease of 1548 with its twelve houses. One of those twelve, that occupied by William Beech, cannot be identified in the 1552 survey and may have been in neighbouring Charnham Street. The 1548 draft lease contained two indenture leases of small blocks of property. William Lovelake’s indenture was of the tenement adjoining that of M. Longford in the 1552 survey in which he and Longford were jointly quitrented at 12d. In the 1573 survey Lovelake’s was clearly the tenement then occupied by Nicholas Marshall, quitrent 8d.; and Longford’s tenement had become that of Thomas Grant, quitrent 4d.*’ Marshall’s tenement was accompanied by 15% acres just as Lovelake’s had been. Both tenements were wrongly attributed as having once belonged to the Blessed Virgin Mary chantry. The second indenture lease gave Robert Brabant one messuage let as two tenements on the east side of the [High] street. The text at this point is corrupt but a clear text occurs in the contemporaneous Minister’s Account for 2-3 Edward VI,** that is, that the messuage was one formerly inhabited by Thomas Bosgrove, and was situated between a tenement of the chantry of the Blessed Virgin Mary on the south and another tenement of the Holy Trinity chantry on the north. This corresponds with the position, revealed by the order in which the town surveys list the houses, of Culver House, a tenement that appears in the rentals of 1470, 1552 and 1573; and although it appears in the draft lease of 1548 this house is not included in the Minister’s Account of 2-3 Edward VI. The lands leased to Brabant are given in clearer detail in this Account, however, which derived Brabant’s holding from an indenture made in 1516 by the Bishop of Salisbury, whom it described as the patron of the chantry. The rent income from these lands is stated to be £3 4s.0d., broken down as follows: the house, divided into two tenements, 24s.8d.; 5 acres in Chantry Field, 20s.; and in Charnham Street 6 acres of meadow with 1 acre arable and 2 pieces of meadow estimated to contain 3 acres, 13s. 4d. These three items total only £2 18s.0d., however. THE CHANTRY OF THE HOLY TRINITY AT HUNGERFORD 75 Some late lawsuits provide further evidence of the way in which problems arose from the chantry estates. In or about the year 1545 Thomas Langsloo, a newly appointed chaplain of the chantry, who described himself as ‘a very poor man’, tried to obtain payment of 40s. plus the price of 5 quarters of wheat at 6s. 8d. a quarter from Ralph Hanley, ‘out of a farm called Hopgrass’.*? The major portion of Langsloo’s stipend was at stake in the dispute, whereas ‘the said Raffe is a very rich man and hath many friends and adherents in the said countrie.’ Langsloo, in contrast, was ‘a stranger in the country’, that is, in the district. It would seem that he was a new broom, for Hanley answers that Langsloo had refused to accept from him an annual rent of £3 5s.0d. when this had been offered. It seems likely that Langsloo was insisting on 40s. plus 5 quarters of wheat at current prices. By 1545 wheat was worth a great deal more than 6s. 8d. a quarter and, indeed, a later tenant had to pay the amount in kind, as the original endowment provided for. Behind the suit may be sensed the growing resentment at old feudal and ecclesiastical patterns which had already been broken by Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, and of which the chantries were the last relic, themselves about to be dissolved. In a later suit in 1581 William Curteys, then the lessee of the dissolved chantry lands, sued Brian Gunter, his tenant in Hopgrass, alleging assault and claiming that Gunter had given false measure of wheat. He alleged that Gunter and his wife: very arrogantly and reproachfully uttered that the Queen’s majesty should find them a chapel to say mass or service twice every week in the said manor or farm of Hopgrass, or else they would not pay the said rent of money and wheat. If the chantry was dissolved and thus no longer performed the function for which the rent had formerly been applied, any demand for rent in its name might seem a one-sided arrangement some 35 years after dissolution. The argument is a false one, but to those who were aware of the past history and services of the chantry, it lay at the back of the mind and could rise to the surface in moments of anger. In his answer Brian Gunter denied that when Curteys sent to collect the rent Anne Gunter, “divers times falsely and corruptly brought forth a false bushel not allowable for the measuring of the said wheat and with the same did measure out wheat which in every twenty bushels wanted one bushel’. But he admitted that on one occasion one of his servants had measured some 17 bushels, ‘by a bushel measure which the clerk of the market had pared too little almost by the quantity of one pint’, and upon discovering this he had offered to pay for the 17 pints thus deficient. The court found Gunter guilty not only of short measure but also of delivering ‘foul, musty, and uncleaned wheat.’ It ordered that the rent should be paid in ‘good clean, sweet, and merchantable wheat and in no other grain, as it may also appear evidently by an ancient deed showed in this court whereby the same is termed quinque, quarten’ frumentr.*® Clearly all was not plain sailing for the purchasers of the former chantry lands. In another suit in 1569 Henry Edes, Curteys’ predecessor as farmer of the Holy Trinity chantry rents, claimed that the defendants had pulled down a house in Charnham Street, part of the possessions of the former chantry, and carried away its timber and thatch. They had also taken possession of a meadow which went with the house. The defendants claimed that the building in question was part of the Bell Inn and with the meadow adjacent belonged to the Chock family. They had held it in fee simple as far back as the reign of Edward IV (1461-83), paying what they described as an annual quitrent of 4s. to the Holy Trinity chantry for this property.*! When the dissolution of the chantry took place in 1548 Langsloo had received a generous pension of £6 13s.4d. What happened to him thereafter is not known; he may have left the district to which he had come only a few years earlier as a stranger. If so, who would remain locally to recall reliably the exact extent of the former chantry’s possessions? It may be for this reason that successive town surveys in 1552, 1573 and 1591 seem gradually to decrease the number of properties that had once belonged to the Holy Trinity, and generally to attribute them to the former chantry of the Blessed Virgin Mary instead. When one agent acquired leases from both of the former chantry lands the tendency to confusion became pronounced. Another cause of difficulty in comparing survey details was a tendency to subdivide individual holdings. When the larger blocks became broken up by sub-letting, the problem of identifying these parts becomes in several cases insuperable. Yet another difficulty is posed by the decay of buildings, and some tenements may have been omitted from surveys or rentals because they had become uninhabitable and no rent could be expected from them, unless they were rebuilt. Having become the property of the Crown after the dissolution of the 76 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE chantry, their restoration depended upon the Crown’s willingness to undertake this, whereas previously the responsibility had been the chantry’s and repairs were paid for out of the foundation rents. A report prepared for the Duchy of Lancaster, fifty years after the dissolution of the chantries, shows that nearly all the properties of both the chantries in Hungerford needed extensive repair or rebuilding, to the joint extent of 100 tons of timber.*’? Doubtless this was thought to be exaggerated, as the Crown sanctioned the use of only 40 tons. The uncertainty and confusion that arose once the link between priest and chantry had been snapped was highlighted by the difficulties of the jurors who presented the 1573 survey to the commissioners. Apparently they had been asked to give particular attention to sums for obits arising from the property of dissolved institutions. On the oaths of various elderly townsmen sums were stated to be due on lands and premises going back in time to well before the dissolution. Memories were inevitably vague. Thus, ‘George Toggye upon his oath affirmeth that there was an obit [on a particular house] and knoweth not what.’ On another property a deponent declared that there had been two obits consisting of ‘4 bushels of wheat yearly to be paid to the poor, and in money he knoweth not the sum.’ The jurors also reported that ‘the chantry priest of the Trinity ought of right to have a common way through a plot of ground of George Essex esq between the sun rising and sunset’.*> Essex was lord of Hopgrass manor. With no chantry priest left to claim his right to use the footpath it is doubtful if the lord of the manor hesitated to enclose what must have been a convenient right of way for others besides the priest. Although the loss to the community may have been small, it was typical of what happened when the affairs of the community and the life of the chantry became divorced. The history of the lands which had once provided the income for the chantry continued long after the chantry itself had disappeared. Sold off in blocks to speculative landlords they passed from owner to owner, tenant to tenant. In the course of this disposal by sale the lands of the Holy Trinity and of the Blessed Virgin Mary became cast together or dispersed indiscriminately, so that it is difficult to follow their history under privatisation, or to pursue some of the later references to what became known simply and indistinguishably as ‘the chantry lands.’ This was a far cry indeed from Sir Robert de Hungerford’s original intentions. Notes ' Hastings MSS, no. 1176; Berks RO H/RTa 32. * MS Ashmole 1125; Cal. Pat. Rolls 1324-7, p. 191. W. Money, Historical sketch of the town of Hungerford. . . (1894). 1 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 20 Nov. 1325. > Cal. Pat. Rolls, 15 Oct. 1331. © Cal. Pat. Rolls, 3 Jul. 1336. ’ Hastings MSS., Huntington Library, California. 8 MS Ashmole 1125. ° Tbid. 10 Tbid. '! Joyce Horn (ed.), Register of Bishop Hallum, 1407- 17 (Canterbury & York Soc.). 2 Sir Thomas Phillipps, Wiltshire institutions. . . © Tbid. 'S Berks RO H/RTa 16. 'S Horn, op.cit. '© For Farman family see VCH Berks, vol. 4, p. 190. '7 John Aubrey (ed. J.E. Jackson), Wiltshire collections ws (1862): 8 WSRO D1/2/11. vol. 1, pt. 2, ff. 60-1. ° Chancery Ing ad quod damnum, 177 (17). 20 PRO E301/51. 21 PRO DL14/6/43. 2 VCH Berks, vol. 4, p. 198. > Valor Ecclesiasticus (Record Commissioners), vol. 2, p. 158. 4 PRO E36/258, f. 148v. * PRO DL43/1/4. °° PRO DL42/108. °7 Berks RO HM35/1. 8 PRO DL29/723/11779. 29 PRO C1/1139/29. 30 PRO DL1/116/C3; DL5/17. 31 PRO DL1/79/E2. * PRO DL42/98 ff. 329-30. * Berks RO HM5/1. is) Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 77-88 Malmesbury Abbey and Late Saxon Parochial Development in Wiltshire by Jonathan Pitt A network of late Saxon hundred minsters 1s apparent in the evidence for ecclesiastical organisation in Wiltshire. In the north-west, however, the pattern seems more complex, perhaps because of the survival of much evidence produced by the major abbey at Malmesbury. Nonetheless, as elsewhere in Wiltshire and Wessex, the influence of such religious institutions on the development of the parochial system in the later Anglo-Saxon period may have been significant, because of their control of extensive lands and of the churches standing thereon. Churches held and arguably founded by the abbeys of Malmesbury and Glastonbury in particular are discussed here as examples of the results of this influence. A religious establishment existed at Malmesbury by 681, the date of the earliest extant charter (S71/ 73) agreed to be genuine, by which King /“&thelred granted fifteen hides, juxta Tettan monasterium [‘near Tetbury’] to abbot Aldhelm, while other royal diplomas exist which reveal something of the development of the house’s landholdings.' However, little is revealed by the available sources of this community’s activities, in the field of pastoral care, during the first two centuries or more of its existence. By the end of the Anglo-Saxon period, though, there were churches on at least some of the abbey’s estates, which extended over much of north-west Wiltshire, and these churches appear varied in status and origins. In spite of these variations it can be suggested that Malmesbury Abbey stands as an example of a late Saxon religious institution able to influence the development of the later parish system through control of the churches on its lands. In Wiltshire as a whole a network of pastorai care is obscure as far as the first two centuries after conversion are concerned. Only one other community, that at Tisbury, is documented as early as Malmesbury (S1164/1256),” while there is no secure documentation for the suggestion that Aldhelm founded a church at Bradford-on-Avon. Nevertheless there is a background to Malrnesbury’s late Saxon activities, and that is a system, for such it can be called, of hundred minsters. Churches such as those at Britford, Downton, Broad Chalke, Damerham, and Tisbury itself, show up in the later documents as the dominant ones in their respective hundreds, and although in general the network seems most coherent in the southern half of Wiltshire, perhaps because of variations in the survival of evidence, churches in the north do fall into the same pattern, as at, for example, Melksham, Calne, Chippenham, Bishops Cannings and All Cannings.’ Both the extent of this pattern, and its conformity with the boundaries of the hundreds at around the time of Domesday Book, are striking, and these are the factors which allow some confidence in the belief that our sources do reflect a true system and perhaps the result of a definite policy. It is unclear when this hundred-minster system originated: although it may be associated with tenth- century administrative reorganisation, there is evidence to show that some of the minsters were already in existence. Furthermore, the hundredal layout of c.1086 seems to reveal an administrative 42 Finedon Road, Burton Latimer, Kettering NN15 5QB 78 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig.1 North-west Wiltshire, c.1086 showing some ecclesiastical links to Malmesbury KEY Crudwell Place named in Domesday Book (modern form) STARTLEY Domesday hundred name mao Holding of Malmesbury Abbey (number of hides) G20 Holding of Glastonbury Abbey (number of hides) N Easton Sopworth Sherston Eoxlay, DUNLEY Norton Luckington uM 4 Alderton \ Bradfield \ surrendei Hoey nate fc v Grittleton é 630 Sevington Nettleton THORNGROVE = Easton G20 . Kington Yatton pattern still, or recently, in flux, with some hundreds having been combined, others newly created; yet the pastoral layout still conforms to it well, suggesting that the latter evolved along with the former.’ It may be suspected that the influence of powerful landlords, including prominent religious houses at Shaftesbury, Wilton, Winchester and Glastonbury, all major Wiltshire landholders, was a prime factor in these developments. Evolution in the network of minsters was not the only change in late Saxon pastoral provision: this was a time when lesser churches and chapels were being constructed and perhaps acquiring some of the functions to go along with their later status as ordinary parish churches. It is possible that some churches, showing signs of status approaching that of minsters in the later sources, were among these late Saxon foundations. These too are usually found in the hands of major religious establishments. [Long] Newnton M30 Brokenbotgugh Stanton Litveton . G Langley G29 Kemble M30 Shamcote Poole [Keynes] \\Somertord [Keynes] Ashley Chelyforth Ashton [Keynes] M Oaksey Chedgelow Crudwel ™40, CICEMENTQWE (Chedglow) Chariton m20 Garsdon uM Malmesbury r=, \ eo Brinkworth Corston Somerford . u u a Somerford Dauntsey Smithcot » STARTLEY M Christian Malford G20 Draycot Malmesbury’s immediate vicinity, however, offers some contrast with the general Wiltshire pattern, in that it does not show a neat network of hundred minsters. It is perhaps too easy to ascribe this to the status of the major house at Malmesbury itself, especially when later sources could be read as suggesting something approaching hundred-minster status for the two main parish churches in the town, Ss Peter and Paul, and St Mary Westport. The ‘Inquisitions of the Ninth’ of 1341 records the former ‘cum duabus capellis Rodbourn et Corston in hundr’ de Sterkelee’ [‘with two chapels at Rodbourne and Corston in Startley hundred’] and the latter “cum duabus capellis de Brokenbergh et Ch’Iton in hundr’ de Cheggelegh’[‘with the two chapels of Brokenborough and Charlton in Chedglow hundred’].’ In this source the two churches appear with equal status and it may be noteworthy that trouble was taken to note that the chapels of Ss Peter MALMESBURY ABBEY AND LATE SAXON PAROCHIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WILTSHIRE 19 and Paul were in Startley hundred and those of St Mary in Cicementone hundred (by this date called Chedglow). Malmesbury itself stood in the centre of these two hundreds (Fig.1), and it is tempting to wonder whether this evidence shows that it had been intended at some stage that the Malmesbury area should conform to the hundred-minster pattern, perhaps leaving the reformed abbey separate from the pastoral care network, but this cannot be proven. Further, the Wiltshire Geld Roll, which gives a hidage for Cicementone of 16912 and for Startley of 152%4,° may suggest hundredal consolidation, since the total of 321° approximates to that expected for three hundreds: but adjustments to the administrative pattern prior to the late eleventh century do not rule out the presence or foundation of hundred minsters. How can this be reconciled with the status of the abbey itself which was surely the superior church of the area from the time of its foundation? Such a view may be supported by other medieval evidence. The indications are conveniently summarised by a 1265 document in which Bishop Walter confirmed the various tithes and pensions owed to the abbey. The churches of St Paul and St Mary in Malmesbury, and those of Minety, Brinkworth, Garsdon, Long Newnton, Purton, Beckhampton (near Avebury) and Compton, all owed pensions to the abbey, and demesne tithes were held in Colerne, Yatton (in Thorngrove hundred), Long Newnton, Purton and Broughton. Portions held by the abbey, listed in a separate document, were in the churches of St Paul and St Mary in Malmesbury, Crudwell, Kemble, and Purton, and additionally, held by the abbey’s officers, in Colerne, Yatton, Brinkworth, Lyneham (in Kingsbridge hundred), Brokenborough, Long Newnton, Charlton, Garsdon and Norton.’ These lists may be compared with the 1291 Taxatio which notes pensions due to Malmesbury Abbey from St Mary Westport, St Paul, Norton, Garsdon, Kemble, Crudwell and Brinkworth, and lists portions held by the abbey in Long Newnton, Yatton Keynell, Colerne (in Chippenham hundred) and Lyneham.* The designations of the churches at Corston, Norton, Sutton Benger and Smithcot as chapels at various dates might also suggest the inclusion of these places within a parochia centred on -Malmesbury.’ Further, the abbey held rights in Swindon, with a payment in wax, ‘nomine minutarum decimarum [‘in respect of the lesser tithes’], owed in spite of the gift of Swindon church with lands and tithes to the canons of Portchester in the 1140s.'° Given the abbey’s rights in Swindon, some fourteen miles to the east but only about six miles south of Cricklade, it is tempting to assign a huge parochia to its Saxon predecessor and to include Purton, Minety and parts, at least, of Thorngrove and Chippenham hundreds in addition to its more immediate area. The question of whether a reconstructed parochia should include the further- flung places such as Purton and Swindon is a problematic one, as rights deriving from secular lordship cannot in these late sources be distinguished from those associated with pastoral functions, if indeed such a distinction can be made: the origins of Maimesbury Abbey’s rights, in terms of dating and purpose, are not revealed by the sources. It is fair, though, to think that some, at least, must derive from the abbey’s early status: that it was a minster serving a large parochia even if its area of respons- ibility did not extend as far as Swindon, for example. However, Malmesbury Abbey was not the only church within north-west Wiltshire showing signs of status above the ordinary. First, the area did have its own hundred minsters, one of the clearer examples being at Chippenham, where the church held a hide of land in 1086 and was valued at 55s. at that date, and at £26 13s.4d. in 1291."! For Wiltshire these were significant amounts, and the suggestion of high status seems confirmed by the two-membrane cartulary of Monkton Farleigh priory, to which Chippenham’s church was granted, which preserves two suggestive documents dating from the twelfth century. The first simply records the grant to the priory of ‘ecclesiam de Chippeam cum capellis et decimis et omnibus aliis (. . .) 1n eadem villa’ [‘Chippenham church with its chapels, tithes and all other (?appurtenances) in the same vill’], but the second also specifies the chapels: *.. . scilicet de Boxa de Bedestona de Slaghtford de herdenehum de Tiddrent. . .’ [‘that is to say, at Box, Biddestone, Slaughterford, Hardenhuish and Tytherton’]'” These documents, which seem such a chance survival, are sufficient to support the assignment of minster status to the church at Chippenham, confirming as they do its right to tithes, and to pensions from five nearby churches, at Box, Biddestone, Slaughterford, Hardenhuish and Tytherton, which at this stage were chapels dependent upon Chippenham (Fig.2). The date of this evidence is sufficiently early to suggest that it preserves the relics of at least the late Saxon ecclesiastical organisation in Chippenham hundred. The presence of another church of high status in 80 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 2 Chippenham hundred and early C12 parochia Kellaways Hardenhuish ) f\ Langley Burrell Chippenham Slaughterford Corsham the hundred, at Corsham, is therefore difficult to reconcile with this evidence. It held three hides of land in 1086 and was valued at 140s., and given the same value as Chippenham in 1291," yet there is no evidence to suggest that Corsham’s parish had ever extended beyond its late medieval extent, especially as Chippenham’s parochia seems to have extended around it. The church held by Edgar at Poulshot in 1086,'! which was part of Corsham manor, seems too far off to have been part of a parochia: the connection perhaps derives from secular estate links rather than purely ecclesiastical dependence. Two possibilities therefore present themselves: that Corsham was founded as a late Saxon, secondary minster, and that the possession of the church by St-Etienne, Caen led that abbey to preserve and defend its holdings, rights and income. However the evidence may reflect earlier factors, as both places were royal manors, Corsham appearing as such in Domesday Book, and Chippenham appearing in Alfred’s will and being the site of an assembly.” It is possible, therefore, that churches founded at the sites of royal manors, perhaps originally with different intended purposes, had retained importance and become effectively a pair of minsters, surviving to appear in the documentary record as very similar in status and function. Even this theory, however, does not account for the presence, also in Chippenham hundred, of the church recorded at Hazelbury in 1086,'° though the fact that Box’s chapel was a few decades later a church with a parish, in which Hazelbury stood, underlines Chippenham’s status.!’ Sherston’s church was also assigned a relatively high valuation in 1291, as it was in Domesday Book (28s.), and was recorded in a charter of William the Conqueror prior to 1086. It seems to have been a church of local high status in Dunlow hundred not far to the north-west of Malmesbury (Fig.1).A chapel at Alderton is listed in the 1291 taxation record, and the ‘Inquisitions of the Ninth’ of 1341 records others at Little Sherston and Easton Grey under the entry for Sherston itself.!* The church was granted to the abbey of StWandrille in France, and documents confirming the gift show Sherston’s status as early as the twelfth century. Popes Innocent II (1130-43) and Eugenius III (1145-53) confirmed the gift of ‘ecclesitam de Sorestan cum capellis et decimis’ [‘Sherston church with its chapels and tithes’], Bishop Jocelin that of ‘ecclesiam de Sorestan cum capellis et appendicus suis (‘Sherston church with its chapels and appurtenances’], and Bishop Roger that of ‘ecclesiam de Sorestan cum tota decima villae’ [‘Sherston church with all the tithes of the vill’],'° suggesting a church with a large parish and some rights surviving from at least the end of the Saxon period, and probably a parish which coincided largely or completely with Dunlow hundred as it was c.1086. It seems then that only a portion of Sherston’s parish, though it was still the largest in the hundred in the nineteenth century, is recorded in the poem associated with the figure on the church exterior, Known as ‘Rattlebone’. According to the poem, noted by Aubrey in the seventeenth century, Rattlebone, allegedly Sherston’s holder, ‘shalt have Wick, Willesley, Easton Town and Pinkney’, as places belonging to Sherston.”” Similarly it can be suggested, albeit on the basis of more confusing evidence, that churches at Bishop’s Cannings and All Cannings were minsters for their respective hundreds of Cannings and Studfold (Fig.3). Like others in 1091, Bishop’s Cannings church was granted, by Bishop Osmund, ‘cum decimis ceterisque 1bidem adjacentibus’ [‘with the tithes and other things attached to them’], and in 1291 it was the only church listed in the hundred, with the notably high valuation of £53 6s.8d..71 A 1316 document mentions that nearby Horton was then ‘in parochia de Canyngg’ Episcop? [‘in Bishop’s Cannings parish’], and the parish of Devizes has been suggested to have been carved out of Bishop’s Cannings, as perhaps reflected in the description of its two churches as ‘capelle’ [‘chapels’] in 1226-8.” In neighbouring Studfold hundred the church at All Cannings might also be expected to show signs of minster status, but the 1291 valuation was not very high at £13 6s.8d.”’ The prebend in Nunnaminster supported by All Cannings was given the same value, and could therefore double this if added on, but is likely to reflect lands in the manor assigned to the prebend, not necessarily connected with the church, as well as later acquisitions, so caution is warranted. MALMESBURY ABBEY AND LATE SAXON PAROCHIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WILTSHIRE 381 The names of Bishop’s Cannings and All Cannings could suggest two parts of a once larger unit, and secular separation, when All Cannings was granted to Nunnaminster, or when Bishop’s Cannings came into episcopal hands, may have been accompanied by ecclesiastical division: the limited later evidence could be used to support this theory. Although the name Cannings was retained by the hundred in which Bishop’s Cannings stood, the hundred meeting-place, it seems, had been on a site in the Domesday hundred of Studfold,” so it is unclear which of the two places, if either, had been the more important prior to division. The situation is further complicated by the status of other churches in Studfold hundred, as that at Urchfont was given the same valuation as All Cannings in 1291, and had dependent chapels of its own,” and the name of Chirton, also in Studfold hundred, suggests an early church of significance sufficient to give the place its name,*° and presumably founded early enough for the presence of a church to be rare locally. This certainly occurred before 1086, the date of our first extant record of the name. The 1291 value of £10 assigned to Chirton is not easy to interpret but is perhaps high enough to be a reflection of early foundation if not of significant local status: its 1167 holding of a hide CANNINGS Bishops Cannings 1091 #1316 Horton Allington * 1100 =z A“. All Cannings C13 N — \w 11945 Devizes Se Hundred meeting lace 6@ wC14 Etchilhampton — Patney mc.1124 Chirton wre 1232 lea. STUDFOLD Fig.3 Cannings & Studfold hundreds, c.1086 The dates indicate the first record ofa church The lines indicate ecclesiastical links showing dependence on Bishops Cannings, All Cannings and Urchfont may support this.*’ Nonetheless Bishop’s Cannings and All Cannings seem ecclesiastically dominant in their hundreds and the fact that both All Cannings and Urchfont were Nunnaminster holdings, and Bishop’s Cannings an episcopal one, at the time of Domesday Book, serves to underline the potential influence of ecclesiastical institutions on the development of parishes. Such influence may have been one way in which the hundred-minster pattern itself grew up, and Malmesbury Abbey’s churches include a similar case. King Ecgfrith of Mercia restored 35 hides at Purton to abbot Cuthbert and his brethren by S149 in 796,*° and Purton was, then, an ancient holding of the abbey when in 1086 it was at the centre of Staple hundred. Limited evidence suggests a hundred minster there: St Mary’s church was clearly the major one in the hundred in 1291, although its valuation, at £21 including the vicarage, is inconclusive and hard to interpret,”? but Purton’s parish remained the major part of the hundred and the interests of its ‘matrix ecclesia’ [‘mother church’] were safeguarded when a new oratory was founded in the time of Abbot John.*° If Purton was indeed a hundred minster then its relationship with Cricklade is significant. It was suggested that Purton was at one time dependent upon Cricklade, although no evidence was quoted, but the boundary between Cricklade and Staple hundreds, c.1086, certainly suggests that a larger secular unit was divided at some point prior to that date, and the Geld Rolls, assigning 49 hides to Cricklade hundred and 52 to Staple, allow the suggestion of a simple division of one administrative unit into two.’! It is hard to avoid the suspicion that the reason for such division would have been the interests of the major landholder in the latter, Malmesbury Abbey, still holding 35 hides there in 1086. Further, although it cannot be shown that a church existed at that date, the hundred-minster pattern is so strongly evident elsewhere in Wiltshire that it seems likely that the origins of a separate parish for Purton, perhaps of a hundred minster there, and even of the church building itself, are intertwined and related both to the division of a hundred into two and to the fact of control by a major late Saxon religious institution. Indeed, two such institutions may have been involved in this case, since Cricklade’s church of St Sampson was in the hands of Westminster Abbey by the time of Domesday Book. Its origins were earlier: Ealdorman ABthelmer, in his will of 971x982/3, left ‘1 pund into Cracgelade’ in terms that show he meant a 82 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE church or minster there, and the presence of pre- Conquest sculpture adds to the impression of an important church.” It is not known when the church was acquired by Westminster Abbey but certainly it can be suggested that its status was a concern of that abbey by 1086 and that the administrative arrangements of the time reveal the ability of the two communities to affect the ecclesiastical layout. Staple may have become a separate hundred, then, because of the presence of Malmesbury Abbey’s 35-hide estate there, and the desire for estates to have churches may have been a factor elsewhere, albeit without adjustments to administrative divisions. The abbey held an estate of 38 hides at Bremhill at the time of Domesday Book: the spurious charter of 1065 (S1038) may well contain an accurate summary of the minster’s estates at that date or shortly after and included Euridge, Spirthill, Charlcutt, Foxham, and Avon in this estate.*? Though only two miles from Calne and within Chippenham hundred in the late eleventh century, Bremhill’s church, omitted from the 1291 Taxatio, retained a large parish. An exemption of Pope Eugenius III refers to “ecclesiam de Bremela cum omnibus capellis suis’ [‘Bremhill church with all its chapels’), and another document, of c.1217-19, reveals that one chapel was at Foxham and strongly suggests a connection between the churches of Bremhill and Highway.*? Bremhill’s dedication to St Martin and remains of early fabric in the present structure may be of note in this context.* This is in spite of the apparent minster status of Chippenham (above): because Bremhill remained in Chippenham hundred, rather than being reallocated for Malmesbury Abbey’s convenience as might be expected, it seems likely that it had once been ecclesiastically dependent upon Chippenham. Even if that was not the case, its later status, showing some minster characteristics and certainly local status greater than that of an ordinary parish church, may be ascribed to efforts by Malmesbury Abbey to defend and promote the rights, in turn the result of comparatively early foundation, of the church of its Bremhill estate - a church the local inhabitants may have regarded as their ‘mynster.’® Charters granting 60 hides at Bremhill in 937 (S434, 436) to the familia [‘community’] at Malmesbury are considered fabrications, and S797, granting land at Avon in Bremhill to Abbot Aélfric in 974, is thought spurious, but the 38-hide estate recorded in 1065 shows that a substantial holding was in the abbey’s Fig.4 Crudwell and Hankerton — | Braydon Brook Hankerton * Cloatley 3¢ Malmesbury Abbey 0 1 5 miles hands before the Conquest. It was perhaps indeed acquired in the tenth century, and it would not be surprising if the abbey founded a church on this estate, with the influence the abbey was able to wield allowing the church’s local status to be established at its foundation. The origins of All Saints, Crudwell may have been similar. In Crudwell’s case, the earliest charter with genuine information seems to be S796 of 974 (on which S797 granting Bremhill may have been based) restoring land at Eastcourt in Crudwell to Abbot Aélfric, and $1038 of 1065 again records a 40-hide estate then in Malmesbury’s hands, and a smaller one of four hides at Chelworth in Crudwell. Earlier, adapted charters (S305, 356) suggest these lands came into the abbey’s hands between the seventh and ninth centuries, for they may present genuine Malmesbury traditions about when the lands were acquired. Together, the charters could suggest the gradual creation of the Crudwell estate from piecemeal acquisitions; or the assembling of those acquisitions at one point in time for the abbey’s administrative purposes; or the late Saxon re-creation or re-assembling of an estate with a more complex history. Although the origins of the estate may be different from Bremhill’s, then, a church at Crudwell may have been founded as part of the same process which led the abbey to found one on its estate at Bremhill. The church is listed ‘cum capellis suis’ [‘with its chapels’] in Eugenius III’s exemption, and land described as part of the manor | in 1065: MALMESBURY ABBEY AND LATE SAXON PAROCHIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WILTSHIRE 83 Item Creddewilla. Terra est xl hid’. De ista terra est Estcotun, Hanekynton, Morcotun. Terram istam dedit Ethelwifus rex . . . [Likewise Crudwell, where are forty hides of land, including Eastcourt, Hankerton and Murcott, which land King Aéthelwulf granted . . .] corresponds with the area suggested by later evidence to have been part of Crudwell’s parish (Fig.4). In 1230 churches at Hankerton and Eastcourt were dependent, and tithes were due from Chedglow and Tothill by Ashley. In 1231 the rector claimed tithes in Crudwell, West Crudwell, Eastcourt, Chelworth and Murcott, and claimed the abbey’s chapel at its manor to be dependent on Crudwell’s church also.*’ The rector must have thought his claims had some genuine basis - it has been suggested that the dues he claimed had been owed to the church as part of its income prior to arrangements made by Malmesbury Abbey in 1222 - and Crudwell’s church begins to look like one of significant local status, again approaching that of a minster. The case is strengthened by the proportions of the central core of the present structure, which is suggested to date from the tenth or eleventh century, and the land belonging to the church c.1222 which, at over a carucate ,** is comparable with the Domesday Book holdings of Wiltshire churches more definitely shown to have been ‘minsters’. Kemble’s church does not seem so important in the medieval documents, but there was a dependent chapel at nearby Ewen in the twelfth century, the exemption of Eugenius III including = ee A Grittleton g 1291 hes = vs 1179 ‘ecclesiam de Kemela cum capella de Ewlma’ [‘Kemble church with Ewen chapel’: the evidence is slim but it is worth noting that this was another of Malmesbury Abbey’s churches and stood on lands, assessed at 30 hides, held by the abbey in 1086 and constituting one of the three major holdings in Cicementone (later Chedglow) hundred at that time, the others being Crudwell and Brokenborough.*? The 50-hide estate called Brokenborough in 1065 (S1038) included Grittenham (in Brinkworth), Sutton, Rodbourne, Corston, Cowfold (in Malmesbury) and Bremilham, but there is no evidence of an early church, or one of significant status, at Brokenborough. The first mention of a hundred- hide estate called Brokenborough is found in a forged charter dated 956 (S629): arguably the fairly scattered lands assigned to Brokenborough in 1065 had been assembled by the abbey for its administrative convenience, and a significant church is not necessarily to be expected since it would not be easy for one to serve such dispersed lands. The Crudwell and Kemble estates look like more coherent units and the relevant charters, however doubtful, suggest they are older ones. The development of parishes in other parts of Wiltshire and of Wessex may also have been affected by the influence of monastic holdings. Most relevant for Malmesbury Abbey were probably the nearby estates of Glastonbury Abbey in Thorngrove hundred, and in Startley hundred at Christian Malford (Fig.5). These lands were the main Fig.5 Thorngrove hundred 30 Glastonbury Abbey holding 1086 (hidage) 4281 Date of record of church Combe Place named in Domesday Book * (Leigh) 20 28) 4291 Christian Malford A~ it * 20 * 1236 Nettleton Sevington ® , aston 4291 ~~ Kington 29 (West Kington) . * 84 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Glastonbury holdings in north Wiltshire.*° Although Thorngrove hundred was in Malmesbury deanery in 1291, there is very little to indicate that Malmesbury Abbey had any influence there. In contrast, charters survive in Glastonbury Abbey’s archive for Grittleton, ‘Langley’ and Nettleton. S472 grants 25 hides at Grittleton in 940, S473, 30 hides at ‘Langley’ the same year, and S504, 20 hides at Nettleton in 944. All these grants were to one Wulfric, and the abbey felt obliged to adapt at least one of them to produce a charter, S625, granting the Nettleton holding to Abbot Elswy in 956. The lands seem to have been in the abbey’s hands by 1066, at any rate, since the Domesday hidages of Grittleton (30), Kington Langley (29) and Nettleton (20) are comparable. The other holdings listed in the hundred in 1086 were minor, although another charter, S999, granted ten hides at Sevington in Nettleton to an A®lfstan in 1043 and came to Abingdon Abbey’s archive, although that abbey held no Wiltshire lands by 1086. Unless Glastonbury Abbey had lost this land, and then recovered it before 1066, it suggests that a Nettleton estate may once have been larger, at 30 hides. Coupled with the possibility of a sub-Roman Christian site at Nettleton,"! this evidence makes it tempting to suggest Nettleton as the secular and ecclesiastical centre of the hundred, but the 1291 valuation of £10 13s.4d. is hard to interpret and comparable with Grittleton’s, at £10. However, Kington St Michael had a higher valuation of £20 in 1291, and its place-name suggests some administrative function. Had the church there had high ecclesiastical status also, it was perhaps largely lost when the major institution at Glastonbury acquired a total of 79 of the 100 hides listed in Thorngrove hundred in 1086. These lands were, though, granted piecemeal to Wulfric - the gradual dismemberment of a possible larger unit may have as much to do with this loss of status as did the standing or actions of the eventual beneficiary, although the lands may well have come to the abbey’s hands all at once, if the De Antiquitate is correct in saying that Wulfric’s successor Ak lfwine became a monk at Glastonbury, bringing land with him.’ However, the Domesday evidence does not fit with the idea of much status for Kington St Michael, the only estate so named in 1086 being of a mere 1% hides, and this had itself been held of the abbey, by one Alwine, in 1066:" the rest of the later parish was perhaps dealt with as part of one of Glastonbury’s other estates in the hundred, probably the ‘Langheler identified as Kington Langley. Kington St Michael’s 1291 valuation, then, and perhaps its ecclesiastical independence, may have been only the result of the foundation of a priory there in the first half of the twelfth century. Churches at West Kington and Langley were valued at only £5 and £6 13s.4d. respectively in 1291 and do not therefore seem superior to Kington St Michael, so the place-name links are apparently unhelpful. It remains possible that a minster was alienated by the abbey, which retained most of the actual land, and came to the hands of Alwine as his 1'4-hide estate, held of the abbey in 1066, 1% hides being, from comparison with the churches specifically listed in Domesday Book, a plausible holding for a minster at that date. Whichever church, if any, was a local minster, estate fission or the influence of a powerful ecclesiastical landholder, or both of these factors, resulted in the hundred’s churches seeming relatively undifferentiated in status in later sources. Church scot was due, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, at those churches held by Glastonbury," but as is so often the case, it is not specified to which church it was owed. The abbey, it may be suspected, had been able to assign church scot from these places to itself, or to the churches it held, at the expense of a former minster, and perhaps in promoting lesser churches at settlements on its estates it had effectively caused a minster to disappear more completely than most in Wiltshire. Holding most of the hundred’s lands, it had not itself lost anything by such a process, though it had become involved in the development of the parish network towards that which would be familiar later. Similarly, the abbey held much land in the Deverills in Heytesbury hundred, with, in 1086, ten hides at Monkton Deverill and ten at Longbridge Deverill,” and the difficulty in either identifying a minster for a possible earlier ‘Deverill’ estate, or tying the Deverills ecclesiastically to the minster at Heytesbury, may be due to similar factors. As with the fact of Glastonbury Abbey’s domination of Thorngrove hundred, so Christian Malford’s case shows that Malmesbury Abbey was not all-powerful in its region. The church, in Startley hundred and closer to Malmesbury’s core estates, is found in medieval documents with hints of minster status. A dispute over tithes was settled in 1236 and the document recording the agreement refers to the church at Christian Malford as a ‘mother church’, and mortuaries were due to the rector early in the sixteenth century,’’ but these rights apply only to Christian Malford’s own parish MALMESBURY ABBEY AND LATE SAXON PAROCHIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WILTSHIRE 85 and, given the dates, are no more than suggestive. More significant may be the burial at Bradenstoke, recorded in 1300, which should have taken place at Christian Malford, even though Bradenstoke was in the neighbouring hundred of Kingsbridge, and interestingly lands in nearby Stanton St Quintin and in Littleton Drew (in Dunlow hundred), also Glastonbury holdings, ‘ought to lie in Christian Malford’, according to Domesday Book, underlining at least its secular status.** The place-name, recorded in the 940 charter (below), may be a relic of early Christian associations, preserving as it does the memory of a cross by the ford,”’ but need not reveal anything about the origins of the church, unless the cross, perhaps held in veneration locally, contributed to the decision to found one, but the evidence does suggest some status above the ordinary for All Saints church, linked perhaps with administrative and lordship patterns ignoring, if not predating, the Domesday hundredal layout. The origins of this status, and perhaps of the church itself, may therefore lie in the acquisition of a 20-hide land unit there by Glastonbury Abbey in 940. By 1066 it was one of the abbey’s major Wiltshire holdings: so the building of a church to serve the estate would perhaps be unsurprising. Again then, the church looks likely to have been founded in the late Anglo-Saxon period to serve an estate granted to an ecclesiastical holder, and these circumstances, and the lack of any documentation indicating Christian Malford’s dependence upon Malmesbury Abbey, which would perhaps be expected, would suggest that the church’s status was decided at the time of foundation, in this case perhaps by negotiation with that abbey. That the evidence for Christian Malford’s status is limited may perhaps be due to the fact that by 1229 the church was ‘at the disposal’ of the Bishop of Bath and Wells:*° if it had indeed been a Glastonbury foundation, by this date it had been lost or alienated with adverse effects on its status or on the documentary record thereof, or both. This kind of limited, suggestive evidence is typical of anumber of Wiltshire churches: evidence which suggests the kind of local standing which might not now be associated with that of a minster, but standing which, deriving perhaps from the rights and duties resulting in turn from relatively early foundation, might have been associated by the later Anglo-Saxons with a mynster. Whether such churches can be numbered among the ranks of secondary or lesser minsters, or whether they were simply among the earliest churches to acquire rights and duties and, therefore, parishes, what they tend to have in common is that they served estates held by religious institutions reformed, founded or endowed in the late Anglo-Saxon period: houses such as Shaftesbury, Wilton, Old Minster, Winchester, Glastonbury and Malmesbury. Further, frequently the lands can be shown to have been in monastic hands from the tenth century or before, and often there is surviving structure suggested to date from the late Anglo-Saxon period. It is speculative, perhaps, to attempt to link the foundation of such churches directly with monastic reform per se, although in Malmesbury’s case there are some grounds for believing that such reform could affect parochial geography. Glastonbury’s reform is well known, Malmesbury’s perhaps less so: it was said to have consisted of a community of canons until reformed by Edgar to a more strict one of monks.*! The community seems to have regarded Ss Peter and Paul as its chief patrons until the tenth century when abbot /elfric changed this in favour of St Mary, and it therefore seems quite possible that the church of Ss Peter and Paul, whose remains still stand in the monastic precinct, stood on the site of the early chief church of the minster, its function perhaps changing in the tenth ceniury: reform as part of the movement led by Dunstan, 7ethelwold and Oswald might have led to a desire for separation of pastoral functions from more strictly ‘monastic’ ones. More generally, an argument that the foundation of ‘estate churches’ or ‘estate minsters’ - phrases which seem to describe the nature of churches such as those at Crudwell, Bremhill, and indeed Purton - can be understood in the context of late Anglo-Saxon religious revival, may be on firmer ground. A consensus in the recent secondary literature of the late Anglo-Saxon monastic reform is that the movement was not only about rebuilding and reconstituting certain communities and their buildings: it touched, says Cubitt for example, on an ‘extraordinary range of Anglo-Saxon life’, and Stafford points out the aspect of the revival as a response to real spiritual needs of the tenth century.” Tellenbach, discussing proprietary churches in a European context, points out other motivations for church building - control of dependents, the acquisition of offerings and dues by the new church’s builder or owner - but suggests that the financial returns would be small and that the main motivation was faith.” Yorke writes that regeneration of the whole Christian people was one aim of the revival and that the parochial work of priests was necessary for this to be achieved:™ if there was a desire or 86 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE perceived need to create a truly Christian kingdom, as the sources of the time suggest there was, then the parish clergy were the ones to teach the laity about morality, prayer, veneration of the saints and obligations towards the poor, and the bishops were in turn the ones to teach their clergy how to do that: and of course many of the late Anglo-Saxon bishops were monks from reformed institutions. Zelfric of Cerne and Wulfstan are probably the key contemporary writers. Aélfric in his pastoral letters shows a preoccupation with morality - writing them for bishops to distribute to their parish clergy, he enjoins frequent attendance at church, in order that priests could teach the basics of the faith, and urges priests to visit the sick and baptise children, but only to do so in their own parishes, which implies that arrangements ought to have been made for churches served by priests to have designated parishes. A little later Wulfstan, ‘the Wolf’, urges that all men should teach the paternoster and creed to their children, as well as pay their tithes and church-scot.”? These writings may reflect more idealism than practice, though Loyn considers that the monastic reform did in fact penetrate deeply into the secular church, and this may have happened not least through the role of priests in local legal cases, oaths and ordeals. The ‘recipients of reform’, he says, were the ‘villages, hamlets, towns and townships’.°® This was perhaps all the more true, then, at churches in settlements on monastic estates. Yorke sees the building of local churches in the context of evangelisation and the climate created by the reform movement,” but much discussion of church foundation in the late Saxon period has focused largely on the role of laymen as founders of ‘proprietary’ chapels, as for example on thegnly estates, which in time became the parish churches of many settlements. In Wiltshire the ‘in-between’ churches, as John Blair has termed them (pers.comm., 2000), show that the lordship of religious communities, and of bishops, in an atmosphere of religious revival, could have just as important an effect upon the amplification of the parochial system. Notes ' Heather Edwards, The Charters of the Early West Saxon Kingdom, BAR Brit.Ser.198 (1988), pp.87-100. All dates are A.D.. ° Charters of Shaftesbury, ed. Susan E. Kelly, British Academy Anglo-Saxon Charters V (1996), pp.3-10. >J.M.A. Pitt, Wiltshire Minster Parochiae and West Saxon Ecclesiastical Organisation, PhD thesis (University of Southampton 1999), which contains further details and discussion of Wiltshire minster parochiae. ‘ For the reconstruction of Wiltshire’s hundreds and their boundaries around the time of Domesday, and all references to these below including the 1086 hundred boundaries shown on the maps, F.R. Thorn, ‘Hundreds and wapentakes’, in The Wiltshire Domesday, ed. N.A. Hooper & E.R. Thorn, Alecto Historical Editions (1989), pp.31-45 and Map VI accompanying. > Nonarum Inquisitiones in Curia Scaccarii temp. Regis Edwardi III, ed. G. Vanderzee, Rec.Comm. (1807), p.167. ° VCH Wilts 2 (1955), pp.196, 211-2. ’ Cartulary of Malmesbury Abbey, B.L. ms. Add.15667, fo.39. Another document, recording a composition over tithes of Beckhampton owed to the abbey, may suggest the origin of the pension due: Cartulary of Malmesbury Abbey, B.L. Lansdowne ms. 417, fo.108. ® Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae auctoritate papae Nicholai circa 1291, ed. S. Ayscough & J. Caley, Rec.Comm. (1802). ° Corston: Cartulary of Malmesbury Abbey, B.L. Add. ms. 15667, fo.72v (undated); Norton & Sutton: Registrum Malmesburiense, ed. J.S. Brewer & C.T. Martin, 2 vols, Rolls Ser. 72/1-2, (1879-80), Vol.I pp.348-52 [Pope Eugenius III]; Smithcot: The Register of Roger Martival, Bishop of Salisbury 1315- 1330, Vol.1, ed. Kathleen Edwards, 2 vols, Cant.&York Soc. 55-6 (1959-60), Vol.I p.369; The Register of John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury 1388- 1395, ed. T.C.B. Timmins, Cant.& York Soc. 80 (1994), p.74 [1327, 1390]. '© Reg. Malm., vol.II p.16; The Cartularies of Southwick Priory, ed. Katharine A. Hanna, 2 vols, Hampshire Record Series 9, 10 (1988, 1989), vol.I pp.10-12. "| Wiltshire Domesday, fo.64v; Taxatio, p.189. " Cartulary of Monkton Farleigh priory, WSRO 192/54, fo.1. B. Kemp (pers.comm. 2000) believes the charter to be authentic and dated to 1139. The document is damaged and the missing word was probably appendicis or pertinenciis. 5 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.65; Taxatio, p.188. '! Wiltshire Domesday, fo.65. ‘The document known as ‘the Fonthill letter’ mentions Chippenham in terms that indicate a royal residence there soon after Alfred’s time: “The Fonthill Letter’, ed. S. Keynes, in M. Korhammer et al. (eds), Words, Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture Presented to Helmut Gneuss on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (1992), pp.53-97. Asser also mentions a royal estate at Chippenham, recording the wedding there in 853 of Alfred’s sister AXthelswith to King Burgred of Mercia, though he is the only source to record the location of the event: Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of Alfred and other contemporary sources, ed. & trans. S. Keynes & M. Lapidge (1983), p.69. Ifhe is correct the existence of a church, by the mid ninth century, is certainly to be deduced. MALMESBURY ABBEY AND LATE SAXON PAROCHIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WILTSHJRE 87 16 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.65v. '” Cartulary of Monkton Farleigh, fo.1, where a charter of 1227 records the grant to the priory of the church of “Boxa iuxta Farlegh” with tithes and land “de parochia ecclesie de Boxe”. '8 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.65v; Regesta Regum Anglo- Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066-1087), ed. D. Bates (1998), p.792; Taxatio, p.189; Nonarum Ing., p.164. '° Vetus Registrum Sarisberiense alias dictum Registrum Sancti Osmundi Episcop1: The Register of S. Osmund, ed. W.H. Rich Jones, 2 vols, Rolls Ser. 78/ 1-2 (1883-4), vol.I pp.231-3. 20 Wiltshire: the topographical collections of J. Aubrey, corrected and enlarged by J.E. Jackson, WA&NHS (1862), pp.106-9. 21 Reg. S. Osmund, vol.I pp.198-200; Taxatio, p.182. 22 The Register of Roger Martival, Bishop of Salisbury 1315-1330, 2 vols, ed. C.R. Elrington, Canterbury &York Society 57-8 (1963-72), vol.II p.185; VCH Wilts 10, pp.237-8, 285. Taxatio, p.189. 24 J.E.B.Gover, A. Mawer & F.M. Stenton, The Place- Names of Wiltshire (1939), p.249. > Taxatio, p.180; VCH Wilts 10, p.186. 26 Gover, Mawer & Stenton, Place-Names of Wiltshire, p.312. 27 Taxatio, p.180; VCH Wilts 10, p.69. 28 Edwards, Charters, pp.121-6. 2° Taxatio, p.190. 3° Reg. Malm., vol.II pp.22-3. 31 T.R. Thomson, Materials for a History of Cricklade, Cricklade Historical Society (1958-61); VCH Wilts 2, pp.183, 186. >? Wiltshire Domesday, fo.67; Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. Dorothy Whitelock (1930), pp.24-7, 125-8; H.M. & Joan Taylor, ‘An Anglo-Saxon pilaster, St Sampson’s church, Cricklade’, WANHM 58 (1961-3), pp.16- 17. 33 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.67; Reg. Malm., vol.I pp.321- 5: 34 Reg. Malm., vol.I pp.348-52, 401-4. 3> H.M. & Joan Taylor, Anglo-Saxon Architecture, 3 vols (1965-78), vol.I p.98. 3° For discussion of the use of the terms ‘minster’ and ‘mynster see e.g. Sarah Foot, ‘Anglo-Saxon minsters: a review of terminology’, in J. Blair & R. Sharpe (eds), Pastoral Care Before the Parish (1992), pp. 212-25. 37 Reg. Malm., vol.I pp.264-7, 348-53, 386-90. 38 VCH Wilts 14, pp.61-2. 39 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.67. 40 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.66v. 41 WJ. Wedlake et al., The Excavation of the Shrine of - Apollo at Nettleton, Wiltshire, 1956-1971, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London No. XL (1982), pp.104-5; M. Millett, review of W.J. Wedlake et al., The Excavation of the Shrine of Apollo at Nettleton, Wiltshire, in The Archaeological Journal 140 (1983), p.360. * J. Scott, The Early History of Glastonbury: An Edition, Translation and Study of William of Malmesbury’s De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie (1981), pp.118-9. ® Wiltshire Domesday, fo.72v. Rentalia et custumarium monasterium Glastoniae, B.L. Add. ms. 17450, ff.32v & 166 (Grittleton); 34 & 163- 164v (Nettleton); Cartulary of Glastonbury Abbey, B.L. Egerton ms. 3321, ff.238rv (Nettleton), 241lv (Grittleton) & 245v (Kington [Langley?]). ® Wiltshire Domesday, fo.66v. *© The Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory, ed. Vera C.M. London, Wiltshire Record Society 35 (1979), pp.66- Us *” Cartulary of Glastonbury Abbey, B.L. Harley ms. 3961, fo.84v. *8 Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, Diocesis Saresbiriensis, A.D. 1297-1315, ed. C.T. Flower & M.C.B. Dawes, 2 vols, Cant.& York Soc. 40-41 (1934), p.28; Wiltshire Domesday, fo.66v. *° Gover, Mawer & Stenton, Place-Names of Wiltshire, p.67. °° Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory, p.66. >! Tn 974 according to the abbey’s cartulary: Reg. Malm., Vol.I pp.316-8. 52 Catherine Cubitt, ‘Review article: the tenth-century Benedictine reform in England’, Early Medieval Europe 6 (1997), pp.77-94, at 77; Pauline A. Stafford, ‘Church and society in the age of Aélfric’, in P. Szarmach & B. Huppé (eds), The Old English Homily and its Backgrounds (1978), pp.11-42, at 12. °3 G. Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century (1993), p.77. >4 Barbara Yorke, Wessex in the Early Middle Ages (1995), p.227. >> Councils and Synods with other Documents relating to the English Church, 1, AD 871-1204 Part I 871- 1066, ed. Dorothy Whitelock, M. Brett & C.N.L. Brooke (1981), pp.191, 255, 313. 5° H.R. Loyn, The English Church, 940-1154 (2000), pp.28, 31. *7 Yorke, Wessex, p.229. Manuscript Sources Cartulary of Monkton Farleigh priory, Wiltshire Record Office, Acc.no. 192/54 Cartulary of Malmesbury Abbey, British Library Add. ms. 15667 Cartulary of Malmesbury Abbey, British Library Lansdowne ms. 417 Rentalia et custumarium monasterium Glastoniae, British Library Add. ms. 17450 Cartulary of Glastonbury Abbey, British Library Egerton ms. 3321 Cartulary of Glastonbury Abbey, British Library Harley ms. 3961 88 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Bibliography and Abbreviations S refers to the numbers allocated to Anglo-Saxon charters by SAWYER, P.H. 1968, Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography. London: Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 8, and revised edition by Susan E. Kelly (forthcoming), and to comments therein regarding authenticity and dating. VCH Wilts: The Victoria History of the Counties of England: A History of Wiltshire: Vol.2,ed. R.B. Pugh & Elizabeth Crittall (London 1955), Vol.10, ed. Elizabeth Crittall (Oxford 1975), Vol.14, ed. D.A. Crowley (Oxford 1991) AYSCOUGH, S. & CALEY, J. eds 1802, Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae auctoritate papae Nicholai circa 1291. London: Record Commission BATES, D. ed. 1998, Regesta Regum Anglo- Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066-1087). Oxford: Clarendon Press BREWER, J.S. & MARTIN, C.T. eds 1879-80, Registrum Malmesburiense. 2 vols, London: Rolls Series 72/1-2 CUBITT, Catherine 1997. Review article: the tenth- century Benedictine reform in England. Early Medieval Europe 6, 77-94 EDWARDS, Heather 1988, The Charters of the Early West Saxon Kingdom. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 198 EDWARDS, Kathleen ed. 1959-60, The Register of Roger Martival, Bishop of Salisbury 1315-1330, Vol.1, 2 vols, London: Canterbury & York Society 55-6 ELRINGTON, C.R. ed. 1963-72, The Register of Roger Martival, Bishop of Salisbury 1315-1330, Vol.2. 2 vols, London: Canterbury &York Society 57-8 FLOWER, C.T. & DAWES, M.C.B. eds 1934, Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, Diocesis Saresbiriensis, A.D. 1297-1315. 2 vols, London: Canterbury &York Society 40-41 FOOT, Sarah 1992, ‘Anglo-Saxon minsters: a review of terminology’, in J. Blair & R. Sharpe (eds), Pastoral Care Before the Parish, 212-25. Leicester: Univ Press GOVER, J.E.B., MAWER A. & STENTON, F.M. 1939, The Place-Names of Wiltshire. London: English Place-Name Society 16 HANNA, Katharine A. ed. 1988-9, The Cartularies of Southwick Priory. 2 vols, Winchester: Hampshire Record Series 9, 10 HOOPER, N.A. & THORN, F.R. eds 1989, The Wiltshire Domesday. London: Alecto Historical Editions JACKSON, J.E. ed. 1862, Wiltshire: the topographical collections of J. Aubrey, corrected and enlarged by J_E. Jackson. Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society KELLY, Susan E. ed. 1996, Charters of Shaftesbury. Oxford: British Academy Anglo-Saxon Charters V KEYNES, S. ed. 1992, ‘The Fonthill Letter’, in M. Korhammer et al. (eds), Words, Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture Presented to Helmut Gneuss on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 53-97. Cambridge: University Press KEYNES, S. & LAPIDGE, M. eds 1983, Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of Alfred and other contemporary sources. Harmondsworth: Penguin LONDON, Vera C.M. ed. 1979, The Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory. Devizes: Wiltshire Record Society 35 LOYN, H.R. 2000, The English Church, 940-1154. London: Longman MILLETT, M 1983. review of W.J. Wedlake et al., The Excavation of the Shrine of Apollo at Nettleton, Wiltshire. The Archaeological Journal 140, 360 PITT, J.M.A. 1999, Wiltshire Minster Parochiae and West Saxon Ecclesiastical Organisation. University of Southampton: PhD thesis RICH JONES, W.H. ed. 1883-4, Vetus Registrum Sarisberiense alias dictum Registrum Sancti Osmundi Episcopi: The Register of S. Osmund. 2 vols, London: Rolls Series 78/1-2 SCOTT, J. 1981, The Early History of Glastonbury: An Edition, Translation and Study of William of Malmesbury’s De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie. Woodbridge: Boydell STAFFORD, Pauline A. 1978, ‘Church and society in the age of Aélfric’ in P. Szarmach & B. Huppé (eds), The Old English Homily and its Backgrounds, 11- 42. Albany: State University of New York Press TAYLOR, H.M. & Joan 1961-3. An Anglo-Saxon pilaster, St Sampson’s church, Cricklade. WANHM 58, 16-17 TAYLOR, H.M. & Joan 1965-78, Anglo-Saxon Architecture. 3 vols, Cambridge: University Press THOMSON, TR. 1958-61, Materials for a History of Cricklade. Oxford: Cricklade Historical Society TELLENBACH, G. 1993, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century. Cambridge: University Press TIMMINS, T.C.B. ed. 1994, The Register of John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury 1388-1395. London: Canterbury & York Society 80 VANDERZEE, G. ed. 1807, Nonarum Inquisitiones in Curia Scaccarii temp. Regis Edwardi III. London: Record Commission WEDLAKE, WJ. et al. 1982, The Excavation of the Shrine of Apollo at Nettleton, Wiltshire, 1956-1971. London: Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London No. XL WHITELOCK, Dorothy ed. 1930, Anglo-Saxon Wills. Cambridge: University Press WHITELOCK, Dorothy, BRETT, M. & BROOKE, C.N.L. eds 1981, Councils and Synods with other Documents relating to the English Church, 1, AD 871-1204 Part I 871-1066. Oxford: Clarendon Press YORKE, Barbara A.E. 1995, Wessex in the Early Middle Ages. London: Leicester University Press Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 89-97 The Wiltshire Natural History Forum 1974-2002 by Michael Darby The history of the Forum from its inception in May 1974 to its disbandment in August 2002 is traced, and its main involvements detailed. These included: attempting to establish a new natural history post in the county; caring for natural history collections in the county’s museums; helping to set up the Biological Records Centre; organising two Wetlands Symposia; helping to set up the Wiltshire branch of the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group; making recommendations on waste disposal; publishing lists of courses and events; organising the Wiltshire Flora Mapping Project and publishing The Flora of Wiltshire; making recommendations on Structure Plans; and much else. The early 1970s was a period of impending changes for natural historians in Wiltshire. Mounting concern about the impact of human activities on the environment brought not just a demand for new approaches to conservation, but also focussed attention on the need for tighter legislation, particularly regarding planning. Both placed a premium on specific information about biodiversity, habitats and species, which Wiltshire’s natural historians, most of whom were amateurs, were ill- equipped to meet. The Nature Conservancy Council (NCC, now English Nature), which had covered Wiltshire from its Newbury office but opened a branch in Devizes in 1993, and to a lesser extent the Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation (WTNGC, now the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust), which had been founded in 1962, had specific responsibilities, but were to some extent circumscribed in their activities by difficulties in _ establishing networks of local contacts. One might have expected that WANHS, as the _ single organisation with a remit to adopt a county- | wide view, would have taken the lead, but this was | not the case. The relationship between WANHS | natural historians and archaeologists was not close. | In 1946, the naturalists formed a separate Natural | History Section with its own subscription for those | who were not ‘full? members of the Society. Later the Society allowed offprints of the natural history section in WANHM to be circulated to Section members. The impetus to resolve the disharmony between the two disciplines was to come from the Community Council for Wiltshire, which had been formed in 1965 to implement the policies and programmes of the National Council of Social Services (now the National Council for Voluntary Organisations) at the local level. Specifically, it acted as a focal point for all voluntary organisations by providing not just advice and assistance, but also the opportunity to meet statutory bodies with like interests on common ground. Initially, however, the Community Council, although perfectly positioned to help, lacked a member of staff with a concern for natural history issues. It was not until after ‘a very full process of consultation including a conference at Market Lavington with voluntary bodies and statutory authorities’, that application was successfully made to the Development Commission for grant-aid to establish the new post of Countryside Liaison Officer. Peter Newell, who took up the post on 1 May 1973, had joined the Council in February 1968 as assistant secretary working mainly on village halls. With a specific remit to foster links and encourage new initiatives, he immediately involved himself in talks with many of the organisations and individuals concerned with natural history in the county. By the end of the autumn he had a clear understanding | The Old Malthouse, Sutton Mandeville, Salisbury SP3 5LZ 90 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE of the main issues, and on 19 December 1973 he organised an informal meeting between the parties involved at the Braeside Residential Centre, Devizes, to discuss how matters might be resolved. Present were many members of the Natural History Section including Beatrice Gillam, Geoffrey Webber, Lesley Balfe, Ann Hutchison, Beverley Heath, Philip Horton, the NCC’s Regional Officer and a representative of the WI'NC. After identifying the tasks which needed to be tackled, the meeting’s main recommendation was that a Wiltshire Natural History Forum — the name was devised by Horton — should be set up to facilitate the work. More specifically, six requirements of the Forum were identified: 1. Provide a focal point for natural history societies and other bodies; 2. Co-ordinate recording and field work in consultation with appropriate national bodies; 3. Ensure that adequate provision for natural history collections was made in museums and that they were developed, especially for educational purposes; 4. Encourage a greater interest in natural history particularly amongst the young; 5. Provide a means through which natural historians could express their views; 6. Support the work of natural history societies. Organisations concerned with natural history were invited to become members of the Forum to which they would pay a small annual subscription. These points formed the basis of a detailed paper, prepared by Newell, titled Proposals for the Establishment of a Wiltshire Natural History Forum, which was ratified at a second informal meeting on 7 February 1974. The inaugural meeting of the Forum took place on 6 May 1974 at West Lavington village hall and was attended by twenty-four representatives of different organisations both regional and national. In the first category these included four officers from Wiltshire County Council (Education, and Library and Museums Departments), three from WANHS, two from WTNC, two from Lackham College of Agriculture, two from Westbury Naturalists, and in the latter category, representatives from the Workers’ Educational Association, British Deer Society, Forestry Commission and the Army Bird Watching Society. Seven of those attending had earlier been involved, as individuals, in the exploratory meetings. The inaugural meeting was chaired by John Price, a member of the WI'NC Field Committee and on © the staff of the County Education Authority (and who would be elected on to the Council of the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum shortly before the meeting) after it was put to him that he had the advantage of ‘being a younger person who is not so closely associated with the county set’. The meeting was carefully choreographed by Newell who not only issued copies of his Proposals to all those invited to attend, but also provided Price with a detailed set of guidance notes. In addition, he persuaded Harold Cory, Chairman of the Management Committee of the Salisbury Museum, to speak on the subject of Museum collections and Philip Horton on Biological Recording (Cory was subsequently unable to attend and Horton spoke for him). After dealing with statutory matters, the main business of the inaugural meeting concerned the two talks. Interestingly, both made clear the need for a professional Natural History Curator. Such an appointment had already been proposed by WANHS, and a policy paper was in course of preparation by the Curatorial sub-committee of the Wiltshire Museums Council. Now, however, the appointment was given priority by the Forum when it was agreed that Horton and Newell would draft a separate paper of their own setting out the terms and conditions of the post, and that both papers would then be discussed at the Forum’s next meeting. The reason why the members of the Forum attached such importance to the post was because it impacted on several of the key areas they had identified for action. Alison Maddock, a student on the Leicester University Museums Course, had just produced a damning report on the state of natural history collections in Wiltshire Museums. This made clear that all the collections were incomplete and often in poor condition. In other words they were inadequate to serve the needs of potential users and urgently required professional attention. Furthermore, a debate was needed about how they should be displayed to the public. In addition to these curatorial concerns, the Forum also saw the post as having an important part to play in the development of biological recording. That the first moves in establishing a Records Centre were taking place under Dick Sandell in WANHS library (see below), provided a convenient reason for linking two essentially different concerns. Finally, a professional natural historian was seen as important in relieving the THE WILTSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY FORUM 1974-2002 91 NCC of part of the burden of providing advice to the general public, which was taking up a considerable amount of time, and of helping it to ensure certain minimum standards in field work. It had also been suggested that the Curator take on secretarial responsibility for the Forum itself. Shortly before the inaugural meeting of the Forum, the Community Council had moved office to Wyndhams in St. Joseph’s Place off the Bath Road, Devizes. Wyndhams would soon house offices of both the NCC and the WTNC, and Newell’s task was facilitated by the close contact he then had with these organisations. It explains why John Price, with his involvement in WINC, education and museum administration was approached to act as Chairman. The influence of the NCC and the WTNC certainly appears to be evident in Newell and Horton’s paper, in which, after covering the points made above, they floated the suggestion that the headquarters of the new curator should not be in one of the Museums, but in Wyndhams. With hindsight it might seem unrealistic to try to link a curatorial post with field naturalists and also development of the proposed biological records centre. However at that time resources were very limited. There were only two professional naturalists (NCC and WTNO), one of whom had only recently been appointed. It made sense, therefore, to try to maximise these resources by proposing that the three posts work together as a team based in the same building. The problems were brought home clearly when, firstly, no single provider of funds for the post could be found, and secondly, a discussion at the Forum’s second meeting on 29 August 1974, highlighted the fact that the different requirements of the role would need separate management involving different, potentially conflicting priorities. (Although this did not stop the members from agreeing at this meeting that the postholder’s first priority should be ‘to develop natural history collections, displays and records in the museums.’) It was hardly surprising that debate about the post rumbled on for several years. In May 1976 Newell was still attempting to impress the Director of the County Library and Museum Service with the need to get on with the appointment but, three years later, at a meeting on 25 October 1977, it was noted that there was ‘no likelihood for obtaining a Natural History Curator except perhaps on a temporary basis under the County Council and then principally for rescue work on the Salisbury Collections’. The matter was not finally resolved until 1981 when Susan Cross was appointed on a short term contract funded jointly by the Area Museums Council and WANHS (Sandell Trust) to work in the Devizes Museum. By this time Forum involvement was minimal, and all trace of the field naturalist aspect of the post had disappeared, together with the possibility of its being based in Wyndhams. Already detectable in the Forum’s involvement with the Natural History Curator’s post was a problem it would face throughout much of its existence: the difficulty of making a clear distinction between its role as a facilitator of communications between its members, and its desire, when it could clearly see that those same bodies were failing, not to appear ambivalent, and to act in an executive capacity. To a certain extent this was a reflection of its object, as laid down in the constitution, to promote co-operation, wording which clearly implied a pro-active approach. But, it was also the result of the specific nature of the interests of the affiliated members, as opposed to the general responsibilities which the Forum took upon itself. Put another way, one could say that it would really have liked to have stepped into WANHS’ shoes, but couldn’t, a point which was made several years later by Edward Elliott when he wrote: ‘I have always seen the existence of the Forum as a reflection of WANHS failure to live up to its former role as the County centre of knowledge and leadership in natural history affairs’. As a corollary it is worth noting that Newell and Price gave unofficial encouragement to the members of the Natural History Section, who were actively considering breaking away completely from WANHS, to be even more radical by forming a separate ‘Naturalist Organisation’ in conjunction with the WTNC. Had such an organisation come into existence much of the Forum’s work would undoubtedly have been made easier. But the Section was reported to be ‘in the throes of self examination’, and in the event nothing came of it. The Section’s feelings remained sensitive for some time to come as, for example, in 1976 when it declined to pay its annual affiliation fee because it considered that the Forum had acted in an executive capacity by organising Christmas parties and over the Biological Record Centre (see below). Discussion of the natural history post did not distract the Forum from concentrating on biological recording and museum collections at its third and subsequent meetings. Both had been specifically mentioned in the Proposals circulated before the 92 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE inaugural meeting and subsequently became a feature of the Forum’s constitution as two of the five methods by which it would operate. The clear need for early resolution of both matters was the reason why they had formed such a major feature of the inaugural meeting. A certain amount of recording was already being done in the county by individuals and societies, but it was not systematic and the information was not available in a form which could be used by the bodies which most needed it. These included not only the NCC and the WTNC, but also the County Council and District Councils, particularly in connection with planning considerations. There had been some previous attempts at setting up a standardised recording system but these had failed, leading Dr Frank Perring, Director of the National Biological Records Centre at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood, Cambridgeshire, to approach Dick Sandell, voluntary librarian at WANHS, with a view to establishing a county records office in the museum at Devizes, like that being set up in Hampshire. It was suggested that Perring be invited to address the Forum to explain the proposals in more detail, which he did at the third meeting on 24 February 1975 at Urchfont. Ian Evans of Leicestershire Museums, who was already running a county centre, was also invited to speak. Given the involvement of so many individuals and organisations, not just in recording but also in the use of the resulting data, it was hardly surprising that the meeting attracted no fewer than forty-three participants. Such a large number of interested parties required careful co- ordination and liaison, so that the Forum was in a strong position to play a crucial role. Following agreement at the meeting that a County Records Centre should be set up, a sub- committee of the Forum was established to assist Dick Sandell to run it. Interestingly, Newell had written to Price as early as 19 February 1974 on this subject: ‘In lieu of the Natural History appointment Dick Sandell will, I think, be prepared to give some time to getting the Records Centre off the ground with the help of a small committee.’ In practice, the committee assumed management responsibility for both the post and the development of the Centre until WANHS later took over. Indeed, it had already met on 3 October 1974 (when Sandell was not present) and agreed that its first priority should probably be a land use and habitat survey, and that one of its first actions should be to organise a meeting of all the recorders. When, finally, in 1977 four appointments were made under the Government’s Job Creation Programme for a period of thirty-five weeks to assist with establishing the BRC, three were employed by the County Library and Museum Service and one by WANHS. The County Council employees were accommodated in Wyndhams (part of the rental being paid out of Forum funds) and concentrated on sites, whereas Chris Bindon, who was employed by WANHS, worked in the Museum on species. Given that the Council team was supervised by Stewart Lane, the NCC’s new Assistant Regional Officer, whose office was next door, this arrangement appears to have worked well. Having Peter Newbery, the WINC Field Officer, close by too, must have been an additional advantage. Following the end of the Job Creation Project, work on developing the Centre switched to the Museum and was carried on by Jeanne Rayment until 1979, and Susan Cross from 1981. It was at this time that the Wiltshire Flora Mapping Project was started (see below) which would quickly take up a large part of the nascent Centre’s work. Claire Appleby, the first full-time Biological Recorder, was appointed in 1985 after the County Council agreed to grant-aid the post, and she was replaced by Sally Scott-White, the present incumbent, in 1989. Throughout, the Forum continued to be much involved, and discussion of the work of the Centre was a more or less constant feature of its meetings. On 9 December 1993, county recorders were invited to attend the Forum’s meeting to discuss the future of biological recording. This resulted in the first meeting of county recorders, convened by the Forum, on 8 February 1995. Two meetings were subsequently held each year and will continue in the future under the auspices of the WW’T, a lasting legacy of the work of the Forum. The third important method the Forum had enshrined in its constitution was that of Museum collections, which Alison Maddock’s report, already mentioned, had highlighted as being in a dire state. Clearly the need was for proper management by a professional curator, but it would be seven years before Susan Cross’s appointment, and, in the meantime, the Forum found itself unable to sit back and do nothing. A problem in regard to Salisbury Museum’s collection of stuffed birds, animals and fish resulted in many of them ending up in Wyndhams. This must have been a considerable inconvenience for the Community Council, and it was no doubt pleased when Newell gained approval THE WILTSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY FORUM 1974-2002 93 from the Salisbury authorities to loan the collections to suitable educational institutions such as Oxenwood Field Studies Centre and Lackham College of Agriculture. Meeting the needs of potential users had been one of the Forum’s aims with regard to collections, and this arrangement clearly fulfilled it. A fourth method, written into the constitution but not incorporated in the original Proposals, concerned the promotion of ‘conferences, courses, etc.’ One might have thought that the Forum had enough on its hands during its very active first three years, but it added considerably to this burden by organising a national Wetlands Symposium between 3-5 September 1976 at Lackham College. Following the success of European Conservation Year in 1970, the Council of Europe declared 1976 to be European Wetlands Year. Participating countries were encouraged to develop regional programmes, which, in the UK, were organised under the umbrella of the NCC. The Forum’s involvement was stimulated not simply by this initiative, but also by the need to survey the wildlife potential of inland waters given the recent establishment of the new Water Authorities. Additionally, concern was being expressed that there was a need for local natural history societies to co-ordinate their activities in regard to the Authorities. The symposium, which was organised by a sub- committee consisting of Price (Chairman), Gillam, Horton, Newbery, Donald Tucker, Ted Culling and Newell, published a Report after the event which makes clear that it regarded its task as not simply to focus attention on wetlands and their conservation, but also to initiate the local survey. The latter was regarded as an essential basis for assessing local nature conservation priorities, and as an important tool in the working up of management proposals for the county’s major wetlands. The complex programme involving visits to sites, as well as exhibitions, lectures, group exercises and discussions under the Chairmanship of Dr Michael Gane, national Director of the NCC, was regarded as being a great success. Fourteen years later, in 1992, the Forum, then under the Chairmanship of Leslie Bond, organised another, less ambitious, Wetlands Symposium under the title Water for Wildlife -The Chalkland Sponge. It was chaired by Alan Swindall, Vice Chairman of the Wessex Regional Advisory Committee of the National Rivers Authority, and included a visit to the Cotswold Water Park as well as a full series of lectures and discussions led by many well-known authorities. Bond, a Major in the army, represented the Ministry of Defence, which had been active in setting up a number of Conservation Groups on their large estates in the county, some of which were represented individually on the Forum. One of the subjects discussed at the second Wetlands Symposium was landfill as a potential for long-term pollution of streams and aquifers. This was the second time the Forum had encountered the problem of waste disposal, the first being as early as 1975 when the County Council issued a new policy statement on tipping and appointed an officer with special responsibility for seeking out new sites. Horton, speaking for the NCC, believed that he was receiving copies of all planning applications related to potential tipping sites, but not early enough to take action if problems arose. In the case of the ironstone exposure at Westbury, an SSSI, for example, this had led to its complete in-filling in spite of NCC and District Council opposition. Marion Browne, in particular, was angered by this situation and at a Forum meeting on 8 October agreed to chair a working party to make recommendations to try to ensure that important habitats were not threatened and that a long-term programme of limiting waste generation and re- using waste materials was drawn up. Lesley Balfe, Ron Barron and Patrick Dillon were also members. Representatives from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Salisbury Natural History Society, and the County Council Education Department were invited but did not attend. The working party held two meetings (28 October and 9 December 1975) and did extensive research. Its findings were that a great deal was being done nationally, but that this had had little impact in Wiltshire. Agricultural practices and their effect on the environment were a constant source of concern throughout most of the Forum’s existence. Its first direct involvement came following publication of the NCC’s report Nature Conservation and Agriculture which was the first official attempt to define nature conservation as a legitimate land use of equal importance to agriculture, forestry, etc. During the discussion of the report on 18 July 1977, which also took into account the new Nature Conservation Review, it was noted that an important basis for defining policy had been established in that nationally important sites which 94 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE should be conserved had been identified, but disappointment was expressed that the legislative basis for SSSIs had not been strengthened. That agricultural changes were not subject to planning or any other form of control was also noted as a matter of great concern. It was agreed that Newell should write to the county’s MPs making clear the Forum’s support for a national land use strategy and requesting their help in pushing for it to be implemented. In this respect Wiltshire was fortunate in that one MP, Charles Morrison, was not only a member of the All Party Conservation Committee in the House of Commons, but also Chairman of the Council of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. But, whilst all replied in support, it was the case then, as it is today, that conservation has little political clout. A more successful initiative concerned the setting up of the Wiltshire Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG), the inaugural meeting of which was held at Lackham on 29 November 1977. The Forum had been actively involved with the arrangements and was disappointed that, although it was agreed to set up a local branch, the response had not been very enthusiastic, and no decisions had been reached either about the secretariat or the financial arrangements. On 9 Dec 1977 Newell wrote to Price about ‘our various conversations about putting some dynamism into the FWAG committee, and expressed the hope that the WTNC might establish a new post to concentrate on farming and wildlife using some of their ‘enormous resources.’ Subsequently the WTNC did become involved as a direct result of which enthusiasm increased, so that by the time of a meeting at Lackham on 23 January 1981, 121 people attended. The Forum had _ two representatives on the FWAG Committee (initially Gillam and Balfe), and the Committee a single representative on the Forum. The 1974 Proposals laid stress on the need to work with schools to develop natural history projects in conjunction with local societies and the Wiltshire Association for Environmental Education, and on the additional need to establish basic training courses in various aspects of natural history, particularly to increase the number of trained field workers. Although not embodied in its entirety in the constitution, the courses element did survive and, in November 1974, a four page list of functions /activities organised by members of the Forum was printed for circulation. At the same time a note was also produced detailing aspects of natural history which were not included in these courses and listing possible tutors (twenty-seven) to teach ornithology, botany, zoology and general natural history. To lead the way the Forum organised a one- day course at Oxenwood Field Studies Centre on 13 July 1975 under the banner Want to be a Field Naturalist? It was attended by almost forty people who were, for the most part, not members of local natural history societies, and was followed by a second event on 6 June 1976. This was arranged in conjunction with the University of Bristol and was titled Scientific Fieldwork, a Layman’s Introduction to Ecology. But these initiatives do not appear to have been considered sufficiently successful to make them worth repeating and instead, the Forum concentrated its efforts on the production of detailed lists of courses related to natural history run by others, like that issued in April 1975. Subsequently, programmes of related activities were added, but these were dropped in April 1977, and by 1980 the production of courses lists appears to have been abandoned altogether. John Price resigned as Chairman of the Forum at the meeting on 16 May 1978 having served for four years, double the time originally proposed, and Peter Newell vacated the post of Secretary on 28 April 1981, following his promotion to the Directorship of the Community Council itself. In writing to Price to say how much he had enjoyed working with him, Newell praised his ‘gift for chairing meetings which makes the job of secretary so much easier and more pleasant.’ Diana Farrow, Newell’s replacement, took over in a temporary capacity, but by May 1982, following the appointment of Susan Cross as Curator, the Community Council, now Community First, had ceased to be represented at Forum meetings. Soon afterwards the title Countryside Liaison Officer and all mention of the Forum were dropped from its annual reports. From the Council’s point of view, it could by then look back to what had been achieved and congratulate itself on its success. With the departure of Price and Newell, the Forum lost two of its most dynamic and hard- working officers and this would soon be noticeable in the reduced workload which it took upon itself. One major project, however, remained to be carried out which, in the eyes of many, was its greatest achievement. At the meeting on 3 November 1981 Beatrice Gillam pointed out that uncoordinated botanical recording was being carried out by members of several natural history societies and by independent THE WILTSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY FORUM 1974-2002 » 195 Members of the Wiltshire Flora Mapping Project on the steps of Lackham College, March 1991. Reproduced from The Wiltshire Flora by permission of the Wiltshire Natural History Forum. individuals and that perhaps a botanical project should be started in the county to bring the recorders and their records together. This proposal was quickly supported by Stewart Lane, the Chairman, who referred to the many changes that had occurred in the countryside since the publication of Donald Grose’s The Flora of Wiltshire (1957), and to the fact that other counties had allowed twenty years for the production of a new flora. Nigel McCarter, conservation officer of the WTNC in succession to Newbery, added his support and suggested that the records should be computerised. He hoped that the County Council computer might have a ten-year programme for biological records included in the next review of its workload. Thus, the seeds were sown for what would shortly be called the Flora Mapping Project, the initiative which would eventually lead to the publication, by the Forum, of The Wiltshire Flora (1993). Following the November meeting McCarter produced a paper on 21 December 1981 (misleadingly titled Biological Recording) in which he set out many of the key points which would later be adopted. In particular he pointed to the potential reservoir of volunteer helpers in the county — 250 were listed in the Supplement to Grose’s volume — and to the work done in Shropshire based on ten kilometre squares for common plants, with smaller divisions for rarer ones. He also pointed to the system of bird recording in which one organiser was appointed for each square to manage the recorders. With regard to time scales, he recommended a pilot year in 1982, when road verges would be recorded, to test the viability of such a project with regard to the ability and interest of potential recorders, followed in 1983 by the 10km square project which should aim at completion by 1990: ‘Although this is tight, a visible end point is necessary to maintain the enthusiasm of volunteers’. And to provide further encouragement he recommended the holding of an annual meeting, together with evening classes and surgeries. All of these points were subsequently approved at the meeting on 19 January 1982 and arrangements for the pilot survey were begun. Ann Hutchison and Dave Green, the Botanical Society of the British Isles’ (BSBI) recorders for the south and north of the county, agreed to provide lists of the rare species; Culling, vice-principal of Lackham, offered the College for the annual meeting; and McCarter (now Chairman) offered to write to Forum members explaining the project and asking for help. In addition it was agreed that the WCC should be approached to provide record cards. It was also noted that a churchyard survey was to be carried out by the BSBI in 1982 which would provide useful records . A steering group was set up to run the project under the chairmanship of Culling. The story of how it was organised and developed is told in detail by Joy Newton in the Flora itself. How offers of 96 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE help poured in so quickly that by the time of the first meeting at Lackham on 22nd September 1983 sixty enthusiasts were present — a number which eventually rose to 281; how, by the end of 1991, all 948 tetrads in the county had been covered, except for those in two danger areas on Ministry of Defence land on Salisbury Plain; and how Sally Scott-White and her team in the BRC coped with the computerisation of the thousands of records. What is not revealed there was the ingenious method of funding the publication by asking all those taking part to make a loan towards the costs which was eventually repaid from the proceeds of sales. These arrangements were handled by John Rayner, who had taken on the job of Honorary Treasurer to the Forum from Chris Clark in 1987, and acted as Chairman of the Flora’s Publication Working Party. Subsequently the Forum would go on to publish Michael Fuller’s The Lepidoptera of Wiltshire (1995), which, like the The Wiltshire Flora, was edited by Beatrice Gillam (by now awarded the MBE for her services to natural history in the county), and to provide funds towards other publications such as Stephen Palmer’s The Microlepidoptera of Wiltshire (2001) and Recording Wiltshire’s Biodiversity, (1997-) already mentioned. Twenty-four people representing twelve organisations had attended the inaugural meeting of the Forum in May 1974. By April 1989 membership had increased to thirty-one organisations but only seventeen people (representing eleven organisations) attended. Later, attendance dropped further, until, by the time of the Extraordinary Annual General Meeting called to discuss the Forum’s closure on 8 August 2002, only eight people were present. Falling attendance and reduced receipts from affiliated members were a constant source of debate at many of the meetings after 1980, and, since the success of the Forum depended on the use made of it by the members, inevitably sparked debate about its future. The most important of these debates took place at a meeting on 27 April 1989 following receipt of a detailed paper prepared by Edward Elliott, a representative of the British Lichen Society, who was also much involved with WANHS. After noting the links between the Society and the Forum, and that both were falling short of achieving their objectives, Elliott made several practical proposals for new initiatives. These included staging an annual conference with accompanying events and exhibitions; publishing an annual Wiltshire Natural History Bulletin, and setting up various standing and special committees. Some of these actions, he recommended, should be carried out in conjunction with WANHS. Elliott’s ideas were sensible and achievable but depended on the willingness and enthusiasm of members to carry them out. As this was not available nothing came of them. The days of a salaried professional such as Newell, able to put in the time and effort to manage the affairs of the Forum, were long gone. But there were other reasons too. The Natural History Section of WANHS, many of whose members had been behind the setting up of the Forum, had rejoined the parent body in 1982. Natural history elsewhere was fragmenting in response to greater professionalism thus operating in opposition to attempts to bring about unity. Specialist organisations such as the Wiltshire Ornithological Society (founded 1974) and the Wiltshire Botanical Society (founded 1992) placed new, very compelling demands on the time of their members. The waves of official paperwork emanating from governmental agencies and County and District Councils increased throughout the period, as did management bureaucracy. The language was often technical and the concepts complex, making them difficult for the dedicated volunteers, who continued to constitute a large part of the Forum’s membership, to comprehend and act upon. Additionally, after establishing its methods, the Forum was increasingly led, not by its own agenda, but by those of the individuals and organisations whose programmes and initiatives landed increasingly heavily on its table. Rural Strategies, Local Plans, Enterprise Proposals, and every other sort of report, forced debates and occasionally precipitated action which often turned out to have been in response to faits accomplis. And the process was self-defeating, for the fewer the members who attended the Forum, the less reason there was for others to take notice of its activities. It was, perhaps, inevitable therefore that at the Extraordinary General Meeting on 8 August 2002, after numerous discussions both in and out of meetings, the few remaining members of the Forum should have decided that enough was enough, and voted unanimously in favour of its closure. Fortunately, the same meeting also approved unanimously the transfer of its remaining funds to a new body, to be called The Wiltshire Natural History Publications Trust. Thus, the Forum will not simply continue to benefit the county through THE WILTSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY FORUM 1974-2002 97 its past achievements but will, in the future, assist by making grants available for new publications. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My greatest debts of gratitude are undoubtedly to Beatrice Gillam and Peter Newell who scrupulously read through my manuscript and made numerous suggestions for improvements. To Carol Drew at Community First I am grateful for permission to look at their annual reports and to the staff at Salisbury Reference Library I am very grateful for their advice and help in locating literature. Appendix 1 List of Chairmen of the Wiltshire Natural History Forum (Dates are those of the first and last meetings attended). John Price 6 May 1974 — 16 May1978 Stewart Lane 19 Sep 1978 — 3 Nov 1981 Nigel McCarter 19 Jan 1982 - 20 Jul 1983 Ted Culling 8 Feb 1984 - 29 Oct 1987 Jane Brookhouse 8 Feb 1988 - 13 Oct 1988 Michael Fuller 16 Feb 1989 - 25 Oct 1990 Major Leslie Bond 20 Feb 1991 - 20 May 1992 Prof. Humphrey Kay 20 Aug 1992 - 30 Nov 1994 Richard Last 8 Feb 1995 — 1997 Nicholas Wynn 1997 — 6 May 2002 Dr Michael Darby 8 Aug 2002 Appendix 2 List of Members of the Wiltshire Natural History Forum 1974-2002 Army Bird Watching Society Botanical Society of the British Isles Box Archaeological and Natural History Society British Butterfly Conservation Society British Deer Society British Lichen Society British Trust for Conservation Volunteers British Trust for Ornithology British Waterways Butterfly Conservation. Wiltshire Branch Community Council for Wiltshire Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group Forestry Commission Great Western Community Forest Imber Conservation Group Lackham College of Agriculture Mammal Society Marlborough College Natural History Society Ministry of Defence Conservation Group Oxenwood Field Studies Centre Nature Conservancy Council Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Salisbury and District Natural History Society Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum Salisbury Plain Training Area Conservation Groups Somerset Trust for Nature Conservation Swindon and District Natural History Society Swindon Museum Tisbury Natural History Society Westbury Naturalists Society Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Wiltshire Association for Environmental Education Wiltshire Bat Group Wiltshire Constabulary Wiltshire County Council Education Department Wiltshire County Council Library and Museum Services Wiltshire County Council Planning and Highways Wiltshire Education Authority Wiltshire Museums Council Wiltshire Ornithological Society Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation Wiltshire Wildlife Conservation Volunteers Wiltshire Wildlife Trust Woodland Heritage Museum Woodland Trust Workers Educational Association Note This article is based on the records of the Forum in the Wiltshire & Swindon Record Office, Trowbridge. It has been written as a companion piece to Darby, M. “‘WANHS and Natural History’ in the Society’s forthcoming 150th anniversary volume. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 98-110 ‘False and Unjust Slanders’: The Duchess of Beaufort and her Daughter Quarrel over the Seymour Estate Molly McClain In 1690 a series of emotionally charged letters passed between Mary, first duchess of Beaufort, and her daughter Elizabeth, countess of Ailesbury, over a proposed Act of Parliament which would permit the latter’s husband to make reversionary leases on the former Seymour estates in Wiltshire and Somerset. The letters highlight the difficulties which inheritances and settlements could cause in aristocratic families, particularly when great sums of money were involved. They also illustrate the difference between a younger generation, seeking to free themselves from the constraints of the newly developed strict settlement, and an older generation that sought, above all, to preserve land from being sold. Mothers and daughters frequently quarrel, particularly when an inheritance (or a son-in-law) is concerned. The letters which passed between the first Duchess of Beaufort, and her daughter Elizabeth, countess of Ailesbury, in 1690 provide evidence of a spectacular row. Elizabeth accused her mother and stepfather of having stolen money from her and her brother, the late Duke of Somerset. She believed that they were still trying to control her estate. The duchess, meanwhile, thought her daughter ‘the most ungrateful creature in the world both to my lord and me.’ She claimed that they had brought her from nothing to a fortune, ‘modestly speaking, of above a hundred thousand pound’ and yet they had nothing from her but ‘perpetual trouble and some charge.’ To her daughter she wrote, ‘Hell itself is hardly capable of more malice or unnaturalness than you in this have showed to me’ (W [iltshire and] S [windon] R[ecord] O[ffice] 1300/717, 728). These letters, available in the Wiltshire & Swindon Record Office, were part of a private family quarrel which was brought into the public arena when Thomas Bruce, second earl of Ailesbury (1656-1741), presented a bill before the Houses of Parliament which would allow him to make reversionary leases on his property in order to pay off his debts. His bill was opposed by his mother- in-law, Mary Somerset, duchess of Beaufort (1630- 1715), on the grounds that his actions would prejudice the future financial well-being of her daughter and her grandchildren. Her daughter, however, believed that her mother and stepfather simply wanted to retain power over the estate. At stake in this dispute was money, pride and autonomy, a dangerous combination. This family quarrel provides a window into the social history of the aristocracy. It shows the extent to which personal relationships were affected by property and inheritance. It also illustrates the difference between a younger generation, seeking to free themselves from the constraints of the newly developed strict settlement, and an older generation that sought, above all, to preserve land from being sold. The Earl and Countess of Ailesbury came of age after the Restoration when the return of a stable political order encouraged financial speculation and a burgeoning commercial marketplace. The Duke and Duchess of Beaufort, meanwhile, came to maturity during the tumultuous period of the History Department, University of San Diego, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110-2492, USA ‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 99 English civil wars. They witnessed the confiscation of too many noble estates to trust in the security of the law. As the duchess wrote: T have lived to see a great many revolutions in the public and God only knows what more may be, and should a time come that Acts of Parliament should be reversed ... [mean those that concern my daughter Ailesbury . . . what condition will my daughter be in when this jointure, which is not a great one, shall be sold or at least worth little by this new way of stating leases?’ (B[adminton] M[uniments] FmF 1/5/9) As aresult, they adopted a cautious attitude towards the future, securing their lands and properties against the possibility of change. The dispute over the management of the Seymour properties dated back to the 1650s when Mary, then Lady Beauchamp, was a young royalist widow with little money and no home of her own. Her husband, Henry Lord Beauchamp, had died in 1654 after having been imprisoned in the Tower of London. She and her two children, William and Elizabeth, lived part of the year in Hertfordshire with her mother, Lady Capel, and part of the year in London with her mother-in-law, Frances, marchioness of Hertford. Despite the fact that she had an annuity of £1,600, she had been forced to take on some of her late husband’s debts. As a result, she ‘had not a bed to lie upon or a pair of sheets for myself and children or a house and can safely say not twenty shillings in my pocket’ (WSRO 1300/ 717). Desperately unhappy, she sought to escape widowhood through marriage to Henry Lord Herbert (after 1682 duke of Beaufort), the heir of Edward, marquis of Worcester, a Catholic royalist with a substantial estate in South Wales. Lord Herbert owned a decaying Elizabethan manor house, Badminton, located on the edge of the Cotswolds in Gloucestershire. He provided her a home while she, in return, offered him an interest in managing the vast estate which her son would inherit on the death of his grandfather, William Seymour, first earl of Hertford and, after 1660, second duke of Somerset. Mary’s marriage marked the beginning of a decade-long legal battle with her mother-in-law who was convinced that the fortune-hunting Lord Herbert aimed to deprive her grandson of his estate. On the death of her husband in October 1660, she demanded that the young boy came to live with her, even though she realized that she could not act as his legal guardian after Charles II had confirmed the Act abolishing the Court of Wards. Her realization of this fact put her ‘in a rage,’ according to an observer. Although Mary allowed her son to visit his grandmother she refused to turn over the administration of the estate. The Dowager Duchess of Somerset responded with a lawsuit to keep ‘the Lord Herbert and his Lady restrained from intermeddling in the premises.’ She also tried to ensure that any income over and above the annuities would be used to pay her late husband’s debts, which exceeded £20,000, even though much of his property had already been vested in a trust for this purpose (WSRO 1300/710; BM FmF 4/1/1). The dispute was arbitrated by Sir Orlando Bridgeman, Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer (1660) and Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas (1660-1667). His goal was to keep the estate from being broken into pieces and sold to pay off debts. To this end, he endeavored to get an Act of Parliament which would ‘join the whole estate of the old duke together and enable trustees to pay the debts out of the entailed estate as well as the trust.’ According to one contemporary, it ‘was the only way could be thought of to preserve the family. My Lord Bridgeman drew the Act himself.’ In the end, the Dowager Duchess of Somerset relinquished her control over her grandson’s properties. She agreed to release an estate at Symondsbury in Dorset ‘which is a very considerable one’ in return for jointure interest in the manors of Easton and Amesbury in Wiltshire. Mary wrote that it was the least she could do, given that her son had to part with ‘his houses and so good an estate’ (WSRO 1300/710) Mary, meanwhile, managed the estate and dealt with lawyers, bailiffs, estate agents, tenants and creditors on William’s behalf. Her husband later wrote that she had, ‘the entire management of her son, the Duke of Somerset, when alive, and his estate.’ When she collected rents or fines, she simply noted the amount in the same account book where she jotted down receipts from her husband’s properties. She estimated that in the ten years between 1660 and 1670, she had collected £44,792 from his estates and disbursed £32,921 to pay off debts, annuities and expenses, including her own jointure payment of £1,600 p. a. She noted what she spent for the boy’s servants, livery, horses and hounds, trips to Newmarket, pistols and clothes. She also bought items on her daughter’s account, including coloured gloves, silk stockings, white shoes, petticoats, ‘a new fashion hood and scarf, eleven yards of gold and silver bone lace, lute strings, ‘things for the pointwork, yards of French satin, 100 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE dinner napkins, chocolate and wax books. It is hard to imagine a fifteen year-old girl needing such things but perhaps her mother enjoyed them as well. In 1668 the latter had ordered servants to uproot elm trees from her son’s Wiltshire manors and cart them to Badminton, where they were to line the newly constructed avenues built around the estate (WSRO 1300/703). William and Elizabeth spent the 1660s at Badminton with the growing Somerset family which included Charles, Henrietta, Mary and Anne. It must have been difficult for them to live in their stepfather’s house and to submit to his authority. William, for one, ‘often declared to his sister that he would remove to Tottenham the day after he should come of age and she to live with him for he could not stay longer where he then was for several reasons that were then evident.’ He made a point of travelling to London as often as he could. At eighteen, he was singled out at a meeting of the Royal Society as a ‘very pretty young man’ and his grandmother, the Dowager Duchess of Somerset, had a difficult time keeping him from flirting with fashionable society. In July 1670, he complained to his mother that she ‘sent to see me as soon as I came (to town), and invited me to dine with her today where my Lord Clifford dined also (who I find is very much in her favour). She kept me prisoner all this day for she would not give me leave to make any visits till I had seen the king’ (WSRO 1300/775; BM FmF 1/8/24). William contracted smallpox in late 1671 when he was twenty-one years old. He was quickly moved to the nearby manor of Amesbury in Wiltshire so that he did not infect the younger children. By December, however, it was apparent that he would die. He disposed of his personal property to his mother but his estate descended to his uncle Sir John Seymour (later the fourth duke of Somerset), on whom it was entailed. Ailesbury later claimed that there were good reasons why he gave his personal estate to his mother for, if it had been otherwise, ‘an account, as I take it, must have been made’ (WSRO 1300/775). As executrix for her late son’s estate, Mary drew up a list of his lands and his debts. In Wiltshire, he had estates in Amesbury, Great Bedwyn, Burbage, Chisenbury, Collingbourne Ducis, Collingbourne Kingston, Enford, Savernake Forest, Shalbourne Eastcourt, Shalbourne Westcourt, Shorncote and Stapleford. His demesne properties included Wolfhall Park, Collingbourne Wood, Bentley Woods, Savernake Coppice and Shalbourne Wood. In Somerset, he had estates in Castle Cary, Camely, Chillington, Godney, Hatch Beauchamp, IIminster, Meare, Norton Beauchamp, Pilton and Shepton Beauchamp. His rental income was an estimated £2,613 p. a. but charges on the estate stood at £4,255 p. a. She supposed that the balance: if extraordinary care and diligence be used, may be supplied by fines, heriots etc. . . . for my late lord duke made out of his revenue one year with another between £6 and 7,000 and there is not above £1,500 a year deducted out of the whole for the duchess’s jointure, . . . so as it is hoped the remaining estate herein mentioned may yield (if leases be renewed) between £4 and £5,000 p. annum. Elizabeth, meanwhile, received nothing but a small annual income. At the time of her brother’s death, she was an ungainly seventeen year-old who had been afflicted with rickets as a child and forced to wear ‘rollers on her knees.’ Her closest remaining sibling was her eleven year-old half-brother Charles Lord Herbert, a ‘weak and sickly’ child, who was later described as a ‘little hump back’d lord.’ In the spring of 1672, she was sent to live with her grandmother in the expectation that the latter would leave her ‘a very considerable fortune’. When her grandmother died two years later, the bulk of her property was conveyed to her grandson by marriage, Thomas Thynne, for £12,000. Elizabeth received a small legacy and some valuable jewels including ‘the best diamond ring that I used to wear.’ These were soon pawned. She also received a box of rarities given to the Dowager Duchess by Mrs. John Selden, a little carpet, portraits of her brother and her grandfather, several miniatures, silver plate, books and the ‘great rich bed and fittings formerly Queen Jane Seymour’s, a gift from Charles I (BM FmF 4/ 1/4, FmF 1/2/27; WSRO 1300/814, 202). Her fortunes changed, however, when her uncle John, fourth duke of Somerset, suffered a fit of apoplexy in early 1675. Should he die, his title would descend to Francis, son of Charles Seymour, second baron Trowbridge. His properties, however, would go to Elizabeth as his heir at law because of an apparent ‘mistake’ in his will. Fortunately, Henry was acquainted with the duke’s lawyer and executor, George Johnson, who had been a judge under him at the Court of the Council in the Marches of Wales. Mary later described him as a person in whom her husband had an ‘interest.’ She wrote to him, asking for his help on Elizabeth’s behalf. The duke’s sisters Frances, countess of Southampton, and Lady Jane Clifford, were trying to get their brother to alter his ‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 101 will in their favour while others were attempting to ‘persuade him to give his estate to my Lord Seymour.’ She told him that she knew the duke well enough to ‘fear persuasions will not do much with him, but I am told of some people about him that will, for their own profit, perhaps help her’ to his very considerable estate. She suggested, cautiously, that her daughter ‘may well allow them a share, if she may have a part with them,’ adding ‘this is not a way that either she or I like, if it were possible to obtain her right without it.’ She asked Johnson to find out whether there had been any alteration to her prejudice and ‘whether you think I may do her any good by tying with these people.’ Johnson replied that he had heard nothing from the duke about altering his will. ‘I am, Madam, clearly of opinion if your daughter hath any part of his estate must be by my Lord’s ignorance in the law (as I formerly told you). I do also verily believe if this will stand that my Lady your daughter will have a very great, if not the greatest, part of his estate’ (HMC 15th Report 7, p. 176; WSRO 1300/ 253, 778). A final fit of apoplexy rendered the duke non compos mentis and he died in April 1675. Johnson wrote to Henry to assure him of his stepdaughter’ strange inheritance. ‘I verily believe that my Lady will have the greatest part of his estate in point of value for that mere mistake that I did acquaint your Lordship of, when I saw you last, he not intending her one penny.’ In the end, she gained nearly all the properties that had formerly belonged to her brother with the exception of Amesbury, which was deeded to the duke’s lover, Eleanor Oldfield of New Sarum, Wiltshire. In a letter to her daughter written later, Mary explained that her husband had been instrumental in securing her fortune: The estate being entailed on your uncle John and at his death in his power to give to whom he pleased and he had been by some people (set on by your aunts) incensed against you and endeavoured to them, in so much that he intended all the estate that he did not give to Mrs. Oldfield, for them. It happened that my Lord had an interest in one Mr. Johnson, who was a judge under him at Ludlow and in Wales, this gentleman my Lord heard was chosen by my Lord John Duke of Somerset to make his will to him, therefore he applied himself in your behalf and by his means procured you the whole estate. Later, Henry and Mary prevailed with Elizabeth to give Johnson ‘some lives in-a small thing in return of his kindness by which you obtained the whole estate.’ It is unclear exactly what he received but Lord Bruce later wrote of a ‘present that was made him at Hippenscomb (co. Wiltshire) for his service relating to the will? (WSRO 1300/254, 717, 775). Henry also had the presence of mind to acquire Amesbury from Mrs. Oldfield. The estate, located eight miles north of Salisbury on the River Avon, was one of the few Seymour properties to include a manor house. In May 1675, Johnson told Henry that he had encountered Lord Colerain who: talked of seeing Mrs. Oldfield. I did, as well as I could, by the by, insinuate that he might advise her not to be hasty to part with Amesbury (if it should prove hers) unless it were to my Lady Elizabeth, and to be careful to do nothing that might displease your Lordship. After a brief negotiation, Henry convinced to her sell the property, which was liable to Mary’s annuity of £1,600, in return for his promise that the annuity ‘should not molest her in the enjoyment of Wolfhall,’ another estate formerly enjoyed by the late duke. Henry made a good bargain, paying £3,583 for an estate that was worth at least £12,000. He later conveyed it to Elizabeth. The abbey mansion, built after 1660 on the site of a medieval nunnery, contained a garden with many fruit trees and a bowling green. It also included ‘a gentleman who was butler to his Grace, a very able man and sufficient to be butler and housekeeper for any noble person in England. He is a very solid man...and it is almost as great a wonder as Stonehenge to see him without the gates and also to see him drink any strong liquors, he is so temperate’ (WSRO 1300/268; BM FmF 1/8/34; HMC, 15th Report 7, pl): Congratulations (and offers of marriage) began pouring in. Mary’s brother, Arthur, earl of Essex, wrote that he had heard of ‘the great fortune lately fallen to your daughter,’ Elizabeth. ‘It is, I confess, a most remarkable Providence that after so much endeavours used to ruin this young lady and make her fortune not only unsuitable to her birth but even to bring her to the brink of want she should have so large an establishment descend to her’ (BM FmF 1/7/27). Henry hoped to persuade Elizabeth to marry Francis, fifth duke of Somerset (d. 1678). In so doing, he wished to help to restore her estate “by matching to him, that has the title, and whom the law makes the head of it.’ However, he explained to Essex, ‘you cannot imagine the averseness she has to it, and you know she is of an age, not only of 102 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE conceit and dissent, but to be sui juris, so that there is nothing to be done, but with her approbation.’ Her mother proposed several others including her own son, Charles (now marquis of Worcester) and Thomas Bruce, son of Robert, first earl of Ailesbury, ‘the latter of which she seems most inclined to.’ Thomas was only nineteen (two years younger than Elizabeth) so there was no rush to make a match. In fact, he was not permitted to ask for her hand until lawyers had negotiated the marriage settlement. In the meantime Henry began to have doubts. He wrote to his wife in April 1676: I long to hear what your daughter says to my Lord Ailesbury’s declaration concerning Amesbury and London, I do really doubt that match as the fortunes stand cannot be a convenient one, and whither it be not best handsomely to break off, with her consent . . and soon after bring in one of the other two, especially that of the D[uke of Somerset] (which I am most inclined to and so I believe is the world generally) I leave to you (that knew all circumstances and her best) to judge (BL Stowe MS 208, f. 461; BM FmF 1/2/35). News of the forthcoming marriage concerned those who held annuities charged on the Seymour estates. Frances, countess of Southampton, heard it rumoured that Henry planned to advance £26,000 as her portion, in return for ‘all the fair estate which she is either to expect or is now possessed of’, and wrote to demand the facts. She was assured that the rumour was unfounded but the question of the annuities remained a sticky one. Sir Leoline Jenkins thought that since Elizabeth’s property came to her not by her own acquisition but by ‘descent as well as by device,’ perhaps she should give some regard to her aunts in making up her marriage settlement. The Earl of Essex, meanwhile, told his sister that the annuities were now in arrears £9,750 and that they were valued at six years’ purchase for £27,000. In the end, he wrote, they ‘will devour the whole so as ‘tis conceived much for your daughter’s profit to buy them in’ (Bodleian Library, Carte 130, f. 284; WSRO 1300/774, 777). In August 1676, a marriage settlement was drawn up. In it, Elizabeth granted to the trustees, the Earl of Essex and Sir Henry Capel, the manors and advowsons of Amesbury and several other properties in Hampshire, Middlesex, Wiltshire, Pembrokeshire and Brecknockshire, the portion of £06,000 given to her by her grandfather, and £3,000 expended by Elizabeth in order to pay several debts and legacies of the late Duke of Somerset for which she was to be reimbursed out of the manors which he devised to his executors for ten years in trust for Elizabeth until her marriage. She was to have £300 p. a. for her sole use while her mother was to continue to receive her annuity of £1,600. In addition, trustees were permitted to dispose of the property subject to the annuities of Frances, countess of Southampton, Lady Jane Clifford and Sir Heneage Finch according to the will of the late Duke of Somerset. In the event that Lord Bruce died before his wife, Elizabeth was assured of £1,500 p. a. for life out of the Ailesbury property. The earl, meanwhile, was assured of the £6,000 marriage portion as well as the £3,000 disbursed to pay debts. If the marriage took place and Lord Bruce conveyed the promised manors and lands, then the trustees would settle the manors and capital of Amesbury and several other properties to the use of Elizabeth for life without impeachment of waste, then to trustees for the use of Lord Bruce for life so long as he had issue by her, then to their first, second, third and other sons, and heirs in order of seniority, then to her daughters and heirs. If they had no surviving children, the manor of Amesbury and the property there, with moiety of all other property in Wiltshire, Somerset and Berkshire would go to trustees for the use of Charles Somerset, Lord Herbert, son and heir of the Marquis of Worcester and his heirs. The other moiety would go to Elizabeth’s heirs of the body (i.e. issue of a second marriage). If she had no children, then the trustees were to dispose of the property as directed by Elizabeth and her mother, Mary, marchioness of Worcester, failing that, by joint direction by the marchioness alone. In spite of the marriage, Ailesbury and Lord Bruce had no power to act in connection with property except under agreement (WSRO 1300/675). One unusual provision in this contract was that Elizabeth’s half-brother, Charles, was to receive the manor of Amesbury and half of her property in the event that she died without heirs. The lawyers had advised that an individual had to be named to the entail. Elizabeth refused to choose the fifth Duke of Somerset or one of her aunts. Instead, she agreed to her mother’s suggestion that she name Charles. Elizabeth later claimed that her stepfather had engineered this in an effort to get hold of her estate. ‘I do not accuse my brother Worcester of having any hand in this settlhement for I remember very well that he was in France when it was made,’ she wrote, ‘for, if he had been at Badminton, then I ‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 103 believe it never had been done... for he is a man of honour and conscience and, I am sure, desires nobody’s estate but his own.’ Mary, however, believed these charges to be ridiculous for the settlement could be of no advantage to her husband. She reminded Elizabeth ‘how readily you consented and how well pleased you were with that, whether for his near relation or a gratitude to a family .. . or out of a particular affection to him (for I must observe to you that I never saw so much dearness between two relations of whole blood, as there was then between you two ...)’ (SRO 1300/716, 717). Elizabeth and Thomas Lord Bruce were happily married a year later and living at Houghton House, Ampthill in Bedfordshire. She was twenty-three years of age to his twenty-one. Colonel Edward Cooke reported: Iam sure she is marvellous fond of her husband (who justly pays her in the same coin) to that degree that I had some difficulty to convince her ladyship into a consent for his going to London. . . by her goodwill, he should never be out of her sight, and by his, he never would be . . . I confess I do not well see how her Ladyship should become unhappy unless she makes herself so, or will suffer to be made so. However, he did take the liberty of pointing out a potential problem to her mother. He had noticed how Elizabeth’s ‘great bellied’ maid, Mrs Mary Kemish, had ‘insinuated herself into her Lady’s favour.’ She insisted that ‘nothing is fine enough for her to wear, which keeps her Lady penniless, nor good enough for her to devour, which keeps a very chargeable kitchen above stairs.’ He thought that ‘she will never leave undermining till she hath utterly engrossed her Lady to herself through to the loss of all her friends . .. husband and all.’ She even ‘uses to awe her Lady with threats of leaving her when the design to get anything.’ This was the first hint of the financial troubles that would plague the couple throughout their married life (WSRO 1300/697). Shortly after their marriage, the Earl of Ailesbury and his son approached Henry about the possibility of their buying in Mary’s annuity of £1,600. Although the father behaved with his usual courtesy, the son acted very badly indeed. Henry later wrote to Mary: it is impossible for you to imagine how disrespectfully and insolently he talked, in so much that his father . . . was out of countenance with him and came to make an apology for it after he was gone out of town, blaming him extremely and seeming to wonder much at it. Still Ailesbury asked again how much she would take for her jointure. ‘I think your answer had best be this,’ he wrote, ‘that you are extremely unwilling to part with what you have... but that if you do part with it, it must be for land.’ When the earl returned a proposal listing the lands that he would give her the fee of for her jointure, she responded with a resounding ‘no.’ In a letter to the Lord, she wondered at his proposal ‘that I should accept of a manor of £86 a year old rent (Ilminster) in lieu of £1,000 a year the best secured of any annuity in England. I know very well the portion I brought to that family deserved as much as this. . . therefore I do wonder that anybody should expect (or clamour) if I do not give away my own .. . My Lord I have lived too long in the world to be frighted from an honest and prudent resolution by being threatened with talk’ (WSRO 1300/780; BM FmF 1/2/66.). Mary did not shy away from expressing her opinion even to the bad-tempered Lord Bruce. She wrote to him several times when Elizabeth became pregnant with her second child for she was very concerned about her daughter’s health, particularly as her first child had been stillborn. In August 1679 she wrote to her son-in-law, ‘if my daughter’s child be turned as her last was, I very much fear the midwife’s skill.’ She feared that it would be difficult to save both her and the child unless the procedure was done ‘just at the time of the breaking of the water, therefore certainly she would be most safe in a man midwife’s hand till she hath had one child well’ for both skill and quickness were needed ‘lest fainting fits seize her.’ In the end, both mother and child survived and the latter was named Robert (d. 1684) after his grandfather. Two years later, Elizabeth again gave birth successfully to another son named Charles. A daughter, Elizabeth, followed in 1689 (WSRO 1300/747). By 1680, Lord Bruce needed to settle his affairs in order to raise much-needed cash. He wanted to pay off the annuities on his wife’s estate, which cost him nearly £4,800 p. a., and he also had personal debts. He had taken two costly trips to France and Flanders in an attempt to find a remedy for a painful kidney stone. He had returned to England in time for the first general election of 1679, expecting his father’s influence as lord lieutenant of Bedfordshire to secure him a position in Parliament. To his surprise, he was heavily defeated by Hon. William Russell. Following this humiliation, he made use 104 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE of the Seymour interest in Wiltshire to secure his election as member for Marlborough at the next two Parliaments (1679 and 1681). These, and subsequent elections, would cost him a considerable amount of money. He later claimed that he had spent £4,000 on behalf of himself and his candidates. He also wrote that his wife’s midwives and doctors had been ‘very chargeable’ while his household expenses may well have run to more than £400 p. a. Of course, he also gambled at dice, cards, billiards, bowls, whisk [whist] and shovel-board [a form of shove ha’penny]. His mother-in-law later accused him of losing vast sums in play; he claimed that gambling was the least of his problems (WSRO 1300/801, 717, 894). Thomas had planned to lease some of his wife’s properties when he discovered that his marriage did not give him power to make leases in reversion. Since revenues of the manors consisted chiefly of old rents (fines for 21 years or 1, 2 or 3 lives having already been paid), he could not raise enough money to buy in annuities or pay debts and legacies. What he needed to be able to do was to make new leases on all of his properties so that he could pay a debt estimated at £22,000 to £23,000: I beg of your Ladyship to peruse this account. I am sure I am as exact as possible can be, as for the leaseholds, I will say no more but this that I am sure you thought you had given me power but since my solicitor at marriage was so negligent I am sure your Ladyship is too generous to take advantage and I am sure I am the only tenant in possession and for life that have not the power of granting leases (WSRO 1300/797). He also continued to press Mary to accept some form of payment for her jointure. He made a number of visits to their London residence to discuss what she would accept. In 1683 she wrote to her husband, ‘I do not know what to do in Lord Bruce’s business. I beseech you help me in it.’ She knew that Henry would prefer her annuity of £1,000 to any amount of cash and so wondered whether she might: ‘honourably break off with him {Lord Bruce] ...I should much rather break with him than let him have all these great advantages to enrich his servants. I know his condition will be very sad but he may thank himself.’ Her only fear was that her daughter and son-in-law would make ‘a horrible clamour’ (BM FmE 4/1/18). In the end, however, she agreed to sell her annuity for £15,000. A release dated 11 July 1684 stated that the manors of Castle Cary, Almesforth, Ilminster and Norton Beauchamp had been sold to buy in the annuities of Mary (now Duchess of Beaufort) and Sir Heneage Finch, and to discharge the arrears of annuities due to the Dowager Countess of Southampton and Lady Jane Clifford. However, she did not give Lord Bruce full power to make leases. According to the document, properties which were not already leased could now be let on the best terms possible without fines, but for limited terms only. All such leases were to be made by the consent of Mary, her husband, the Duke of Beaufort, or the Earl of Clarendon until £15,000 was decreed to be raised, then until £10,000 be raised, after which leases may be granted without consent. The rest of the property went into a trust to pay £500 to Elizabeth for her sole use and, if that was insufficient, Lord Bruce promised to make up the difference (WSRO 1300/ 676). Thomas and Elizabeth continued to have financial problems that prevented them from paying off the annuities immediately. In October 1684, the latter wrote to her mother from London, asking her to send ‘money due to them, as they are pressed. My lord must pay interest on his own debts, expenses of two to three years standing, as well as near £500 to clerks, solicitors and Mr. Cratford for business’ (WSRO 1300/722). Seeking to raise money, Thomas began to cut timber and plough up pastures on his wife’s estate. A clause in the 1684 deed caused a limitation of the estate to Elizabeth for her life without impeachment of waste. His memorandum book listed the profits which could be made from estates in Wiltshire, Berkshire and Somerset. In Wiltshire, he wrote, ‘if all the trees were cut would yield £8,000, but then deer would not continue.’ The 500 acre estate at Collingbourne might yield £5,000; Bentley Woods, £3,000, while Tottenham Park might provide another £2,000. If he exercised his right to carry away timber from various Wiltshire estates, including Amesbury, Easton, Sutton [Sudden] Park, Wolfhall, Chisbury, Shalbourne, and Great Bedwyn, he might gain £3,000. Ifhe ploughed their sheep commons, meadows and pastures he might gain another £2,000 (no thought seems to have been given to the tenants of these properties). In Somerset the profit to be made by wasting estate was valued at only £5,000, considerably less than in Wiltshire (WSRO 1300/856). Mary was appalled. She later reproached her daughter for having allowed her husband to plough up Tottenham Park, ‘the only park you have,’ and to cut £2,500 worth of wood. | ‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 105 ‘Your other seat, Easton,’ was leased out ‘and the tenant for some ready money allowed to plough up the richest piece of down in Wiltshire, and indeed, ruined the farm. This is what your lord himself tells me, much more of this kind may be, which I know not’? (WSRO 1300/717). Thomas continued to look for ways to pay off Mary’s jointure. He wrote asking whether Henry would accept the manors of Malden and Burbage in Bedfordshire in lieu of £10,000. ‘If only your Grace will but allow Maldon at £4,000 and Burbage at six there will be the £10,000 complete. And for the moiety of £1,750 [being] short of the £10,000 at the strictest, I will give my Lord Worcester security for that out of any of the manors in Wiltshire he pleases to choose.’ He wrote that, ‘by this means, your Grace will oblige us very much and make me capable of looking into my concerns and paying my debts as fast as the estate will bear. He had taken charge of his own affairs after his steward left him and, he wrote, ‘I think I have put my business into a great order.’ As for his gambling, ‘the diversion your Grace thinks me so beslaved to, I have entirely left off, retaining myself wholly to my concerns whether in town or country’ (WSRO 1300/799). Failing this, he sought to gain an Act of Parliament which would permit him to sell land and to grant leases in reversion, despite the fact that he had not yet paid off the annuities. His bill (which was dropped at the outbreak of Monmouth’s Rebellion) contained language which was sure to infuriate his mother-in-law. He claimed that his wife had been forced into signing the 1684 agreement: by reason of the great and uncontrollable power the Duchess of Beaufort had over the estate, occasioned by settlements many years since at her former marriage, and by some obtained settlements at Lady Bruce’s marriage, which were most unwillingly consented to, it being thought very hard to be imposed on to settle half her estate on her brother, the Earl of Worcester, who was but of the half blood, in case she had no children’ (OE/10.). Mary’s brother, the Earl of Essex, encouraged her to forgive the insult and to come to terms with Lord Bruce. ‘I have spoken with my Lord Chief Justice Pemberton, who tells me that for all those manors on which your jointure is charged the trust cannot be delivered up without a decree in Chancery; and therefore my Lord Bruce must endeavour to have your consent.’ He thought that there might be a way to allow the latter to let leases in reversion: so as to discharge the incumbrances therein and be applied to no other uses. And therefore if the payment of £1,600 a year be safe to you, what ever unkindness may have passed or indiscretion on their side, I concur it would appear well if you did agree. This is only my own thought and so I shall write no further (OE/8). Mary, however, was not going to give in without a fight. ‘In my answer I shall be forced to say that which will not be much for his honour.’ But she concluded that ‘the more public my proceeding is made, I am sure the more it will be for mine and my Lord’s (benefit) though it may cost me some money’ (WSRO 1300/702). Her public disclosure of her son-in-law’s debts, gambling and general bad conduct led to his disgrace at court. Thomas later wrote, ‘I was the sacrifice, and at the mercy of an implacable hatred the Duchess of Beaufort (God forgive her) had against me. She blew up her brother-in-law, the Earl of Clarendon (Lord Privy Seal), and his brother (Laurence, earl of Rochester) the Treasurer.’ By their means, he was excluded at the forming of the king’s bedchamber. When he protested to Rochester, ‘to whom the king had referred me, he poorly let fall a weak (but revengeful) word for a minister. ‘My lord, you have a difference with the Duchess of Beaufort. I sharply replied, ‘My lord, what is it to the king’s business, although the duchess were your mother?’ On which I clapped on my hat, and turned my back.’ Later, he begged an audience with James II to ask ‘for what reason I was disgraced, after the eminent services .. . I had rendered him in the House.’ The king answered, * “Why,” he said, “you would have brought in a bill (which I let drop on the Duke of Monmouth’s landing) to the prejudice of your children.”’ When Ailesbury read him the contents of the bill (which did not mention any land sold, wood cut or waste committed), the king said with some emotion, ‘Lord, how people can represent to me such falsities!” (Memoirs of Thomas Bruce, Earl of Ailesbury (Roxburghe Club 1890), 1, pp. 99, 111- WD): Ailesbury was to find it far easier to get an Act of Parliament after 1688. Following the accession of William and Mary, the Houses began to pass a large number of bills dealing with trusts. It is not clear why so many landowners felt the need to refinance their estates at this particular time. Perhaps they feared the consequences of another revolutionary change in government? More likely they wanted to take advantage of an exceptionally 106 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE active land market to sell property and to consolidate their estates. Acts of Parliament allowed them to break trusts (many of which had been created in the 1660s) and to create new settlements. Landowners could then sell land and raise money to pay off debts or to invest in the stock market or overseas ventures. Sir Henry Capel later wrote that ‘the current of the times, and the many bills in the Houses let daily pass for payment of debts, makes it much more difficult to be heard in defence of minors, or remainders, than when first I had the honour to sit in Parliament’? (WSRO 1300/790). In 1690 Ailesbury took advantage of these post- revolutionary changes to bring another bill before the House of Commons on 8 October 1690. In it he sought the right to make leases in reversion. He claimed that the provisions of their marriage contract had been fulfilled and that the £15,000 and £10,000 to pay off the annuities had been raised. In fact, he had gone into debt to raise the above sums. Without full power over the estate, he and his wife could only ‘deal with their tenants upon such terms as they can, (though never so disadvantageous;) because they cannot deal with others by granting the estates that fall in reversion . and by reason thereof cannot make the just profits of their estates.’ The bill ensured that Elizabeth’s estate was vested in trustees for the repayment of debts until her son reached the age of twenty-one or, failing that, until his daughter reached the age of twenty-one. She would receive £500 p. a. for her own use while Ailesbury would receive £4,000 p. a. In the event of his death she was to have £1,000 p. a. Their son, meanwhile, would get £500 p. a. until he was fifteen years old and £1,000 until he was twenty-one. The trust would also provide for the disposal of the yearly sum of £3,000 for the repayment of Ailesbury’s debts and interest with the residue of the profits going to the younger children. In the meantime, the former was disbarred from voluntary waste (WSRO 1300/772). Mary’s lawyers fired off an immediate answer, claiming that the bill was simply an attempt on Ailesbury’s part to persuade creditors to part with further sums of money. He had ‘already engaged the whole estate for his wife’s life and his (leased their properties), and spent the money, and would only have the Act for confirmation of that and establishing a better credit.’ Great sums of money had already been raised ‘by the leases, which he had no power upon but by her Grace’s kindness’ (WSRO 1300/822). Mary was deeply disturbed by the contents of the bill. Her daughter, who was to have had £1,500 p. a., now had to be content with one-third of that amount. ‘But what will not a wife do that loves her husband and is threatened by him to go away and leave her?’ “The question,’ she wrote, ‘is whether her mother, if she can prevent her doing herself this mischief should not’? (WSRO 1300/741). She was also concerned about the consequences that his political activities might have on the estate. Ailesbury had supported James II during the revolution of 1688 and his loyalty to the new monarchs, William and Mary, was half-hearted to say the least. She wrote to her son Charles that, ‘the only way now for her to help herself and children’ is to prevail with her husband to burn ‘the deeds that may lead the uses of that fine .. . This must not be spoken of because if he should now do otherwise than well [i.e. if he should be disloyal], her estate will be forfeited to the government. This she should also know, which perhaps her fanciful humour may prevail more with her than any other consideration . .. Pray tell her she knows not what she did’ (WSRO 1300/714). Meanwhile, Sir Henry Capel promised his sister that he would try to stop the bill in the Commons. He and his brother-in- law Clarendon were optimistic: for besides that your friends will do their parts in giving it all possible obstructions in both Houses, in all probability the rising of the Parliament (and ‘tis confidentially said it will be prorogued this next week) will put an end to it. And before another meeting, it is to be hoped my Lord Ailesbury and his Lady will be come into their wits (WSRO 1300/784). Thomas tried to reason with his mother-in-law, writing to her on 11 November 1690. He explained that he sought an Act of Parliament against the advice of his friends and counsel who thought it: better to create a trust without an Act and to run the hazard of our two lives and then I do not debar myself from committing necessary waste. My answer, always, is that I choose to plant rather than cut down and if I could be any ways at ease I would never commit any sort of waste and, therefore, to be debarred from it by the trust would be no more than debarring myself voluntarily. The difference between an Act and no Act will be this, if there be one I am sure to have my debts paid, (my) children provided for and (the) beauty of an estate preserved, notwithstanding .. . Another motive I have to decline promoting the Act in this that for a small sum of money by policy I could ‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 107 secure our 2 lives, which is done daily in the City for very great sums and with very little trouble. And all this stir I make is only to secure debts that depend upon my life. If I could be accommodated and put at ease of mind in that matter certainly I should desire it... . My motive is to satisfy the creditors only and for raising portions (WSRO 1300/764). Apparently, Henry responded to his son-in-law in a letter that described Elizabeth’s obligations to both him and his wife. The letter no longer exists but it must have been provocative for, a fortnight later, Elizabeth wrote to him in an angry tone: I should not have given you the trouble of a letter if you had not provoked me to it by saying in yours to my Lord what great obligations I have had to you heretofore and what dangers you run for me, without any advantage to yourself... This is so high a provocation that I cannot forbear giving you such an answer as suitable to it. If you do not like it, you may thank yourself for giving me the occasion. I know nothing that ever you did that looked like a kindness to me, except it were that you had a hand in making our match. But though you proposed it, you repented it as soon as you had done, and tried all the ways in the world to break it both fair and foul. She was angry that her half-brother Charles stood to inherit her estate in the event that she had no children. She suggested that anyone but her husband and father-in-law would have ‘burnt those writings that settled above half my estate upon your heirs. I do assure you, if I were to do [it] again, I would burn them all before I would sign one of them. I had not done it then but my case was so bad that I had not a friend in the world to help me,’ With regard to his purchase of Amesbury on her behalf, ‘that it was what any stranger would have done... I have a great deal of reason to believe that you hoped it would have been your own; I do not question that you thought yourself sure of that and a great deal more of my estate.’ She continued: I think you have used me very hardly in tying my Lord and I up so that we cannot let leases in reversion, a liberty that all my ancestors had, and I do not know why I should not have it. But ‘tis like all the rest of your usage that I have met with from you. I find you think my Lord does intend to ruin his children. I know no reason you have to say so except you judge by yourself... I will say no more because I have been very large already though I have said no more than the truth and not all that. Your Grace’s humble servant, E[lizabeth] Ailesbury (WSRO 1300/716). Mary, rather than her husband, fired off a response dated 29 November 1690. She explained that Henry had permitted her to answer the letter because: In ali concerns relating either to your brother or you he has always been pleased to leave the management to me, as well of your estate as persons. And, in truth, your letter is so full of false and unjust slanders . . . that it can deserve nothing but such an indignation and contempt from him as will not allow the vouchsafement of an answer. Neither should it have one irom me did I not think it the duty of a mother not to let so great a sin in a child pass without an animadversion .. . for Hell itself is hardly capable of more malice or unnaturalness than you in this have showed to me .. . I should not have thought a stab through my heart less kind in you. She answered her daughter’s criticisms, point by point. With regards to his purchase of the Wiltshire property, ‘my Lord was offered above £10,000 for Amesbury and, I believe, might have had more, for he bought it absolutely, not in trust for you, and paid his own money for it, and might have kept it to his own use, if he had pleased. But he generously was pleased to convey it to you for the bare money it cost him.’ She continued: Now, to the settlement of half the estate upon my son Worcester .. . you yourself knew was not out of any desire either my lord or I had to get any part of your estate, but to fix it so as it might not be in your power to ruin yourself and your children by giving it all to your lord, to throw away, as you now are fond to do with whatever you can, and which the lawyers said could not be done but by lodging the inheritance of whatever we would have so preserved in somebody. You know yourself I proposed the Duke of Somerset who had the title and was heir male to your family but you said “by no means there”. I then asked you whether in any of your aunts or their children, you said “of all people not them”, they had behaved themselves so to you and would have gotten all from you. I then asked, on whom then, whether on your brother Herbert who was then indeed in France and thought as little of it as I did till you had refused the others... In answer to what you say that your ancestors had a power in granting reversions, I omitted to tell you that your father had it not, as appears by the deed of settlement on our marriage, neither do I think that grandfather had it, for I could never hear that he made use of it which, considering his circumstances, 108 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE he would certainly have done, had he had it. Other things I have to say which I reserve ‘til I hear your Lord has put in his bill which all the world must and shall know I can have no other end in opposing but the good of you and your children. She restrained herself from berating her daughter but she could not resist one small insult. She asked Elizabeth why, if her husband was so very fond of his wife and children, she had no jewels or finery? ‘I believe no woman but yourself, with the tenth part of your fortune, but has at least a pearl necklace to put about her neck’ (WSRO 1300/717). She also spread word of Elizabeth’s letter to her friends and relations, “knowing well the tongues of those I have had to do with.’ She sent Clarendon a copy of her daughter’s ‘most slanderous letter’ and asked him to show it to his brother Lord Rochester, ‘who I have already troubled in this business.’ She also sent a copy to her lawyer, Christopher Cratford, who declared himself shocked (WSRO 1300/343B, 739, 786). Meanwhile, the Act of Parliament was being considered in the House of Commons. Ailesbury had printed and circulated his own broadsheet in which he protested against ‘the unreasonable and ungrounded opposition that is made to the most just bill of this nature that ever was presented.’ It seemed to do some good for Mary’s lawyer, Godfrey Harcourt, spoke with Sir Francis Pemberton who warned him that the bill was likely to pass, in which case ‘care must be taken to restrain his power as much as may be.’ The former added that he ‘would have mentioned his playing (gambling) by which his debts are contracted but that I durst not do’ (WSRO 1300/7806). On 1 January 1691, Harcourt described the passage of the bill through the House of Lords: Ihave done all I could to prevent the passing of Lord Ailesbury’s bill, but his coming to court at this time gained him a great many friends in both Houses. The Bishop of Sarum was his great stickler and never missed being at the committees. At one of them, Lord Mulgrave took him up very short and silenced him. All that concerned themselves heartily for your Grace was Lord Mulgrave and Lord Rochester. The Duke of Somerset was against the bill but did not say much. After we had been at several committees and our counsel had declared, at every one of them, that your Grace could not consent to the bill because it would be to the prejudice of the lady and her children, when they came to report it to the House, it was said that we had consented to the bill and the amendment. Lord Mulgrave came out to me and asked me, had we consented to the bill and the amendment? I assured his lordship we had given no consent, neither could I, because I had your Grace’s commands to the contrary. When the house was up, I waited on Lord Halifax, Duke of Somerset, Lord Rochester, Lord Mulgrave and several other lords before they came out of the House and acquainted them that your Upon the next day, though, the bill was engrossed. It was Grace would not consent to the bill... recommitted and we had great hopes we should throw out the bill but our party was not strong enough. Harcourt noted that Ailesbury gave him ‘a great many hard words and told me in the house that there were things spread abroad to his prejudice to prevent the passing of the bill, that if he could fix it on the author he would have him in the pillory, One thing that he particularly took offence at was the notion that he would leave Elizabeth if she did not solicit this bill. ‘I told his lordship that I had not said any such thing.’ After the Lords passed the bill and sent it to the House of Commons, Harcourt told Capel ‘how the whole matter had been managed at the House of Lords and gave him the names of such persons as I was sure would do your Grace all the service they could at the committee.’ In the end, however: we had not number enough to carry it against the bill but Sir Henry was satisfied we had done all we could to oppose it... Sir Edward Seymour (was) for the bill and made very many in the house. When Capel saw they were resolved to pass the bill, he went away and left them to pass it and told me it was to no purpose to make any further opposition (WSRO 1300/787). Once the bill had passed both Houses of Parliament and had received royal assent, Ailesbury no longer had any reason to be polite to his mother- in-law. In a letter dated 22 January 1691, he told her exactly what he thought of her behaviour. He began by noting her ‘endeavors to vilify’ him and Elizabeth. ‘For me to wonder at it would be strange since I have had no other reason for these many years but to expect all the hardships and cruelties that the malice of woman could invent.’ He continued: The many extraordinary letters I have had from you might have required a speedier answer, if matters of moment had not since taken up my time... I cannot say indeed that my debt was contracted through the misfortune of a civil war, nor that there is no other ‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 109 way to run into that misfortune, since I have found by experience that the unkindness of a mother-in- law has been more fatal to me than any other accident that can be named, and the little reason there was for it made it seem the more unkind. But I should not wonder at anything that has happened of late when the proceedings during the treaty of my marriage and upon the conclusion are so fresh in my memory, first to surprise my father into a promise (which he and his family values above all gain) not to have any personal application made to the lady until counsel on both sides had settled matters referred to them. This had not been much if that lady at the same time had not been told how backward I was, and whether it would be prudent in her to settle into a family, that had so little respect for her, this I must own was a masterpiece, but of what, I leave the world to judge... Tam told of great waste at Pilton . .. and of waste at Tottenham and Easton and great sums made in the last plowing, and that my wife was compelled to part with her jointure house [Amesbury] . . . (when, by the way, she has one in Yorkshire of 3 times that bigness). I know as little of them as of my losing £60,000 at dice, which was given about in the House of Commons to blast a reputation that will stand good in spite of all calamities. He also took a parting shot at the Duke of Beaufort’s pride and joy, the landscape at Badminton with its avenues of elm trees extending miles in every direction. ‘I have planted much and continue to so each season but ever with this caution, to plant on my own ground, pay my neighbours their tithe quietly and not to remove their landmarks for to widen my prospects and indulge an eye that generally covets the ground and highways that God Almighty has placed for the good and use of those that ought to enjoy them.’ As to his wife’s lack of jewellry, ‘to this I give a plain answer, that when I was under wardship (no less than 14 years) I never durst mention anything of that nature for fear half the pearls (besides the very best in the middle) should have been settled on your family, as all the estate was’ (WSRO 1300/775). In December 1691, the Act of Parliament was finally given the royal assent. Mary had made one last attempt to stop the passage of the bill but William III, ‘after some little time of thoughtfulness with himself, told her brother that he could not deny it after it had been passed by both Houses. Capel, however, did manage to get Ailesbury to ‘promise his Majesty to trouble him no more with such bills of his debts; the which accordingly he did promise the king. And the king at the same time replied to him, ‘My Lord, and I assure you I will pass no more such Bills’ (WSRO 1300/790). The bitterness which this Act engendered did not disappear overnight. It took four years before Ailesbury and his wife said that they were ‘sorry’ for what had happened and promised that, in the future, they would pay their parents ‘all duty and respect.’ Clarendon urged his sister-in-law to forgive them so ‘that what is passed may be forgotten and that all letters and papers which have passed on both sides may be burnt’ (WSRO 1300/791). Mary, however, found it difficult to forget. She responded, that there was: no subject ... more agreeable both to my lord’s nature and mine than to forgive injuries and be kind to our children, but I have been so accustomed to this way of proceeding of Lord Ailesbury and his wife (for always, when he has designs of mischief to himself and family, then these kind fits come upon him, as a great number of his letters and proposals do show). . . I cannot but with great reason expect that my daughter shall most humbly beg pardon of my lord (the best father-in-law I ever knew) for the lying, unmannerly letter which she writ to him. As for his to me, crammed likewise with horrid lies and malice, I forgive him, but shall always take care of her, and her children (let her behaviour to me be what it will) (WSRO 1300/277). In March 1696 Ailesbury was arrested and charged with treason. He was discovered to be a sympathizer of James II (he had travelled to France to visit the exiled monarch three years earlier) and to have participated in a plot aimed at removing William III from the throne. In fact, he had not conspired with Sir John Fenwick, but he had visited his house numerous times along with a number of his fellow Jacobites. As a result he was sent to the Tower of London. When it became clear that he would be staying for an indefinite period, Elizabeth moved in with him and the two lived together in two small, furnished rooms. The latter found, to her surprise, that she was pregnant despite the fact that she was forty-two years old. When the November chill proved too harsh for her, however, she was forced to move to Ailesbury House in London. Elizabeth died on 12 January 1697. She had unexpectedly heard the sound of gunfire — a royal salute — and was told that the king was on his way to Parliament to give his assent to a bill of attainder 110 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE against Sir John Fenwick. She was so fearful that this would lead to her husband’s eventual demise that she suffered a sudden seizure. She went into labour, though she was only seven months pregnant, and slipped into a coma from which she never woke. She gave birth to a daughter who was named, ironically, Mary. Ailesbury was released from the Tower soon after his wife’s death. He returned to his family home in Bedfordshire where he interested himself in gardening; the return of his kidney stone prevented him from more active sports. It is likely that his condition was aggravated by a renewed correspondence with his mother-in-law. But they did not annoy each other for long. At the end of January 1698 he left England after discovering that the government was forcing a bill through Parliament rendering all persons guilty of high treason who could be proved to have been in France, without royal permission, at any time during the years 1689-97. He would spend the rest of his life in Brussels, the capital of the Spanish Netherlands. During this time he converted to Roman Catholicism and married, in 1700, Charlotte Jacqueline d’Argenteau (d. 1710), daughter of the late Comte d’Esneux. Not surprisingly, the marriage settlement was fraught with difficulties. Ailesbury later described his new mother-in-law as ‘the most uneasy person in business as ever was’ — with the exception of the Duchess of Beaufort. He also wrote his now-famous volume, Memoirs of Thomas Earl of Ailesbury, Written by Himself. The Dowager Duchess of Beaufort died at Chelsea House in London in 1715, worn out by successive legal battles, first with Elizabeth and Ailesbury, then with her daughter-in-law Rebecca, marchioness of Worcester, and, finally, with her grandson, the second Duke of Beaufort. Ailesbury, meanwhile, outlived his mother-in-law by twenty- six years, dying in his adopted city of Brussels at the age of eighty-five. His son Charles enjoyed the earldom for only a few years before he, too, died in 1747. He left behind a daughter but no male heirs. As aresult, his properties in Wiltshire and Yorkshire were bequeathed to his nephew Thomas Brudenell- Bruce. Houghton House was sold to the Duke of Bedford while Tottenham Park and the Savernake estate remained in the hands of the Brudenell family. The Seymour dispute highlights the difficulties which inheritances and settlements could cause, particularly when great sums of money were involved. It illustrates the growing desire on the part of young noblemen such as Ailesbury to manage their own properties and to free themselves from the constraints of marriage settlements and trusts. It also shows the lengths to which a mother (and former widow) would go to protect her daughter and to ensure that an estate survived not only the folly of its owners but also any future change in regime. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 111-128 ‘A Feast of Reason and a Flow of Soul’: the Archaeological Antiquarianism of Sir Richard Colt Hoare by David Robinson While Sir Richard Colt Hoare is famous for his motto ‘I speak from facts, not theory’ and is considered pivotal in the creation of scientific archaeology, historians often deride his methodology as ‘primitive’. Modern scholars have under-valued the motivational contexts of aesthetics and emotion underlying Hoare’s efforts. Using narrative techniques developed in his travels, Hoare was influenced by late-eighteenth century concepts of the picturesque, the sublime, and his own personal history. Against this background, his Baconian- derived principles of inductive reasoning created conflicts. His work was performed in conscious reaction to satirists and the contemporary debate between the Ancients and the Moderns. Hoare used advances in surveying and manipulated imagery to enhance Ancient Wiltshire, a carefully crafted set of publications responding to conflicting requirements of contemporary culture. His combining of reason with the emotion of the romantic imagination 1s his enduring contribution to archaeological history. In most accounts, Sir Richard Colt Hoare (1758- 1838) is portrayed as a ‘pioneer’ in the birth of scientific archaeology as it emerged from the speculative concerns of antiquarians before him (e.g. Piggott 1989, 154; Marsden 1999, 39). While sometimes acknowledging that Hoare’s work should be judged by the standards of the early nineteenth- century, commentators often dwell on how right or wrong Colt Hoare’s interpretations were. They also analyse his techniques of excavation, usually critical of his ‘execrable’ methods and rapidity of excavations (Marsden 1999, 25, 35; Daniel 1981, 56). Hoare’s work is criticised, and either condemned or praised for how well it stands up to the contemporary standards of modern archaeology. Moreover, his work is valuable primarily in its contribution to the evolutionary chain rising from the mists of antiquarian ignorance to the establishment of the methodological rigour of modern archaeologists. As Schnapp claims, archaeology is the ‘product of a long evolution’ originating as a ‘fully fledged discipline... at a very precise period, the mid 19th century, in the context of the emergence of positivist science in Europe’ (2002, 140, 138). We are warned that without our modern methodologies, ‘archaeologists would soon revert to the antiquarians they had once been’ (ibid. 140, my italics). Colt Hoare stands as the iconic link at the fulcrum-point connecting and separating the primitive, the antiquarian, with/from the advanced, the archaeological scientist. It is ironic that this kind of social evolutionary interpretation of the object of the archaeological pursuit has been largely discredited, while this value-judgement within the historical practice of archaeology is still a dominant narrative. We no longer cast our aspersions upon the ‘savages of prehistory’, but the antiquarians still are condemned as less evolved versions of ourselves. Piggott specifically criticises Hoare for describing the prehistoric ‘barrow- builders in the most unflattering light of pessimistic primitivism while Piggott himself equates Hoare’s methodology from a precisely identical idiom: “The technique of excavation was to remain at the primitive level of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries until it was revolutionized and set on a Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ 112 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE recognizably modern footing by General Pitt-Rivers in 1880-1900’ (Piggott 1989, 158, my italics). Pitt- Rivers himself was an ardent critic of Hoare’s ‘unscientific methods’ (Marsden 1999, 30), while others in the early 1900s denounced Hoare’s work: Tumuli and Beacon Mounds were once the unique glory of Wiltshire. . . and idle, such as R.C. Hoare (may his coffin be split into firewood and his monument be split up into till in an evil day curious men paving stones)... under the pretence of science and historical research, set to work to destroy these ancient tombs... But enough, my choler rises and my hand quivers as I write of these vandals who have disgraced the name of antiquary. (quote of Edward Dowman, 1908, in Mitchell 1982, 123-124) These kinds of commentaries say little about Colt Hoare himself and ultimately obscure under- standing of how his work, as a totality, fits into the history of archaeology. This paper examines Colt Hoare from the context of his experiences and the times within which he lived, his own personal circumstances and motivations. Specifically some of his writings are analysed, concentrating particularly on his two major works, The Ancient History of South and North Wiltshire (published in 1812 and 1821). By close examination, a fuller, multi-dimensional human agent can be appreciated whose own research was as much driven by the experience of the senses as it was a pursuit of knowledge. The first volume of Ancient Wiltshire opens and concludes with his oft quoted motto ‘WE SPEAK FROM FACTS, NOT THEORY’. Where did this motto originate and how well did he actually stick to it? This motto has overshadowed Colt Hoare’s active aesthetic approach, his emotional and experiential response to the subject he attempts to define as facts. Hoare’s contribution is often downgraded because he had not entirely freed himself ‘of the romantic approach’ (e.g. Daniel 1981, 56). But it is this romantic approach that elevates Hoare. Struggling in the pursuit of a methodology, Colt Hoare’s accomplishment was both an aesthetic achievement and a scientific contribution. THE DEVICE OF LANDSCAPE In Ancient Wiltshire, the writing style utilizes the technique of viewing a prospect through the eyes of Hoare: On this commanding spot we find the skeleton of a large British town, hitherto unnoticed in any map, or by any writer. It bears the name of Grovely Works, and occupies, in the form of a crescent, the high point of a hill... it extends nearly a mile in length, and covers a space of ground little less than sixty acres, comman- ding a very extensive and diversified prospect; towards the west, a long range of the vale of Wily, terminated with that conspicuous eminence Clay Hiil, presents itself, and the view is rendered still more interesting to the antiquary by the numerous camps, circles, and tumuli which crown the surrounding hills. A thick copse wood, intermixed with fine beech trees, forms on the opposite side a good constant to the expanded prospect across the vale, which is terminated by the distant hills in Hampshire, on which we recognize a continuation of British fortresses. (Hoare 1812, 110) Riding forth on his horse across the chalklands of Wiltshire, Colt Hoare takes his reader along with him in true Grand Tour style. His Ancient History of Wiltshire is structured so that each chapter is a narrative journey through the landscape, divided by and referenced upon ‘Stations’ from which each excursion begins’ (Figure 1). Clearly, he developed an affinity with the landscape. From the eminences of the uplands, he casts his gaze across the prospect and interprets its features, making it intelligible for our understanding. His experience of landscapes, and most importantly his appreciation of them, was rooted in his contemporary culture, but more specifically in his own personal history. Hoare had extensive experience viewing landscapes in his travels. For the greater part of six years from 1787 to 1793, he travelled incessantly in Europe. In a 22-month stretch, it has been calculated that he travelled 6571 miles by 580 stages (a statistic which does not include local daily excursions) (Woodbridge 1970, 77). Later, when warfare broke out on the continent and he was forced to return to England, he was to make almost annual tours to Wales, Northern England or Ireland: Monday 30th June. Left Buttermere and proceeded on the right bank of Crummock Lake. This lake is about four miles long. The mountains around it are more barren.... I again crossed the Cocker and entered the beautiful Vale of Lorton. What a sudden change of scenery! Adieu to crags, torrents, lakes and precipices. An extensive well-wooded and cultivated valley... now presents itself. (Hoare [1983], 134) His copious journal descriptions are often detailed to the point of minutiae. But his technique creates THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 113 STATION WILY. Wie oF oll 4 ° n : rid) : = Steeple Langford. 3 G SSE * Stapleford meee Lat ty Salisbury ay =D Fig. 1. Wily. Station IV. Engraving by J. Cary from drawing by P. Crocker (Hoare 1812) an almost ‘cinematic’ effect in its narrative progression: Hoare’s methods fit within a wider eighteenth and nineteenth-century emerging tradition of what Flaxman calls ‘word-painting’ or ‘visually oriented passages’ which ‘transforms a static catalogue of visual data into the dramatization of the visual’ (1987, 9-10). Each description forms a picture; framed in words, it is an attempt at accuracy that also speaks of his deeply embedded view of the picturesque. Colt Hoare was an illustrator. His self-proclaimed ‘love of drawing’ was ‘imbibed at an early period of life’ (Hoare 1814, preface). As an artist his intent was to reproduce the landscape both in writings and drawings. As he travelled, he actively sought the ‘rugged and devious path’ to find interesting subjects and, as he states, ‘much employment of my pencil’ (ibid., 4) (Figure 2). Equally, his written reconstructions sometimes had the intent of evoking an emotive response: Nothing could exceed the wildness of the scenery through which we passed; we were surrounded with lofty pines, huge rocks, tremendous precipices, and continually overlooked the Rhone, which foamed endless cascades down the rapid descent . ..With joy I beheld the source of a river, whose wanderings I had traced .. . and whose banks had delighted me with a rich variety of grand and picturesque scenery. (quoted in Woodbridge 1970, 106) This ideal of the picturesque has its roots partially in the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the ‘ideal of the cultivated wilderness’ (ibid., 107). Although Rousseau believed in the faculty of reason, ‘he emphasized emotion and sensibility as important aspects of human behaviour’’ (Trigger 1989, 66). Exploring southern Wiltshire, Hoare found the environment of Cranborne Chase “bewitching, the air so pure, and the turf so soft’ he could not ‘resist the pleasure of pursuing the Ridge beyond the limits of Wiltshire’ (Hoare 1812, 248). This emotive response to nature reflected philosophical writings of the eighteenth century on the nature of the human mind. Locke took the idea of the ‘camera obscura’ as a model of the mind, theorizing, ‘Understanding is not much unlike a Closet wholly shut from light, with only some little openings left, to let in external visible Resemblances, or Ideas of things without’ (quoted in Sambrook 1993, 60). Burke, drawing from Locke, in A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful (1757) stated, ‘it is probable that the standard both of reason and Taste is the same in all human creatures... as the 114 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 2. Hermitage of Monserrato. Engraving by J. Powel, after drawing by J. Smith from sketch by Sir R.C. Hoare (Hoare 1814). By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library senses are the great originals of all our ideas, and consequently of all our pleasures, if they are not uncertain and arbitrary, the whole ground-work of Taste is common to all’ (ibid., 141). Romantic opinion advocated that internal qualities of the personality were shaped as the senses interacted with nature. Since human sensory perception was universal and a picturesque view in nature created a particular emotive or aesthetic response, it followed that an accurate representation of that view would recreate an identical emotive response in the viewer. During Hoare’s early travels, the purpose of accuracy (in both his writing and drawing) was to communicate the natural effect of the picturesque — aesthetics and accuracy were co-dependent in Hoare’s artistry. Contributing to this framework was the concept of the tabula rasa: if the mind at birth was like a blank slate or sheet of paper which was subsequently impressed or drawn upon through the stimuli of the senses, the hope arose ‘of being able to transform the operations of human nature through a reshaping of environment’ (Sambrook 1993, 61).? A prime example of this reshaping of the environment was Hoare’s home of Stourhead manor and its grounds. Colt Hoare was born into a pre-existing pleasure garden environment where his grandfather, Henry, had already incorporated landscaping, statues, and classical-style buildings in order to ‘evoke the numinous’ (Woodbridge 1970, 2). Haycock argues these eighteenth-century gardens influenced the perception of the landscape because people became trained to appreciate viewing human constructions (oftentimes classical replicas in a ruined state) within a broader visual framework (1999, 72). The landscape garden became a visual and experiential medium situating relationships between structures and the environment while training the senses of those moving through the landscape to appreciate that relationship. Later in life, Hoare’s sensory encounters in the ‘wild’ reminded him of the gardens back home: The mountains abound with such a variety of odoriferous plants, many of which are preserved with care in our English conservatories, that during the greater part of my ride, I almost fancied myself in a flower garden. (Hoare 1814, 3) At Stourhead, most of the structures in the landscape drew on classical Greek and Roman architecture and myth (see Woodbridge 1970, 24- THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 115 37).The past was reinterpreted and reincorporated in a landscape that was meant to be experienced through a walking tour. Moreover, the garden landscape was increasingly viewed as a composition much like a landscape painting. So the device used in Ancient Wiltshire of leading the reader along as in a tour mimics the experience of moving through the garden landscape, with its classical architecture strategically positioned against a humanly cultivated backdrop (Figure 3). This narrative method was already a well-established device; earlier antiquarians such as William Stukeley had also included the reader ‘in the role of traveller’ as an active participant, creating a sense of objective experience (Haycock 1999, 71). MEDIA OF THE PICTURESQUE As stately gardens in general were calculated to ‘inspire a meditative, reflective or associative response’ (ibid., 74), a picturesque view in the world outside the stately garden was similar since it instigated an aesthetic sense within the person viewing it. When living at Stourhead, Colt Hoare was immersed in an environment designed to blend nature with antiquity: as an adult he continued renovating the grounds to enhance picturesque views (Woodbridge 1970, 145-153). Thompson states that, while touring, Hoare actively sought out the picturesque in the wider landscape because his ‘prime interest in a ruin was the aesthetic pleasure that it gave him; that is why he drew it’ (1983, 21). Being an artist, Hoare defined the picturesque strictly as a view that could be reproduced in a drawing: Much has been disputed about the word pictures- que. . . It appears to me that in its true meaning it ought only to be applied to such subjects in nature as will form a picture and not to those which from the great extent of prospect cannot be comprehended within the limits of the paper or canvas. (Hoare [1983], 256) It is important to note that Hoare was seeking to display the picturesque in visual medium. It was Fig. 3. Stourhead, Temple of Apollo, the Pantheon and Bridge. Watercolour by F. Nicholson. Stourhead, The Hoare Collection (The National Trust)/National Trust Photo Library 116 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE not enough just to experience a view or even simply to record it. He sought to create an aesthetic work that would be appreciated as a material product emphasising the pictorial. With Stonehenge, he thinks he is able to express more forcibly his appreciation of the monument through ‘viewing’ the monument as a reconstruction ‘divested of its unmeaning pigmy pillars of granite, and diminutive trilithons’ (Hoare 1812, 152) (Figure 4). Hoare believed the bluestones (i.e. the ‘pigmy pillars’) were late additions to the circle, feeble embellishments to an already completed work. Here, the aesthetic takes interpretative primacy over facts. Only in looking upon his reconstruction can ‘we behold’ Stonehenge in all its majesty: Captivated by the grandeur of Stonehenge, Hoare attempts to express that grandeur in the material reconstruction of his published plates. Hoare’s facts speak of an emotive response, with the ruins of time as an example of the incomprehensible. He comments on the leaning lone trilithon behind the crushed altar stone at Stonehenge: “This stone, in the artist’s eye, from its singular position, and bold tenon, forms one of the most picturesque features of the building, by breaking the uniformity of the upright lines’ (ibid., 148) (Figure 5). Despite Hoare’s motto of speaking from facts, he often delves into his theories of the picturesque, and an archaeological ruin can be a key ingredient. The picturesque to Colt Hoare is more than he Fig. 4. Centre figure in Various Plans of STONEHENGE. Engraving by J.S. Basire from drawing by P. Crocker (Hoare 1812) We behold a most majestic and mysterious pile, unconfused in its plan, simple and grand in its architecture, most awful and imposing in its effect. Such indeed is the general fascination imposed on all those who view it, that no one can quit its precincts, without feeling strong sensations of surprize and admiration... The artist, on viewing these enormous masses, will wonder that art could thus rival nature in magnificence and picturesque effect... and all with one accord will exclaim, ‘HOW GRAND! HOW WONDERFUL! HOW IN-COMPREHENSIBLE!’ (ibid., 152-3) allows within his own definition. Technically, the broken uniformity enhances the picturesque, but the ‘awful and imposing’ impact gains force through the incomprehensibility of the ruin. The ruin itself (i.e. the dilapidation of the monument through the workings of time) enhances the view: the view, in turn, touches on the romantic fascination in decay and death. In the fabric of his writings, Colt Hoare’s personal encounters with death threads together another motivational strand for his incessant _ wanderings through landscapes that inevitably are away from his cultivated home at Stourhead. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 117 Fig. 5. West View of Stonehenge. Engraving by J.S. Basire from drawing by P. Crocker (Hoare 1812) SUBLIME ESCAPISM FROM STOURHEAD Above it was a skeleton with its head laid towards the south, and which from its position and perfect preservation appears not to have been disturbed. Its mouth was wide open and it ‘grinn’d horribly a ghastly smile,’ a singularity we have never before met with. (Hoare 1812, 42). Marsden comments that Hoare rarely elaborated about the skeletons in the barrow openings except when he came across something unusual or out of the ordinary (1999, 30). However, this is not exactly the case. Utilizing documents provided by William Cunnington (who supervised most of the excavations) Hoare usually commented in Ancient Wiltshire if the internment was cremated or inhumed, the direction of the body and how many inhumations were discovered.* Sometimes he speculated on gender: ‘the very rich and numerous trinkets discovered’ in barrow no. 21 of the Lake Down Group announced ‘the skeleton to have been that of some very distinguished British female’ as did numerous beads in another barrow (Hoare 1812, 163, 213). He seemed inclined to take an attitude of respect to the remains, as in one case when he was present during a barrow opening: When we found that the cist contained a skeleton buried in the primitive manner, we began to proceed with caution, wishing in the first place to disturb, as little as possible, the bones of the Briton’ (Hoare 1821, 93). In 1806, Hoare toured Ireland, noting the ‘irreligious indecency’ in the condition of a churchyard where ‘in no place have I seen so little reverence paid to the dead; for here you may see coffins with skeletons exposed to public sight through the apertures of the stone’ (Hoare 1807, 218). At other times, however, his attitude towards the bones was quite different from reverential respect as one ‘experiment’ illustrates: ‘When throwing the bones of this skeleton, we had strong proof how well they are preserved when deposited deep in the chalk, as they would bear being thrown for a considerable distance without breaking’ (Hoare 1812, 163). However it is Hoare’s much more personal encounter in the death of his newborn child, followed by the death of his wife Hester and then his grandfather all in the space of three months in 1785 which propelled him into his Tours of Europe and consequently to his deep interest in ruins. Just before Hester’s death, Hoare wrote to a relative intimating a longing for his ‘favourite diversion’ of escaping to the countryside where he hoped to be ‘content...looking down...from some High Torr’ 118 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE (quoted in Woodbridge 1970, 75). His need to escape was intensified by the fact that his inheritance of Stourhead came with the condition that he no longer engage in the family business (ibid., 69). Excluded from work and not emotionally up to living at Stourhead where his wife and second child had just died, Colt Hoare fled to the landscapes of the continent as ‘new plans and new scenes became necessary to alleviate his mind from his late family losses”? (Hoare [1840], xii). On the road in Italy, his first recorded interest in antiquities occurred with his visits to the excavations of Herculaneum and Pompeii (Woodbridge 1970, 87). At Capo di Monte, he visited the Catacombs and began developing his own aesthetic writings on death: It is impossible for anyone, I think, to go through this immense repository of the Dead, where thousands of skulls are dispers’d about, without being forcibly stuck with awe and horror...For my own part, I never saw the few skulls and bones thrown upon the stage in the play of Hamlet without some sensation, how much stronger then were my feelings, on walking thro’ this dark arched vault (by the light of a funereal torch) strewn with thousands of relics of my fellow creatures. (ibid.) The confrontation with death was considered a sublime experience of emotion, but of a greater intensity than the more refined yet relatively milder experience of the picturesque. In its pursuit of strong emotions, romanticism at times became preoccupied with horror and evil (Trigger 1989, 66). Many writers in the eighteenth century considered the aesthetics of sublime fear, aroused by obscurity, darkness, and uncertainty as the strongest emotion the mind was capable of feeling (Sambrook 1993, 142). Hoare’s dismay in Ireland at seeing the poor condition of the graveyard was supplanted by the sublime upon entering the church: “The scene which presented itself to me, on entering these hallowed walls, struck me most forcibly; it was truly impressive, and all was in character; skulls, bones, and coffins, thick around me’ (Hoare 1807, 125). In the experience of the sublime, the normal emotional state ‘is violated by some overwhelming or traumatic experience, producing a moment of arrest or suspension that is immediately followed by recovery, a return to the pre-sublime state’ (Voller 1994, iv). But it was not considered necessary to travel catacombs by torchlight to prompt the sublime - nature had the potential to produce such an effect through moments of astonishment or the “sensual experience of delightful terror’ (ibid., 4). The crumbling remains of antiquity, the decaying bones of the dead, the awesome precipice of isolated rugged landscapes, all were emotively alluring to Hoare. He relished approaching Mount Vesuvius as it ‘vomited’ smoke and stones around him (Woodbridge 1970, 86). Years later, in the rugged heights of Wales, he describes entering a ‘savage wilderness’ where ‘towering rocks, deep chasms like craters, huge disjointed fragments’ excited ‘amazement and almost horror’ (Hoare [1983], 269). Hoare’s escape to Europe and his confrontations with Vesuvius and the Catacombs amounted to a cathartic therapy dealing with the death of his loved ones — his encounter with the sepulchral monuments on the plains of Wiltshire with the skeletal remains hidden and decomposing within continued this now well established pattern —a pattern that stimulated the emotive response through the confrontation with the sublime. Continually on the move, Hoare experienced Europe with its cultivated landscapes cradling the ruins of antiquity. He hired the artist Carlo Labruzzi to illustrate these journeys and the two travelled together in 1789 (Hornsby 2000, 4). The ruins were reminders of the process of decay and death within a living landscape and the images of Hoare’s journeys often strove to portray this relationship between the living and their encounter with the crumbling past (Figure 6). However, too much of an obsession could be unseemly for a true gentleman. In writing of antiquity, Hoare had to be wary of the heavy criticism levelled against the antiquarians’ obsession with death and fascination for the inconsequential rubbish of the past. INFECTED WITH THE MANIA With all the ardour and fancy of a zealous antiquary, I once fondly thought that here I might discover the traces of King Ina’s palace...but on digging into several of the banks, as well as into the hollow places, I could find no fragments even of stone, or any indicia of habitations. (Hoare 1812, 181) Starting off on another tour of Wales in April of 1801, Hoare first visited in the company of the Rev. William Coxe a Roman mosaic at Pit Meads where William Cunnington was digging (Hoare [1983], 161). A friend and mentor to Hoare, Coxe was a THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE ef 12? 3 REM Sy Fig. 6. Frontispiece. Aquatint by C. Labruzzi from an album dedicated to Sir Richard Colt Hoare. The figure has the ‘gaze of an absorbed traveller reflecting on the glories of the ancient ruins’ (Hornsby 2000, 6) veteran of the Grand Tour and a member of the Society of Antiquaries. Coxe was influential, but it was Cunnington who inspired Hoare to become ‘infected with the mania of antiquarian discovery’ (Hoare 1821, 126). Cunnington’s influence both as an excavator and as an intellectual partner with Hoare has been well documented (see Cunnington 1975). Cunnington’s strength was his ability to draw conclusions. from his diggings and give interpretative primacy of his conclusions over pre- existing texts. Initially, it seems likely that one of the reasons for Hoare’s affinity to Cunnington was the ingenious tradesman’s ongoing engagement in field pursuits.° By the time of this initial meeting with Cunnington, Hoare had already been a member of the Society of Antiquaries for nine years. Rubbing shoulders with Society members, Hoare must have been acutely aware of the status of Antiquarians. As Francis Grose stated in an antiquarian publication in 1775: It has long been the fashion to laugh at the study of Antiquities, and to consider it as the idle amusement of a few humdrum plodding fellows, who, wanting genius for nobler studies, busied themselves in heaping up illegible Manuscripts, mutilated Statues, obliterated Coins, and broken Pipkins! (quoted in Jessup 1975, 186-7) (Figure 7) The perception of the antiquarian as distastefully interested in the morbid fuelled the ridicule. They were characterized as a ‘motley crew... deformed and deficient’ who loved to ‘poke among the dead... to catch sight of their ghoulish subject. Such is their engrossment...that they do not recognize the social 119 impropriety of their actions’ (Peltz and Myrone 1999, 2). Complementing this caricature was the fetishism for the artefact. From the cabinets of curiosities of Ole Worm and the amassing of objects, antiquarians were seen as hoarders of meaningless trash. Fragments and individual items were the trophies to be displayed — the study of these random bits of time’s flotsam in the eyes of some critics could only produce further rubbish since it was, after all, only a study of rubbish (Bending 1999, 83). Criticising the attention to minutiae, Horace Walpole verbally lashed the antiquarian Richard Gough (Director of the Society of Antiquaries from 1767 to 1797): ‘Mr. Gough is apt, as antiquaries are, to be impatient to tell the world all he knows, which unluckily is much more than the world is at all impatient of hearing’ (Sweet 2001, 183). Walpole was an ardent critic of antiquarians, stating that they ‘always turned into fools’ and were “indiscriminately acquisitive, impenetrable to taste, ‘ridiculous’, and doomed to be ‘dry and dull’ for centuries to come’ (quoted in Lolla 1999, 15).’ Fig. 7. The Antiquarians. Engraving from Oxford Magazine, 1772 120 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE For the antiquarians, it was a difficult task to address this criticism. In large part, their interest in minutiae resulted from a different direction - the debate between what Piggott has termed ‘the Ancients and the Moderns’ (1989, 150). The Ancients, or traditionalist men of letters, sought knowledge in classical writings and the scriptures while the Moderns sought knowledge through the ‘tradition of empirical investigation of natural and artificial phenomena’ (ibid.). For antiquarians of the Modern school, written history needed to be confirmed against evidence in the field. Gough championed this very stance in his Anecdotes of British Topography: Injudicious and sedentary compilers find it much easier to arrange matters put into their own hands than to ramble about and to examine every remnant of antiquity. Whoever sits down to compile the history and antiquities of a county or a town, should confirm the evidence he collects from books and manuscripts by inspection of places described (quoted in Sweet 2001, 189). Turning away from strict reliance on classic writing, the antiquarians needed to concentrate on ‘minutiae’. However, this response encouraging the primacy of artefacts was the fodder of Walpole’s criticism. The tedious obsession with artefacts opened up antiquarians to the worst possible criticism of upper society — that of being dull. TO ‘SPEAK FROM FACTS, NOT THEORY’ It will be my task, therefore, to note down minutely what was, and what now is; to throw aside the veil from fancy and romance, adhering to my original motto, endeavour to ‘speak from facts, not theory’. (Hoare 1821, 65) In his introduction to Nenia Britannica (1793), James Douglas countered this criticism, advocating ‘Artifacts or “antiquities” were “facts” which when properly assembled would yield historical truths, compensating for the ‘deficiency of antient records’ (ibid., 187). Douglas and Nenia seems to have influenced Colt Hoare: ‘A very ingenious and elaborate work was published in the year 1793, by Mr. Douglas, under the title of NENIA BRITANNICA, in which he has detailed, with great perspicuity, the researches made by himself and others on this subject’ (Hoare 1812, 19). Douglas visited Stourhead, and even accompanied both Hoare and Cunnington on some of the barrow openings in Wiltshire (Marsden 1984, 12). This contact with Douglas suggests that Nenia Britannica was the prototype for Hoare’s Ancient Wiltshire (Woodbridge 1970, 227).° Rather than being boring, artefacts were ‘facts’, indispensable to any intellectual investigation of the past. As Douglas elaborated in his introduction to Nenzia: No position in the work has been assumed on mere conjecture; and when deductions have been made, they have been founded on a scrupulous comparison of facts. . . the reader may form his own conclusions, without the apprehension of being involved in the confusion of self-opinionated theory. (quoted in Jessup 1961, 188). It is with Douglas’ stance on facts-over-theory that the origin of Hoare’s famous motto has been traced (Atkinson 1975, xvii). However, this was not a simplistic or even necessarily direct connection. While it is unclear when Hoare first obtained a copy of Nenzia, the two antiquarians did not meet until August of 1809 (Jessup 1975, 135). As early as 1726, Alexander Gordon, the Secretary to the Society of Antiquaries, advocated that ‘Archiology’ had a purpose to ‘prove demonstratively those Facts which are asserted in History’ (Jessop 1974, 187). Indeed, Hoare and Douglas were two agents of many within a much wider body of discourse with its roots in Baconian inductive reasoning, postulating that through patient observation and the industrious accumulation of facts, truth would become apparent (Smith 1994, 11-24). In the field of chemistry, Humphry Davy praised Bacon in 1812 for teaching ‘Man’ to be ‘capable of discovering truth in no other way but by observing... that facts were to be collected and not speculations forms; and that the materials for the foundation of true systems of knowledge were to be discovered not in books of the ancients, but in the visible and tangible world’ (ibid., 14-15). Hoare was certainly versed in these matters: his library catalogue lists two collections of books written by Francis Bacon (Hoare [1840], 669, 679). Against the ridicule of antiquarian obsession with artefacts and the appeal by leading antiquaries to compare written histories against facts, Hoare met Cunnington — already engaged in his own search for facts in the field. Our object is truth As mentioned above, Cunnington was already an experienced ‘opener’ of barrows. He had been THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 121 digging long barrows in collaboration with the antiquarian William Coxe (a friend of Colt Hoare) and the topographer H.P. Wyndham (Woodbridge 1970, 196-201). Wyndham was convinced long barrows were ‘Battle Barrows’ or ‘receptacles of the Bodies slain in Battle’ (1bid., 198). While skeletons found in the diggings were enough to convince Wyndham, Cunnington remained sceptical (Cunnington 1975, 15). Originally, Coxe decided to write about the antiquities of Wiltshire; through time, Hoare took over this role, not without some dispute.’ A wave of nationalism in the late-eighteenth century led to a profusion of publications on county histories.’° Additionally, it was expected that a gentleman should be well versed in the art of antiquity. In 1775, the Antiquarian Repertory claimed that ‘without a competent fund of Antiquarian knowledge no one will ever make a respectable figure’ (Sweet 2001, 188). Colt Hoare was fortuitously in the correct social standing to take over the enterprise of funding the project and writing the books. However, he was caught between different, somewhat contradictory social expectations. He could fulfil his role as country gentleman by undertaking the project, but not in a way that would be open to the ridicule of satirists. |! Samual Woodfarde Afarde RA pine James Basire scalp! Fig. 8. Mr. William Cunnington, F.'S.A. of Heytesbury, Wilts. Engraving by J. Basire from portrait by S. Woodforde (Hoare 1812, frontispiece) In a new partnership with Hoare, Cunnington, the antiquarian Thomas Leman, the surveyor Phillip Crocker, and the father and son duo- diggers of Stephen and John Parker, a collaborative effort was brought to bear on the antiquities of Wiltshire. Hoare financed and directed the operation, while Cunnington and the Parkers continued in the role of excavators. Initially, Thomas Leman was integral in the process. Set up as mentor to Hoare, he suggested to Cunnington the method of labelling finds and recording ‘the very spot in which you found them’ to supplement the detailed notes that Cunnington was already producing (Cunnington 1975, 21). Leman recognized that Cunnington’s information produced more ‘light in this very obscure part of our antiquities... than the many theoretical volumes which have been given to the world’ (quoted in Woodbridge 1970, 203). In May of 1801, Leman (utilising classic Baconian language) urged Cunnington to map plans of ancient ‘camps’ since there only existed ‘books of theory instead of records of facts’ (quoted in Cunnington 1975, 20). Cunnington’s writings too show he was acutely aware ‘theories’ drawn from classical sources were ‘ever at war with facts’ found in the field (Woodbridge 1970, 203). Despite Leman’s Fig. 9. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, Bart. of Stourhead, Wilts. Engraving by H. Meyer from painting by H. Edridge. (Hoare 1821, frontispiece) 122 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE interest in facts, he was a man of learning who preferred to take the role of theoretical ‘mentor’ to his ‘pupils’ (ibid., 202-3). Tension arose between Leman’s preconceptions juxtaposed against field observations: this became a concern to both Colt Hoare and Cunnington. Hoare’s terminology reiterated Baconian principles, ‘Our object is Truth’, so ‘in this curious investigation we must form no previous systen? and without the pick-axe ‘nothing positive’ would be ascertained (ibid., 214-5). However, the truth was that without a pre-defined ‘system’ Hoare had no analytical means to interpret Cunnington’s accumulating ‘facts’. Despite his desire for objectivity, Hoare compared Cunnington’s reports to Leman’s theories. This inconsistency irked Cunnington: ‘You recommend that when I take the field I leave all my systems at home & at the same time you recommend me to a system of Mr.Leman’s — which system IJ had from him some years ago’ (ibid., 215). As time progressed, this flow of discourse influenced Hoare to disregard Leman’s theories, urging Cunnington to remain ‘perfectly unbiased, and to judge only from certain proof’ (ibid.). It is important to realize that the ultimate goal of their ‘curious investigation’ was to produce a book. In Hoare’s need to speak from facts, the visual appearance and composition of both volumes of Ancient Wiltshire purposefully emphasizes the pursuit of facts. Plates depicting Hoare and Cunnington associated them with materials representative of recording. Cunnington is portrayed holding a field-sketch of Stonehenge (Figure 8), while Hoare sits at his desk in his Stourhead library (Figure 9). Books on the shelves display the authority of the written past and Hoare’s access to them, while the Stonehenge Urn and the beaker on the desk reflect his authority on the material of the past. He is depicted as if momentarily interrupted from editing the proofs of Ancient Wiltshire — a man both in command of the past and any contemporary knowledge of it. In effect, Hoare displays himself as master of both the Ancients’ literary authority and the Moderns’ conviction in the artefact. This portrayal of Hoare engaged in recording was nothing new. In the Italian Tours of 1789, Labruzzi often sketched in Hoare directing Labruzzi at the ruins (Hornsby 2000, 3-5). In a 1795 Woodforde portrait of Hoare with his son, Hoare is shown next to a classical pillar, gazing into the distance, a picturesque drawing in one hand and portfolio in the other (Figure 10). Fig. 10. Sir Richard Colt Hoare aged 37 and his son aged 11. Portrait by S. Woodforde. Stourhead, The Hoare Collection (The National Trust) National Trust Photo Library/John Hammond Love of order The use of the survey was an important technique employed by Hoare. With the surveyor Phillip Crocker, Hoare brought the entire Wiltshire landscape into order. It was the time for just such an undertaking. With enclosure increasing and the legal needs for accurate recording of boundaries intensified because of new property laws, surveying became ever more important in the later eighteenth century (Richeson 1966, 145).The use of imperfect maps during the 1747 military campaigns in Scotland was also a prime factor in the creation of the Ordnance Survey (Phillips 1980, 2).!* Crocker, his brother Edmund and their father, Abraham, worked on the first edition map of Wiltshire published in 1801. Colt Hoare was able to take advantage of the resultant new-found accuracy in recording and worked closely with Crocker in the field (see Woodbridge 1970, 212-3) to produce the many maps and plans that eventually were an. integral part of Ancient Wiltshire. This topographic work, for its time, was hailed in the Quarterly THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 123 Review of 1811 as ‘perhaps unrivalled’ (Woodbridge 1970, 231).' Bird’s-eye views of large landscapes included district maps, which were subdivided into Stations (Figure 1), followed by more detailed plans mapping the ‘environs’ of Stonehenge and Avebury. The next scale contained plans of earthworks such as ‘British villages’ (Figure 11) and oblique views of barrow cemeteries (Figure 12) with each barrow numbered and related to the accompanying text. Fig. 11. Grovely Works. Engraving by J. Basire from drawing by P. Crocker (Hoare 1812) Complementing the maps and plans were occasional eye-level drawings of monuments and the surrounding landscape (Figure 13). Reconstructions (Figure 4) and plans of both Stonehenge and ‘Abury’ were presented as well as three plates depicting Hoare’s series of barrow- types. Finally, tumuli plates illustrated groups of artefacts (Figure 14), each of which could be correlated back to the numbered barrows. With this method, Hoare was able to present visualizations Fig. 12. Barrows at Winterborne Stoke West Group. Engraving by J. Basire from drawing by P. Crocker (Hoare 1812) of his sweeping landscape narratives while integrating artefacts with the descriptive accounts of individual barrow-openings. As a finished product, the most enduring quality of Ancient Wiltshire is the numerous high-quality plates of the artefacts recovered from Cunnington and Hoare’s diggings. Again, Hoare was on the cutting edge of a technology in which he had extensive experience. As already discussed, he was an illustrator and sometimes made initial sketches for other artists to complete. Perhaps modelling his plates on those of Douglas, he drew on a tradition that ultimately had its root in the identification of fossils, plants and elements of the animal kingdom. The search for ‘new and more objective principles of classification’ prompted improved reproduced representation (Thomas 1983, 65). The visual identification of medicinal plants was increasingly important as the drawing was replacing verbal Fig. 13. A distant View of Abury, and the Kennet Avenue, from Hackpen Hill. Engraving by G. Cooke from drawing by P. Crocker (Hoare 1821, PI. 15, no. 1) 124 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 14. Tumuli. Plate XIII. Winterborne Stoke. Engraving by J. Basire from drawing by P. Crocker. This plate corresponds to the Winterborne Stoke, West Group, Barrow 5 (Hoare 1812, PI. 13) description (Piggott 1978, 27). In Ancient Wiltshire, the layout of the ‘tumuli’ plates is invariably symmetrical, the composition balanced and even (Figure 14). Beads strung together frame other artefacts. Neither the dirt of the barrows nor the barrows themselves are shown. Abstracted from the context of the barrows, the artefacts are ordered — any ambiguity of their context is removed. The plates of Ancient Wiltshire imply control and ultimately understanding. They are facts there to be seen. At about the same time as the publication of Ancient Wiltshire, Goethe bemoaned how ‘the chaotic condition’ of an antiquarian collection was stored ‘without any methodological sensibility or love of order’ (Crane 1999, 193). The antiquarian illustration presented this very ‘love of order’ that Goethe advocated — this in effect denied the fragmentary nature of antiquity and the absence of clarity that the narratives such as Hoare’s struggled with. As Smiles states, ‘It is this lack that antiquarian illustration supplies, its very clarity and determinacy of image offering a coherent knowledge that the narrative it is presumed to supplement cannot produce’ (1999, 63). In this sense the display of the artefacts justified the effort to acquire them; they validated the antiquarian pursuit, as did their ordering. The past, which could not be comprehended, could at least be sensibly and visibly organised. The antiquarian illustration ‘provided iconic illustrations of the past which stood in place of the obscure record with which historians wrestled, that they were constitutive of knowledge rather than representative of it’ (Smiles 1999, 57). In Colt Hoare’s seemingly endless narratives of the barrow excavations combined with the numerous and detailed plates, the sheer bulk of evidence presented the full weight of empirical knowledge. Colt Hoare had more than any of the classical writers ever had — he had facts and plenty of them. Bibliomania Facts proved not to be enough. Hoare voraciously purchased books full of the theories he admonished. Adding to his already impressive collection, Hoare poured more funds into his self-described ‘Bibliomania’ (Hoare [1840], vii). His Stourhead library was a marvel to visitors. John Skinner, an antiquarian who would later work with Hoare on the opening of the Stony Littleton long barrow, commented: Indeed, I believe there is not a library in the kingdom so well supplied in these subjects as that at Stourhead, since not only all the public records of Domesday and the Tower, but every private collection is so admirably arranged that Sir Richard can put his hand on the minutest book at a moment’s notice. (quoted in Woodbridge 1970, 260). Pouring through the works of Pliny, Caesar, Tacitus, Camden, Aubrey, Stukeley, and just about every relevant writer imaginable, Hoare nevertheless despairingly wrote to Cunnington ‘TI have read a great deal this winter — of ancient times & lore but am sorry to say, the more I read, the more I am bewildered’ (ibid., 224). His pages of Ancient Wiltshire are loaded with lengthy references, probably in response to Gough’s admonishments to antiquarians to quote in full when referencing (see Sweet 2001, 189). In the first volume of Ancient Wiltshire, written before Cunnington’s death, Hoare balanced landscape narrative, details of barrow openings, and THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 125 references to other writers more adeptly than in the second volume. After Cunnington’s death, the barrow-digging came to an almost complete end. This is reflected in the second volume as only one tumuli plate was published. To compensate for the lack of fieldwork, Hoare turned to Stukeley and, inevitably, to the Druids. From Druids to British to Druids Hoare’s journal entries during his tours of Wales, England and Ireland give insight into the changes that occurred within his thinking through his exposure to contemporary antiquarian culture. It is obvious from his writing that before his association with the antiquarians of Wiltshire (and in particular Cunnington) he viewed British antiquity from a more picturesque, Druidical, and even ‘fanciful’ perspective. In June of 1793, well before his involvement with Wiltshire antiquities, he wrote that a site at St David’s head in South Wales was a ‘Druidical monument’ where the picturesque setting was suited for ‘Druidical mysteries’, imagining that the rock outcroppings formed ‘the perfect profile of a venerable old head such as I could have fancied a Druid’s character’ (Hoare [1983], 48). In June of 1800 he described the Castlerigg stone circle in Cumbria as a ‘perfect Druidical circle’ and Long Meg in similar terms a few days later (ibid., 132, 137). He certainly had been influenced by Stukeley’s writings by this time for at Mayburgh Henge Hoare speculated “perhaps it might have been used as a circus for chariot races and the stones were the metae or goals’ (ibid., 136), a comment echoing Stukeley’s ideas regarding the function of the Stonehenge cursus. Six years later, after his initial involvement with Wiltshire antiquarians, Hoare’s terminology reflects his changing views of ancient monuments. At Newgrange (Figure 15) Hoare states ‘conjecture may wander over its wild and spacious domains, but will never bring home with it either truth or convictions’ (Hoare 1807, 257). On a return visit to Wales in 1810, the Druids are omitted from his journal entries. Megalithic monuments are called ‘British remains’ (Hoare [1983], 256). On the mountain of Carn Madryn, he comments that the hili ‘abounds in British remains; numerous cyttiau, circles, carneddau etc etc ascertain its high antiquity...’ (ibid., 264). Again, at Anglesey, visiting Bryn Celli Ddu and other megaliths, he never refers to the monuments as Druidical, only British (ibid., 268). Reflecting this attitude in the first volume of Ancient Wiltshire (the first section of which was published in 1810), Hoare rarely mentions Druids. Instead, he calls the population of pre-Roman Britain simply ‘British’ as he had in the journal entries noted above. After Cunnington’s death, it took over a decade to publish the second volume (1821). In the ‘Recapitulation’ at the end of this second volume, Druids are reintroduced as Hoare becomes convinced that ‘such places as Abury, Marden, Stonehenge, Rowlritch, and Stanton Drew, together with many others of minor celebrity, were the loci consecrati set apart for the civil as well as religious purposes, but not, according to vulgar error, built by the Druids, but rather for them’ (Hoare 1821, 121-2). In the end, unable to speak from only facts, he frames his interpretations from classic sources and the influence of Stukeley: the Druids once again people the landscapes of prehistoric Wiltshire. In the conclusion, Hoare softens his bold motto, ‘facts Fig. 15. Subterraneous Temple in the County of Meath. Engraving by W. Newton from drawing by Sir Richard Colt Hoare (Hoare i807, frontispiece). By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library 126 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE have been sufficiently evident, as to speak for themselves’ by conceding that ‘conjecture... on treating so remote an age... might, in some degree, be allowable’ (ibid., 127). CONCLUSION It is easy to judge Colt Hoare’s Baconian quest a failure. In his effort to speak from facts he invariably interprets them through the theory of others. Most of his conclusions have been superseded by subsequent archaeological interpretation, his methods are now denigrated, and his only enduring contribution has been said to be the invention of the precursor of the trowel adopted by modern excavators (Piggott 1989, 155-6). However, it can be argued that Colt Hoare was engaged within a complexity of sometimes incongruent cultural and individual facets, a complexity which is reflected in Ancient Wiltshire. Deeply affecting his work was a contemporary dispute in how to approach the past. Ancient Wiltshire can best be understood as a negotiation of that dispute. Hoare skilfully facilitated a wide group of personalities: he continued expressing his sense of the picturesque and the sublime while simultaneously incorporating the facts discovered. His best work was his manipulation of the technology of visual reproduction, especially in the survey plates. Hoare’s ability to construct narratives negotiating multiple scales has been under-appreciated by antiquarian scholars. The antiquarians turned to science for legitimisation, but in the process they began gradually to lose the landscape narratives that Colt Hoare was so effective at delivering as archaeology became more site-specific. The antiquarian imagination eventually gave way to the dominance of science, but some of the essentials of this conflict still echo in the debate between modern processualists and post-processualists. In the approach to typology, the aesthetic of the artefact has largely been abandoned. In the clinical requirements for accuracy, the personal confrontation with the sublime has been written out of the record. In the quest for objective facts, zeal or enthusiasm has often been sacrificed. The great achievement of Colt Hoare’s work is that he combined reason with aesthetics, facts with emotion. He was able, however imperfectly, to commingle a quest for some kind of factual knowledge of the past with his own experiential encounter and communicate a sense of enjoyment that, in the end, seemed to make it all worthwhile. In May of 1806, Crocker wrote to Cunnington describing a celebration during the opening of - barrows at Everleigh with ‘Sir Richard’ and an assortment of antiquarians, topographers, and others. Amidst the fruit, sparkling wine and the ever- present pick-axe ‘stood the relicks of 2000 years’ while the group toasted the ‘Britons’ with ‘all the enthusiasm of true Antiquaries’ (Woodbridge 1970, 217). For no doubt everyone involved including Sir Richard, the whole affair was, ‘a feast of reason and a flow of sou? (ibid.). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank John Collis for the guidance he provided through the early drafts of this paper and Nikki Delpino-Mark for our lively conversations. Thanks also to Christopher Chippindale, Mark Gillings, Joshua Pollard, Julia Roberts and an anonymous reader for their helpful and invaluable remarks. Some of the research for this paper was undertaking as part of an honorary fellowship with the National Centre for the English Cultural Tradition, University of Sheffield. Notes 1. As Hoare himself stated in his diaries, he wanted to “give an account of all the antiquities that are within reach of [a Station] in a morning’s ride’ (quoted in Cunnington 1975, 135). 2. Hoare was interested in Rousseau’s writings, especially La Nouvelle Heloise (1760). In Hoare’s Recollections (1815 to 1818) he writes, ‘Heavy objections have certainly been made to the morality of his book; but its beauties are so natural, so bewitching, and so congenial to the feeling heart, that in the contemplation of his excellencies I overlook his defects’ (quoted in Woodbridge 1970, 108). 3. The physical-sensory connection between the outer environment and the inner mind operated along ‘the fibres’ or nerves: ‘It was commonly believed that sensation is caused by vibration of the nerves or by vibration of minute particles along the nerves’, thus the human reaction to stimuli was universal (Sambrook 1993, 143). 4. As Hoare was rarely present at the barrow openings, he relied almost exclusively on Cunnington’s specially bound manuscripts detailing the contents of the barrows (see Cunnington 1954: 23-5). 5. This quote is from Hoare’s posthumous Memorr, stated to have been ‘Partly written by Himself’ (Hoare [1840], i). 6. As evidenced by letters in 1798 to John Britton (who was writing The Beauties of Wiltshire) Cunnington THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 127 had dug at Stonehenge (with a stick) and other sites well before meeting Hoare (Woodbridge 1970, 195). 7. Walpole also heavily criticised The Society of the Dilettanti (or the Grand Tour club), of which Colt Hoare was also a member. As Walpole observed concerning gaining admittance to the Society: ‘the nominal qualification was having been to Italy, and the real one being drunk’ (Sambrook 1993, 207). 8. When Douglas died in 1819 his collection passed to Colt Hoare, who donated it to the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Marsden 1984, 12). 9.In November 1803, Coxe said Hoare had gone ‘barrow mad’. By April 1804 Hoare was happy to have removed ‘the business of exploring out of my friend Coxe’s hands’ (Woodbridge 1970, 209). 10. Patriotism, public service and construction of national identities, themes of late eighteenth-century Britain (Sweet 2001, 181), were reinforced by the island’s isolation (Reusch 1999: 95) and conflict on the continent (Thompson 1983, 14) —all prompted anti- quarian interest closer to home including publication. 11. Sweet argues: ‘*...antiquarianism was a pervasive and essential constituent of the contemporary pursuit of art and literature, rather than a recondite pastime that stagnated in ditchwater prose. For this reason, the institutionalized study of antiquarianism had always to maintain a delicate balance between scholarship and taste.’ (Sweet 2001, 183) 12. There also was an element in nationalist pride/ competition in connecting the English survey with the French survey in “The Great Triangulation at Hounslow Heath’. Thus, improved surveying was motivated by ‘political, scientific, and practical considerations’ (Richeson 1966, 175-7). 13. Hoare was even consulted by the Ordnance Survey in later years and corrected some of their mistakes (Piggott 1976, 128). The OS maps to which Crocker and Hoare contributed ‘remained unrivalled’ until after 1920 (Phillips 1980, 8). Bibliography ATKINSON, R.J.C. 1975, ‘Introduction’, in R.H. Cunnington, From Antiquary to Archaeologist: A Biography of William Cunnington 1754-1810. Aylesbury: Shire BENDING, S. 1999, “The true rust of the Barons’ Wars: gardens, ruins and the national landscape’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700- 1850, 83-94. Cambridge: Ashgate BUCHANAN, A. 1999, ‘Science and sensibility: architectural antiquarianism in the early nineteenth century’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700-1850, 169-186. Cambridge: Ashgate CRANE, S.A. 1999, ‘Story, history and the passionate collector’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700-1850, 187-204. Cambridge: Ashgate CUNNINGTON, R.H. 1954, The Cunningtons of Wiltshire. WANHM 55, 211-236 CUNNINGTON, R.H. 1975, From Antiquary to Archaeologist: A Biography of William Cunnington 1754-1810. Aylesbury: Shire DANIEL, G. 1981, A Short History of Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson FLAXMAN, R.L. 1987, Victorian word painting and narrative: Toward a blending of genres. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press HAYCOCK, D. 1999, “A small journey into the country’: William Stukeley and the formal landscapes of Stonehenge and Avebury’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700-1850, 67-82. Cambridge: Ashgate HOARE, R.C. 1807, A tour in Ireland. London: William Savage HOARE, R.C. 1812, The Ancient History of South Wiltshire. London: William Miller HOARE, R.C. 1814, Tour through the island of Elba. London: J. Murray HOARE, R.C. 1821, The Ancient History of North Wiltshire. London: Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor and Jones HOARE, R.C. [1840]. Catalogue of the Hoare Library at Stourhead. London: Nichols and Son HOARE, R.C. [1983], The Journey of Sir Richard Colt Hoare: through Wales and England 1793-1810. Edited by M.W. Thompson. Gloucester: Sutton HORNSBY, C. 2000, Carlo Labruzzi: an album of thirteen aquatints dedicated to Sir Richard Colt Hoare. Apollo Magazine, March, 3-8 JESSUP, R. 1974, Curiosities of British Archaeology. London: Butterworths JESSUP, R. 1975, Man of many talents: an informal biography of James Douglas 1753-1819. London: Phillimore MACLENNAN, H. 1999, ‘Antiquarianism, connoisseur- ship and the Northern Renaissance print: new collecting cultures in the early nineteenth century’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700- 1850, 149-168. Cambridge: Ashgate MARSDEN, B.M. 1984, Pioneers of Prehistory: Leaders and landmarks in English archaeology (1500-1900). Ormskirk: Hesketh MARSDEN, B.M. 1999, The Early Barrow Diggers. Stroud: Tempus MITCHELL, J. 1982, Megalithomania: Artists, Antiquarians and Archaeologists at the Old Stone Monuments. London: Thames and Hudson MYRONE, M. 1999, ‘Graphic antiquarianism in eighteenth-century Britain: the career and reputation of George Verture’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), 128 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700-1850, 15-34. Cambridge: Ashgate PELTZ, L. 1999, ‘The extra-illustration of London: the gendered spaces and practices of antiquarianism in the late eighteenth century’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700-1850, 115- 134. Cambridge: Ashgate PELTZ, L. and MYRONE, M. 1999, ‘Introduction: “Mine are the subjects reflected by the historian’: antiquarianism, history and the making of modern culture’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700-1850, 1-14. Cambridge: Ashgate PHILLIPS, C.W. 1980, Archaeology in the Ordnance Survey 1791-1965. London: Council for British Archaeology PIGGOTT, S. 1976, Ruins in a Landscape: Essays in Antiquarianism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press PIGGOTT, S. 1978, Antiquity Depicted: Aspects of Archaeological Illustration. London: Thames and Hudson PIGGOTT, S. 1989, Ancient Britons and the Antiquarian Imagination: Ideas from the Renaissance to the Regency. London: Thames and Hudson REUSCH, J.J.K. 1999, ‘Caspar David Friedrich and national antiquarianism in Northern Germany’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700- 1850, 95-114. Cambridge: Ashgate RICHESON, A.W. 1966, English Land Measuring to 1800: Instruments and Practices. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press SAMBROOK, J. 1993, The Eighteenth Century: The ° Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature 1700-1789. Longman: Harlow SCHNAPP, A. 2002, Between antiquarians and archaeologists — continuities and ruptures. Antiquity 76, 134-140 SMILES, S. 1999, ‘British antiquity and antiquarian illustration’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700-1850, 35-54. Cambridge: Ashgate SMITH, J. 1994, Fact and Feeling: Baconian Science and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press SWEET, R. 2001, Antiquaries and Antiquities in Eighteenth-Century England. Eighteenth-Century Studies 34(2), 181-206 THOMAS, K. 1983, Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800. London: Allen Lane THOMPSON, M.W. 1983, ‘Introduction’, in R.C. Hoare, The Journey of Sir Richard Colt Hoare: through Wales and England 1793-1810. Edited by M.W. Thompson. Gloucester: Sutton TRIGGER, B.G. 1989, A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press VOLLER, J.G. 1994, The Supernatural Sublime: The Metaphysics of Terror in Anglo-American Romanticism. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press WOODBRIDGE, K. 1970, Landscape and Antiquity: Aspects of English Culture at Sourhead 1718 to 1838. Oxford: Clarendon Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 129-136 Spiders of the Family Tetragnathidae (Araneae) in Wiltshire by Martin Askins Thirteen spiders of the family Tetragnathidae have been recorded from Wiltshire. Each species is described with its habitat preferences and a map showing its distribution in the county. In the UK four families of spiders contain species that weave cartwheel-shaped ‘orb’ webs, the Uloboridae, Theridiosomatidae, Tetragnathidae and the Araneidae. The members of the Uloboridae are uncommon or rare and none has yet been recorded in Wiltshire, though there is the likelihood that the alien species Uloborus plumipes will be found in garden centres (Harvey, Nellist and Telfer, 2002)). Theridiosoma gemmosum, the only member of the Theridiosomatidae to occur in the UK, was recently found in Wiltshire (Askins, 1999). The Araneidae is probably the more familiar family to most people as it contains Araneus diadematus, the common garden cross spider. This note considers the probably less familiar Tetragnathidae. The known distributions and habitat preferences of the Tetragnathids in Wiltshire are described. TETRAGNATHIDAE In general the UK members of the Tetragnathidae are orb-web weavers. In comparison with other orb weaving families the Tetragnathidae tend to have long legs relative to the body; the genus Tetragnatha and to some extent the other genera have elongated bodies. The legs are furnished with hairs and spines but finer or less densely distributed in comparison _ with some of the other families. In addition the genitalia are relatively simple. In the UK the orb webs are generally of a looser weave with a more open hub than those of the Araneidae (Fig.1). Fig. 1. Metellina web The genus Tetragnatha The spiders of the genus Tetragnatha (‘four-jawed’ spiders) are elongate orb-weavers (Fig.2). Their generic name is derived from the large chelicerae, armed with substantial fangs, which the members of the genus sport. Besides being used in feeding, these jaws are brought into play during mating when the male interlocks his fangs with the female’s, a ritual based on the male’s need to ensure that the female does not attack him (Bristowe, 1958). If undisturbed at the right time of day, these spiders can be found sitting in the centre of their webs, waiting for prey. If disturbed they either drop from the web (to return later, via their dragline) or move to the side of the web where they hide themselves by stretching out their legs along, and aligning their body with, a supporting stalk or blade of grass. 69 Savill Crescent, Wroughton, Swindon SN4 9JG 130 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE The spiders have a single generation per year and are adult in spring and summer. Unlike the Philodromids (Askins, 2002) the females do not mature noticeably later in the year than the males though they do persist longer (Figs. 4, 7, 8, 11). Fig.2. Tetragnatha female The eggs of Tetragnathids are deposited on a surface away from the web. Once laid, the eggs are covered with silk and the female then disguises the surface a . — Vs a Fig.3. Tetragnatha egg cocoon of this with darker silk or nearby particles (dirt or even pine needles). These cocoons can mimic bird droppings quite well (Fig. 3). Tetragnatha extensa (Linnaeus, 1758) National status: Common and widespread. This is a common spider whose typical habitat is woodland clearings, beaten from trees, shrubs, low herbage generally in damper regions than the Relative numbers JFMAM J JA S O-N_D Month Fig. 5. Records for T. extensa in Wiltshire other members of the genus apart from T? striata. The clustering of records on the heavier clay soils of the county is indicative of this with the records often being close to watercourses. THE SPIDERS OF THE FAMILY TETRAGNATHIDAE (ARANEABE) IN WILTSHIRE U3il Tetragnatha montana Simon, 1874 National status: Common and widespread, becoming scattered in the north. . + “= i Fig. 6. Records for T. montana in Wiltshire -|@Males | Females } oS i o N Relative numbers dR MM AM: J do AS) @ oN Month Fig. 7. T. Montana adult activity | This is the most common species of the genus and probably to be found in practically every tetrad in the county. It favours a wide range of habitats including woodland, gardens, hedgerows, scrub, and long grass. _ Tetragnatha nigrita Lendl, 1886 National status: An uncommon species with a southern bias to its distribution. In Wiltshire the species is uncommon to scarce and was first recorded in 1994. It is a darker than Relative numbers Fig. 9. Records for T. nigrita in Wiltshire the other members of the genus and is generally beaten from trees or dense hedgerows. It is not necessarily associated with waterside habitats though most of the Wiltshire records are, including Upper Waterhay Meadows and riversides at Cricklade and Knook. Tetragnatha obtusa C.L.Koch, 1837 National status: Locally common, widespread but becoming rare in Scotland. Until recently there were very few records of this species from Wiltshire. However, examination of evergreens, especially yews, in churchyards in 2001 produced several new sites throughout the 132 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE county. Further searching in these locations will probably yield more records in the future. MiMales = | OFemales | Relative numbers et No JF M A Med aJ-ASS GO ND Month Fig. 11. T. obtusa adult activity Tetragnatha pinicola L.Koch, 1870 National status: Scarce (Notable B) and local, more common in the south of the country. A smaller animal than the other members of the genus (with a body length of about 5mm in comparison with the other species of up to about 10mm), it is otherwise similar to T? extensa. Both animals have a dark-bordered sternum with a clear patch reaching from the centre of the sternum forward (Fig.12) (the sternum is the plate on the ventral surface of the part of the body surrounded by the legs). This species is found along rides and Fig.12. T. pinicola male clearings in woods where it can be swept from the vegetation or beaten from trees. It was first found in Wiltshire in Green Lane Wood in June 2000. However, it has been known from Somerset and Hampshire for some time and may well be found in other woods in Wiltshire — areas of Savernake Forest, for example, should provide a suitable habitat. Fig. 13. Records for T. pinicola in Wiltshire Tetragnatha striata L.Koch, 1862 National status: Scarce (Notable B), widespread but very local. This species is found over water, where it builds its web in stiffly structured vegetation such as reeds. In Wiltshire recent records have been from the THE SPIDERS OF THE FAMILY TETRAGNATHIDAE (ARANEAE) IN WILTSHIRE 133 Cotswold Water Park and on the river Wylye at Knook. The first occurrence of this species in the county was reported by T: Savory in 1946 apparently on the basis of a record made by Dauntsey’s School Natural History Society. Fig. 14. Records for T. striata in Wiltshire The genus Pachygnatha In appearance the members of the Pachygnatha (‘thick-jawed’ spiders) are much less elongated and more robust than the Tetragnatha. These spiders do make orb-webs, as the members of the other genera do, but only as juvenile spiders when they build their webs low down in the vegetation in the field layer. When they mature they give up web building for capturing prey and rely on active hunting (Bristowe, 1958). Adults can be found — Fig. 15. P. clercki male throughout the year, but are more active from spring to autumn. Pachygnatha clercki Sundevall, 1823 National status: Relatively common and widespread, but local. P. clercki occurs in damper habitats than the other two members of the genus favouring bogs or marshes and the edges of ponds, rivers and streams where it can be found by grubbing about in, or sweeping lower vegetation. The sites on the accompanying map are either clustered on the clay soils of the county or along river courses. The spiders are probably adult throughout the year; the lack of records in winter in o Relative numbers JFmMAM J JAS ON D Month | Fig.16. P. clercki adult activity | Fig. 17. Records for P. clercki in Wiltshire 134 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE the activity plot reflects lack of recording effort as well as lower spider numbers. numbers e Relativ' JFMAM J J AS ON D Month Fig. 18. P. degeeri adult activity Fig. 19. Records for P. degeeri Pachygnatha degeeri Sundevall, 1830 National status: Very common and widespread but with a scattered distribution in Scotland. P. degeeri is by far the most common of the genus and can be found by ‘grubbing about’ or sweeping low vegetation in a wide range of habitats from woodland clearings and sides of paths, to grassland, quarries and even household detritus. ‘The common factor appears to be that this spider is found in more humid microhabitats. As with P. clercki, the adults can be found throughout the year, mainly in the summer. Pachygnatha listeri Sundevall, 1830 _ National status: Local and uncommon. Widespread. This species, unlike the other two of the genus, is much more restricted in its habitat requirement, generally only occurring in well-established or ancient deciduous and mixed woodlands. Most, if not all of the sites where it has been found in Wiltshire are ancient woods. It can be found by sweeping or grubbing about in the lower regions of the undergrowth, often in damper areas of the wood. Adults can be found all year, but mostly in late spring/ early summer and late summer/ autumn. Fig.20. Records for P. listeri The genera Metellina and Meta The members of these two genera are very similar and have previously been included in one genus. Unlike the Tetragnatha and the Pachygnatha, these spiders do not have noticeably modified jaws (Fig. 2ili)i Metellina mengei (Blackwall, 1869) National status: Very common and widespread. This species is found in a wide range of habitats as long as some structure is available for it to build its orb web including hedgerows, woodland, scrub, gardens, low vegetation with long grass and isolated shrubs on grassland or heath. It is very similar to M. segmentata from which it was accepted as a separate species in the UK only in 1974 (Lockett, Millidge and Merrett,1974). Prior to this it was described as a subspecies. Close examination of the genitalia is required to distinguish the two species (especially the females); another fairly consistent THE SPIDERS OF THE FAMILY TETRAGNATHIDAE (ARANEAE) IN WILTSHIRE 135 Fig. 21. M. segmentata female character is their period of maturity; M. menget is adult in the spring and early summer, M. segmentata in the summer through to the autumn (though some overlap does occur). This is clearly shown in the activity plots (Figs. 23 and 27). Fig. 22. Records for M. mengei Metellina merianae (Scopoli, 1763) National status: Common and widespread. This species is perhaps less common than the other members of the genus, but its habitat rs B S to numb lative Re o JR MA IM ad JA, S 20) NED hionth Fig. 23. M. mengei adult activity preference makes it less likely to be recorded. Ii prefers damper and more shaded microhabitats that the others of this genus, for example, drainage conduits, hollow boles of trees and under fallen trunks or more heavily shaded, inner regions of bushes and hence there are relatively few records of it from the downland. Males | OFernales | els Relative numb JEM TA Ma AS OF NAD Month Fig.24. M. merianae adult activity Metellina segmentata (Clerck, 1757) National status: Very common and widespread. Found in similar habitats to M. menge1 but later in the year. This species is probably as common and widespread as M. mengei. The fewer records in comparison with M. mengei are explained by its shorter and later season of maturity. Both of these factors mean that fewer days are available for recording this species. The egg cocoon of this species and M. menge1 are small spherical spheres, about 5mm in diameter, of white woolly silk enclosing the orange-pink eggs. The cocoon is placed, hidden from view, near the web. 136 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig.26. Records for M. segmentata Meta menardi (Latreille, 1804) National status: Local, with a patchy but widespread distribution. This species is found in cool, enclosed, dark, damp habitats, such as caves, cellars or drains. The egg cocoon is large, white and tear-shaped and hung from the roof by a silk stalk. It is likely that the lack of Wiltshire records reflects the fact that such spaces are infrequently examined for spiders, though the animal is uncommon. The first and possibly only record of this species in Wiltshire was by Dr. H. P. Blackmore from ‘Salisbury’ (Pickard-Cambridge, 1912). Mhales OFemale wm o cw = = = a SS. 5 o oD na J FMAM J J hdonth Fig.27. M. segmentata adult activity Species not recorded in Wiltshire Only one British species of this family has not been recorded in Wiltshire, Meta bourneti Simon, 1922. This is a Nationally scarce (Notable B) species, with habitat preferences similar to those of M. menardi. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to Michael Darby for letting me know of the spider records made by Dauntsey’s School, and to John Murphy for providing me with a copy of Pickard-Cambridge’s paper on Wiltshire arachnids. Bibliography ASKINS, M., 1999. ‘Spiders’, Recording Wiltshire’s Biodiversity, 4: 39-41. ASKINS, M., 2002. ‘The Spiders of the Genus Philodromus (Araneae) in Wiltshire’, WANHM, 95: 269-273. BRISTOWE, W.S., 1958. The World of Spiders. Collins, London. HARVEY, P.R., NELLIST, D.R. and TELFER, M.G. (eds), 2002. Provisional Atlas of British Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae). Huntingdon: Biological Records Centre. LOCKETT, G.H., MILLIDGE, A.F. and MERRETT, P., 1974. British Spiders, volume 3. Ray Society, London. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, O., 1912. ‘Arachnida of Wiltshire’, WANHM, 37: 380. SAVORY, T., 1946. J. Queckett Microsc. Club, (4) 3: 18- 24. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 137-142 The Use of Beetles in Evaluating the Saproxylic Status of Savernake Forest by Michael Darby’ and Keith Alexander’ The derivation of the Index of Ecological Continuity and the Saproxylic Quality Index as methods of grading sites by assigning scores to dead-wood beetles is explained. The species recorded in the Forest are then listed, together with their status and ratings in both Indices. These enable previous assessments of the Forest and its position 1n regard to both national and local criteria to be up-dated, and tables are provided. BACKGROUND For many years the evaluation of sites for wildlife conservation was based mainly on botanical and ornithological criteria. In the case of relic woodlands, formerly and sometimes currently managed by the wood-pasture system, it is now recognised that vascular plants and birds are unlikely to produce meaningful measures of their importance, and that saproxylic (dead-wood) beetles provide a more reliable guide. In 1986 Harding and Rose, after confirming decaying wood as an important habitat for invertebrates, identified 156 beetles as ‘indicator’ species and arranged them into three groups. Attention since has focussed on refining the list and introducing ‘scoring’ according to species continuity and rarity. The advantages of such a system are seen to be its use in the provision of standards against which sites may be judged, and to enable evaluation on the basis of samples rather than exhaustive cumulative lists. The first result of these endeavours was the Index of Ecological Continuity (IEC) (Alexander 1988; Harding and Alexander 1994). Scores were assigned on a scale of 1-3 to Harding and Rose’s groups, with 3 being awarded for species regarded ~ as being the most faithful to a site and 1 to those regarded as occurring widely in wooded land. Thus, the index loosely reflected that developed by Rose for lichens, but had the advantage of operating with a much larger number of species which were less sensitive to atmospheric pollution (although, unlike lichens, beetles are seasonal and more difficult to sample). With information on species provided by the Invertebrate Site Register (ISR) of the then Nature Conservancy Council (now English Nature), Harding and Alexander were able to use the IEC to produce a table listing the 45 most important ‘national sites for saproxylic Coleoptera of ancient woodlands, especially pasture woodlands’, in which Savernake appeared in 29th position. The table has subsequently been kept up to date by KA as new sites have been studied and species added to the known fauna of previously studied sites. A few additional species have been taken into the IEC calculation as knowledge of the fauna has improved, notably Ischnomera caerulea and Leptura sexguttata, both of which are known from Savernake. Savernake is currently ranked 20th in the UK (see Table 4 below). More recently, Fowles et al. (1999) have introduced another system of scoring based on the full list of saproxylic beetles. They included all those species with a ‘dependence upon microhabitats associated largely with the process of damage and 'The Old Malthouse, Sutton Mandeville, Salisbury SP3 5LZ *The National Trust, 33 Sheep Street, Cirencester GL7 1RQ 138 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE decay in the bark and wood of trees and large woody shrubs and climbers’, and produced a list of 599 species. Scores were then assigned to these according to the levels of species’ rarity previously published by Hyman (1992,1994). The total achieved by adding up all the qualifying species on a site was titled the Species Quality Score (SQS) and the result of dividing this by the number of species found (and multiplying by one hundred), the Saproxylic Quality Index (SQD. Fowles et al. (1999) also included a list of selected national sites arranged in order of their SQI scores, but Savernake was omitted because of the lack of records (apart from those in the ISR). In an earlier article (Darby, 2001) MD attempted to apply the SQI to Wiltshire, working mainly with the results of his own recording and research. This achieved an SQI of 505.6 for Savernake (based on 71 eligible species) which placed it in 13th position in the table of Fowles et al. (1999). However, it should be noted that the requirement of the SQI system for detailed and complete lists of saproxylic beetles for each site has meant that it has been possible to consider fewer sites than has been examined for the IEC approach. Sites such as Savernake are therefore ranked higher than they perhaps should be. As a result of further research since then, both at English Nature and in the offices of Forest Enterprises, and of a number of field trips made with the specific intention of recording saproxylic beetles, it is now possible to update both the IEC and SQI scores for Savernake, and to adjust its position in both national tables. Because more work has also been carried out on other Wiltshire sites, it is also possible to produce a revised table including RESULTS Savernake of SQI totals for selected sites in the county and to add to it, for the first time, a table of the same sites graded according to their IEC totals. SOURCES OF RECENT RECORDS FOR SAVERNAKE Darby, M.D., 2001,2002. Visits to record Coleoptera, 23 October 2001 and 19 March 2002. English Nature, 1991. Invertebrate Site Register and sources cited therein. English Nature, 1993. Intercept and Malaise trapping exercises at White Road South (SU205676) and White Road North (SU20986819) between 20 April —11 October 1993; and Red Vein Bottom West (SU21746770) and Red Bottom East (SU22456782) between 16 June and 11 October 1993. Determinations by S.A.Williams. English Nature, 1994. Intercept and Malaise trapping exercises at Long Harry (SU20826768) between 28 April — 18 May, 9 June — 19 July, 30 August — 11 October 1994; Church Walk (SU20746746) between 18 May — 11 October 1994; and Grey Road (SU20536738) between 28 April—11 October 1994. Determinations by S.A.Williams. English Nature, 1995. Intercept and Malaise trapping exercise at Marie Louise Ride (SU21376582); Sawpit Drive (SU21536567); Charcoal Burners (SU21756542); and Column Ride (SU21746535) at various dates between 31 May — 16 November 1995. Determinations by M.Darby. Fowles, A.P., 1990. Visit to record saproxylic Coleoptera, 22 June. WANHS, 2001. Field trip to record saproxylic Coleoptera (determinations by M.Darby), 31 May. Table 1: List of Saproxylic beetles recorded from Savernake Forest since 1950 Species Rarity SQI IEC score grade Histeridae Abraeus globosus (Hoffmann) Local 4 - Paromalus flavicornis (Herbst) Local 2 - Ptiliidae Ptenidium turgidumThomson RDBK 16 2 Pteryx suturalis (Heer) Local 2: - Leiodidae Anisotoma humeralis (F.) Local 2 - Agathidium confusum Brisout RDBI 24 - Agathidium nigrinum Sturm Local 2, - Scaphidiidae Scaphidium quadrimaculatum Oliv. Local - to Staphylinidae Phloeostiba plana (Paykull) Local 2 - Siagonium quadricorne Kirby Local 2 - Atrecus affinis (Paykull) Common 1 - Quedius maurus (Sahlberg) Local 4 3 Quedius xanthopus Erichson Nb 4 3 Sepedophilus littoreus (L.) Local 2 = Placusa tachyporoides (Waltl) Nb 8 - Anomognathus cuspidatus (Erichs.) Local 2 Leptusa pulchella (Mannerheim) Local 2 - Dinaraea aequata (Erichs.) Common 1 - Dinaraea linearis (Grav.) Local PD - Lucanidae Lucanus cervus (L.) Nb 8 - bo 1 Dorcus parallelipipedus (L.) Local THE USE OF BEETLES IN EVALUATING THE SAPROXYLIC STATUS OF SAVERNAKE FOREST 139 Sinodendron cylindricum (L.) Common 2 3 Litargus connexus (Fourcroy) Local 2, - Elateridae Mycetophagus multipunctatus F. Local 2 - Calambus bipustulatus (L.) Nb 8 3 Mycetophagus piceus (F.) Nb 4 3 Denticollis linearis (L.) Common 1 - Mycetophagus quadripustulatus (L.) Local 2 - Stenagostus rhombeus (Olivier) Local 4 3 Colydiidae Procraerus tibialis (Bois. & Lac.) RDB3 16 1 Bitoma crenata (F.) Local 4 3 Melanotus villosus (Fourcroy) Common 1 3} Colydium elongatum (F.) RDB3 16 1 Cantharidae Tenebrionidae Malthinus flaveolus (Herbst) Common 1 - Eledona agricola (Herbst) Nb 4 3 Malthodes fubulatus Kiesenwetter Nb 8 - Pseudocistela ceramboides (L.) Nb 8 2 Malthodes marginatus (Latreille) Common 1 - Mycetochara humeralis (F.) Na 16 3 Malthodes maurus (Castelnau) Nb 16 - Tetratomidae Malthodes minimus (L.) Common 1 - Tetratoma fungorum F. Local 2 g) Lycidae Salpingidae Platycis minuta (F.) Nb 8 3 Vincenzellus ruficollis (Panzer) Local 2 - Dermestidae Rhinosimus planirostris (F.) Common 1 - Ctesias serra (F.) Nb 4 3 Pyrochroidae Anobiidae Pyrochroa coccinea (L.) Nb 4 3 Ptinomorphus imperialis (L.) Nb 8 - Pyrochroa serraticornis (Scopoli) Common 1 Pulinus pectnicornis (L.) Common 1 - Melandryidae Dorcatoma flavicornis (Fab.) Nb 8 3 Orchesia undulata Kraatz Local 4 3 Ptinidae Phloiotrya vaudoueri Mulsant Nb 8 2 Punus subpilosus Sturm Nb 8 2 Melandrya caraboides (L.) Nb 4 3 Cleridae Conopalpus testaceus (Olivier) Nb 8 3 Thanasimus formicarius (L.) Local 4 3 Scraptiidae Melyridae Anaspis frontalis (L.) Common 1 - Dasytes aeratus Stephens Local 2 - Anaspis rufilabris (Gyllenhal) Common 1 Nitidulidae Mordellidae Epuraea longula Erichson Nb 8 - Tomoxia bucephala Costa Na 16 1 Soronia punctatissima (Illiger) Local 2 - Oedemeridae Glischrochilus quadriguttatus (F.) — Local 2 - Ischnomera cyanea (F.) Nb 4 3 Rhizophagidae Ischnomera caerulea (L.) RDB3 24 1 Rhizophagus bipustulatus (F.) Common 1 - Ischnomera sanguinicollis (F.) Nb 8 1 Rhizophagus dispar (Paykull) Common 1 - Cerambycidae Rhizophagus ferrugineus (Paykull) | Local 2 - Prionus coriarius (L.) Na 16 3 Sphindidae Rhagium bifasciatum F. Common 1 - Aspidiphorus orbiculatus (Gyll.) Local 2 - Rhagium mordax (Degeer) Common 1 - Cucujidae Stenocorus meridianus (L.) Local 2, - Pediacus depressus (Herbst) Na 16 2 Grammoptera ruficornis (F.) Common 1 - Pediacus dermestoides (F.) Local 3 Alosterna tabacicolor (Degeer) Local 2 - Silvanidae Leptura sexguttata F. RDB3 24 1 Silvanus bidentatus (Fabricius) Nb 8 2 Rutpela maculata (Poda) Common 1 - Silvanus unidentatus (Olivier) Local 4 3 Strangalia melanura (L.) Local 2 - Erotylidae Strangalia quadrifasciata (L.) Local 2 3 Triplax aenea (Schaller) Local 2 3 Clytus artetis (L.) Common 1 - Biphyllidae Anaglyptus mysticus (L.) Nb 4 - Diplocoelus fagi Guerin-M. Nb 8 2 Leiopus nebulosus (L.) Local 2 - Cerylonidae Tetrops praeusta (L.) Local 2 - Cerylon fagi Brisout Nb 8 3 Curculionidae Cerylon ferrugineum Stephens Local 2 - Magdalis armigera (Fourcroy) Local 2 - Cerylon histeroides (F.) Local 4 - Magdalis ruficornis (L.) Local 2 - Corylophidae Phloeophagus lignarius (Marsham) Local 2 - Orthoperus mundus Matthews Local 4 - Acalles misellus Boheman Local 2 - Endomychidae Scolytidae Endomychus coccineus (L.) Local 2 - Scolytus intricatus (Ratzeburg) Local 2 - Lathridiidae Dryocoetinus villosus (F.) Local 2 - Lathridius consimilis Mannerheim Nb 8 1 Platypodidae Enicmus testaceus (Stephens) Local 2 - Platypus cylindrus (F.) Nb 8 3 Cisidae Cis boleti (Scopoli) Common 1 - Total number of species 107 Mycetophagidae SQS score 4518 SQI rating 484.1 TEC value 63 Triphyllus bicolor (F.) Local 4 3 —=—_—_—_—_—_—— Note: One important species listed in the ISR, Tachinus bipustulatus, an RDB1 Staphylinid, has been omitted from the - list. The record was based on its inclusion in the Report of the Marlborough College Natural History, 1946 (recorded as having been seen on 1 October 1945) but examination of the College collection (see Darby, 2002) has failed to reveal! the specimen, and because it is easily confused with other more common species (and the list was prepared by two pupils who were not Coleoptera specialists) the record cannot be considered reliable. 140 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Table 2: Total numbers of saproxylic species with national conservation status recorded from Savernake. National Criteria for status No of Savernake status species RDBI Endangered - RDB2 Vulnerable - RDB3 Rare (present in<15 10km squares in Britain) 4 RDBI Of RDB status but further information is required for placement in a precise category 1 RDBK Possibly of RDB status but further information is required for confirmation 1 Na Nationally scarce (present in < 30 10km squares in Britain) 4 Nb Nationally scarce (present in <100 10km squares in Britain) 27 (Status taken from Hyman (1992,1994) updated in some instances by Fowles et al., 1999.) Table 3: Total numbers of Index of Ecological Continuity species recorded from Savernake in each grade Source Grade 1 Grade2 Grade 3 Calculated IEC Alexander (1988) 3 1 11 22 Harding and Alexander (1994) 5 3} 12 33 Current paper 7 7 28 63 Table 5: Top twenty sites for which SQI scores have been calculated (Fowles et al. 1994) with Savernake added Site Number of qualifying SQS SQI species New Forest ? ? ? Windsor 365 3092 847.1 Richmond Park 235 1510 642.6 Moccas Park 241 1545 638.4 Croome Park 107 665 621.5 Epping Forest 256 1531 598.0 Abernethy Forest 144 852 591.7 Ashstead Common 222 1300 585.6 Parham Park 65 378 581.5 Arundel Park 131 710 542.0 Box Hill 226 1193 527.9 Dunham Park 151 781 513.8 Black Wood of Rannoch 15 385 51333 Forest of Bere 109 551 505.4 Sherwood Forest 82 412 502.4 Mersham Hatch Estate 115 562 488.7 Lullingstone Park 105 511 4806.7 Savernake Forest 107 518 484.1 Camborne Woods 40 191 477.5 Staverton Park 106 502 473.6 Note: an SQI above 590 is suggested as denoting sites of international importance, and above 500 as denoting sites of national importance. Savernake’s score is lower than that given in Darby, 2001 largely because the species recorded since have had low SQI values. Table 4: Top twenty British ancient broadleaf woodland sites ranked according to the Index of Ecological Continuity (Harding and Alexander, 1994; Lott et al. 1999; updated by KA) with Savernake’s position adjusted Site IEC Windsor Great Park and Forest 236 New Forest 183 Moccas Park 126 Bredon Hill 120 Sherwood Forest 102 Epping Forest 101 Burnham Beeches 94 Richmond Park 85 Ashstead Common 85 Hatchlands Park 82 Hatfield Forest al Calke Park 69 Hainault Forest 69 Epsom Common 68 Clumber Park 67 Chirk Castle Park 67 Knole Park 65 Powis Castle Park 65 Croombe Park 64 Savernake Forest 63 Table 6: IEC applied to selected sites in Wiltshire Site Number of recorded species in each grade IEC 1 2} 3 Savernake Forest 7 7 28 63 Langley Wood 1 4 12 23 Grovely Wood 1 B 9 18 Great Ridge 1 2 5 12 Stourhead Park - - 8 8 Spye Park - 1 5 7 Cranborne Chase - . 6 6 Phillips House, Dinton - - 5 5 Table 7: SQS and SQI applied to selected sites in Wiltshire Site Number of qualifying SQS SQI species Savernake 107 518 484.1 Grovely Wood 43 192 446.5 Great Ridge Wood 37 139 375.6 Langley Wood 51 189 370:5 Cranborne Chase 47 166 353.2 Note: These figures update those given in Darby, 2001. ¥. a — —_——— THE USE OF BEETLES IN EVALUATING THE SAPROXYLIC STATUS OF SAVERNAKE FOREST 141 COMMENT Given the history of Savernake and its management, which has long favoured the retention of dead-wood in situ, the present saproxylic species list is disappointing, both in terms of the number of species recorded and of the lack of rarer species. This is particularly so given the recording effort put in over the last decade. It is surely remarkable, for example, that no RDB1 or RDB2 species have been seen in the Forest. One explanation could be that much of the recording was not specifically aimed at saproxylic species. Thus, although the trapping exercises carried out by English Nature in 1993-1995 resulted in the capture of many thousands of specimens (most, but not all of which have been determined), malaise and intercept traps are not designed to catch dead-wood species in preference to others, and consequently their numbers were low in the samples. Another explanation may lie in the dates when recording took place. The number of species from fungi is lower than might be expected, which could be accounted for by the fact that most effort took place outside the main fungus season. Furthermore, the sorting of the traps does not appear to have picked up the smallest species, which may explain why records of the largest beetle group, the Staphylinoidea, are few. Other absences are more difficult to account for. Several species of Buprestid and Ampedus for example, have been widely recorded from other Wiltshire woods. It is to be hoped that more focussed recording in the future will correct some of these omissions. Savernake’s position in the SQI table of sites puts it just outside nationally important status which is surely not a reflection of its true position. The IEC in contrast places it well within national importance. A more likely explanation lies in the recent management history of the Forest, where commercial timber production has been the priority. Much of the saproxylic beetle fauna is actually warmth loving and is favoured by management systems which promote large open-grown trees. Savernake today is dominated by dense closed canopy plantations, with ancient oaks in particular suffering from heavy shading. Much of the fauna - has been squeezed into a few surviving areas of more open grown trees and it is possible that a significant part of the fauna may already have been pushed to the verge of extinction and beyond. It is important also to take consideration of the composition of the saproxylic beetle fauna of Savernake. Its affinities are more with the New Forest fauna and it is possible that further New Forest specialities may yet be found here. Key species present include Colydium elongatum which is confined to a restricted area of central southern England, primarily Savernake and the New Forest. Ischnomera caerulea is also a great rarity, known elsewhere from Moccas Park (Herefordshire) and a scatter of sites across into Kent. Leptura sexguttata has a very relict distribution in England, and Savernake and the New Forest are key sites. Other important species present in Savernake include Pediacus depressus, Procraerus tibialis and Ptenidium turgidum. This species combination adds to the special importance of Savernake nationally. The surveys conducted by English Nature between 1993-1995, together with the surviving material on the Forest’s history, and the recent, very detailed work on the trees by Jack Oliver and Joan Davies, constitute a rich source of material for future research. This should not only help to throw more light on the specific saproxylic beetle fauna of Savernake, but also on these important faunas elsewhere. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are very grateful to Patrick Cashman at English Nature and Bill Ayres at Forest Enterprises for extracting information about Savernake beetles from their files. To Adrian Fowles we are grateful for advice in regard to specific species. To all the members of WANHS and the Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Office who attended MD’s Savernake saproxylic beetle day we are grateful for their support and encouragement. Bibliography ALEXANDER, K.N.A., 1988. ‘The development of an index of ecological continuity for deadwood associated beetles’ in R.C.Welch, ‘Insect indicators of ancient woodland’, Antenna ,12: 69-70. DARBY, M., 2001. ‘A First Attempt to apply the Saproxylic Quality Index for Coleoptera to Wiltshire’ Recording Wiltshire’s Biodiversity, 6: 7-10. DARBY, M., 2002. ‘A Preliminary Account of the Ladybirds of Wiltshire (Coleoptera:Coccinellidae) including a previously overlooked record of the five spot (Coccinella quinquepuncrata L.)’, WANHM, 95: 125-130. 142 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE FOWLES, A.P., ALEXANDER, K.N.A., and KEY, R., 1999. “The Saproxylic Quality Index: evaluating wooded habitats for the conservation of dead-wood Coleoptera’, The Coleopterist, 8(3): 121-141. HARDING, P. and ALEXANDER, K.N.A. 1994. The use of saproxylic invertebrates in the selection and evaluation of areas of relic forest in pasture woodlands, British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 7(supplement): 21-26 HARDING, P. and ROSE, F., 1986. Pasture- Woodlands in Lowland Britain: a review of their importance for wildlife conservation.Huntingdon: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. HYMAN,P. revised by PARSONS, M., (1992,1994) A Review of the Scarce and Threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. LOTT, D.A., ALEXANDER, K.N.A., DRANE, A.B., and FOSTER, A.P., (1999) “The dead-wood beetles of Croome Park, Worcestershire’, The Coleopterist, 8(2), 79-87. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 143-147 The Friendship between Sir John Thynne junior and John, Baron Stourton of Stourton in Wiltshire: an Account of the Provenance of the Portrait of the 10th Baron Cobham and his Family at Longleat House by Kate Harris The correspondence of John, Baron Stourton (d.s.p.13 October 1588) in the archives at Longleat House and a further document relating to the disposal of goods from neighbouring Stourton for his widow, Frances, daughter of the 10th Baron Cobham, in 1590 can be seen as evidence suggesting that the famous Cobham family portrait of 1567 now at Longleat entered the collection at this early period. The picture of William Brooke, 10th Baron Cob- ham, and his family is among the best known and most studied of the English portraits in the collection of the Marquess of Bath at Longleat.! Dated 1567, usually attributed to the Master of the Countess of Warwick, and full of circumstance and detail betokening the consequence of the sitters, the portrait shows the family of Lord Cobham (1 November 1527-6 March 1597), Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Constable of Dover Castle, Lord Lieutenant of Kent (1558-96), a man nominated Knight of the Garter in 1584 (installed 14 April 1585), who ended his career as Lord Chamberlain (he was appointed in August 1596) and who had earlier served on several embassies. In November 1558 he was sent to Brussels to announce Queen Mary’s death to Philip of Spain, and in 1578 and 1588 he was sent on embassy to the Spanish governor of the Netherlands. He received Elizabeth I at Cobham Hall during her progress in July 1559 and again in September 1573. The portrait shows ~ him with his second wife Frances,” daughter of Sir John Newton of Gloucestershire and one of Elizabeth I’s Ladies of the Bedchamber, whom he married on 25 February 1560. They stand behind a table set with pewter for a dessert of fruit, walnuts and ragged comfits (narrow strips of cinnamon or candied peel coated with sugar in a balancing pan),’ with, seated on the left, Lady Cobham’s sister, Johanna, and, also seated, from left to right their six children. These are the three sons Henry, William and Maximilian, the twin daughters Elizabeth and Frances, and the third daughter Margaret, with their pets, a puppy (signifying Christian aptitude), a marmoset (a reference to the mischief and sin inherent in the child — the monkey is being restrained), a goldfinch (often associated with the Christ child) and a parrot (referring to the child’s capacity for imitation). Lady Cobham’s black velvet gown, profusely decorated with pairs of gold and enamelled aglets, has a high collar above which a small ruff rises and against which is displayed a carcanet of gold jewels set alternately with pearls and square table-cut diamonds with a ship pendant set with diamonds, rubies and a pendent pearl.’ Lord Cobham wears a black cap and black velvet The Estate Office, Longleat, Warminster BA12 7NW 144 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE William Brooke, 10th Baron Cobham and his family, 1567 (copyright Marquess of Bath) gown with a deep fur collar while each of his daughters, in identical green square-necked gowns, has a pair of plain gold chains with a large jewel pinned to the centre of the breast and, tied around the neck beneath the ruff with black ribbon, a gold jewel set with an oval ruby, a table-cut stone and a pendent pearl. A similar jewel is worn by Lady Cobham’s sister but suspended from a black and white enamelled carcanet: she also wears a triple gold chain over her plain black gown with slashed sleeves. The eldest son wears a black velvet doublet embroidered with gold braid and a table cut diamond set in a gold jewel suspended from a black ribbon. The babies wear braid-trimmed white doublets with small buttons on the shoulder wings. When the portrait came to Longleat has always admitted some small doubt; this, despite considerable evidence surviving in the archives there. Turning from the rich circumstance of the picture itself to some more circumstantial documentary evidence not previously discussed would appear to confirm the interpretation that the portrait may indeed have been part of the Longleat collection as early as the sixteenth century. Given the later history of the collection at Cobham Hall in Kent (and the Thynne family’s part in the same), it has never seemed quite certain enough that the reference in the Longleat inventory of 27 September 1594 to a ‘piktur of my Lord Cobham’ described as hanging in the ‘great dyninge Chamber’ referred to the well-known family portrait.° Only in the inventory of 26 February 1718 is the description such as to admit of no argument; for there the portrait, now described amongst the contents of the ‘Blew Parlor’, is specifically called ‘a family Piece’.° Although Longleat Thynne Papers volume XXV contains a significant amount of material about the Cobham Hall sale in 1704, and it is clear that the Thomas Thynne, Ist Viscount Weymouth, the then owner of Longleat, bought a number of paintings at the sale (fourteen pictures of Kings and Queens of England, a portrait of Lord Seymour of Sudeley, and portraits of the King and Queen of Bohemia, all still in the Longleat collection), there THE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN SIR JOHN THYNNE JUNIOR AND JOHN, BARON STOURTON 145 is no mention of the Cobham family portrait and thus nothing to support the fairly obvious supposition that it was at this point that the picture entered the collection at Longleat House. The biography of one of Lord Cobham’s twin daughters, or more specifically the death of her husband, may finally explain the picture’s presence at Longleat. Frances Brooke married first in 1580 John, Baron Stourton of Stourton in Wiltshire less than ten miles from Longleat. Her twin sister Elizabeth was the wife of Sir Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury. A sequence of fourteen letters dating between 31 March 1582 and 20 July 1588 from Lord Stourton and his immediate associates to John Thynne junior (1555-1604), Stourton’s exact contemporary and the son of the builder of Longleat House, indicates not just a relationship based on proximity but very close alliance — both close social relations, and complicity in the parties’ management of county affairs.’ Shared enthusiasms for hawks, hounds and horseflesh are apparent — a request to borrow a ‘Genette’ (jennet, a small Spanish horse) to stud is accompanied by the earnest promise ‘I will cause him to be so well vsed in all respectes as if he were at longleate’ (letter of 25 April 1585). Whether in need of ‘muscle’ to figure in a ‘rumble’, to subdue ‘certayne intollerable disorder and resystaunce not farre frome my howse, contrarye to her Highnes lawes’ or to supply ‘substantiall men’ to pack a court of survey at Martock in Somerset, it was to Thynne that Stourton wrote, more or less urgently for assistance (letters of 13 May 1582 and 1 April 1586). His letter of 15 August 1585 carefully arranged a rendezvous at ‘willoughbies hedge .. . to conferre as we shall thincke good’ before an official meeting at Hindon. The latest letter to survive (dated 25 July 1588) brought hot news from Weymouth about the Spanish Armada: Vppon the retourne of my servante from Waymouthe this maie advertise yow, that the fight at Sea hathe bine great and terrible, and that my Lo. Admirall and Sir ffrancis Drake have taken the vizeadmirall of Spaine beinge a shippe of xij hundred tunne, wherein are the duke of Allva and Don Petro, and lx englishemen, and also one other shippe of vij hundred tunne was taken by Portland . .. And farther my Lo. Admirall and Sir ffr. Drake doe still pursewe the spanishe fleete, vppe alonge the chanell, whiche is thought to be abowte nine score saile. I thought good speedilie to certifie yowe hereof, that knowinge the certainetie yowe maie the better consider what is to be done for her Ma[jes]ties service. It comes as no surprise that John Thynne was one of the advisers to whom Frances, Lady Stourton turned on the early death of her husband soon afterwards on 13 October of the same year. They had no children and Stourton was succeeded by his brother, Edward. That Lady Stourton’s position was problematic, her ‘cash flow’ poor and her affairs in some disarray is clear from the letter of solicitous paternal advice she received from Baron Cobham. Significantly enough still in the Longleat collection, dated ‘from my howse at London’ and directed to ‘my verie loving Doughter the Ladie Stowreton’, it reads:® (f.1r] My very good doughter I have receved your letter, and am glad to vnderstand therby that you are soe adviced in the disposing of your estate. Neverthelesse yf these poinctes be rightly consideride they are to be regarded as thinges reasonable and fitt for you to doe. namely That althoughe my Lo. Sturton that nowe is hathe enteride vpon the leases bequeathed, yet yf you have not alreadie given your consent therevnto, I thincke yt meete that you staie to give your consent: for the causes sett downe in my former direction. The selling of some partes of the goodes towardes the charges of the funerall is no waie preiudiciall vnles they be sold vnderfoote to your losse. The receipte of suche rentes as were due to my Lo. are not hurtefull soe that they be imployed accordingly. It is not meant to bring your writt of dower, unles it appeere vpon the vewe of my Lo. Lyving that the same shalbe more beneficeall vnto you then your Ioincture nether was it otherwiese meant / but for your commoditie. I praie you send mee a perfect inventorie of all the goodes in particuler. and the severall valuation of them. wherin the leases most be compriced. I woulde have you at some convenient time in good sort to let my Lo. and the rest that be there with you vnderstand of your determinacion to breake vp your howse, and to come to London. Althoughe your Servaunte at his being heere, did sell your plate, wherof he said nothing vnto mee: yet I was faine to paie the herault xv." in prest vpon his fees. Mr Brean hath ben heere but I did not see him. [f.1v] These vnkinde partes makes mee doubt of their good dealing whome you putt in trust for your business, my care is, that all maie be done for the best. 146 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE You are not to paie anie Legacies, or to promise the payment of anie, before the debtes be aunsweride or order taken with creditors for them. Therefore you shall not haue any suche neede of money whiles you are there. But yf any debtes be due vpon specialltie with penaltie let them to whome the same is due come vp to London. and heere they shall receve it, for I have it not before that time. I praie you send one expressely to let mee knowe when I shall send your brother and Coache horses for you. which verie willingly I will doe. I have procured you a lodging hard by mee. Which I doe reserve vntill I knowe your resolucion. Therefore I praie you faile not to let mee knowe what you are determined to doe, and that as soone as you can. Thus praying All mightie god alwaies to blesse you. I commett you to his protectione. from my howse at London the xxiiij “ of Novembre 1588. Your loving father./ Cobham It is the notice of the disposal of some of Lady Stourton’s goods which catches the attention in the present context. Some further detailed evidence of a disposal of goods also survives in the form of a list of items at Stourton sold for Lady Stourton in 1590.° It confirms also that John Thynne was directly involved in the appraisal and sale of goods at Stourton. Analysis of the list suggests that the pieces sold came largely from the armoury and the wardrobe. It does not mention the Cobham portrait, or, indeed, any item of that quality and condition (many, if not most items are variously described as worn out, dilapidated, bent, rusty, in some cases specifically as unsaleable) and is not presented as more than circumstantial support for the idea that this famous Elizabethan family portrait arrived at Longleat soon after the death of John, Lord Stourton. Crucially, however, it does include on the second folio a second very short list noticing discrepancies between a list or ‘note’ drawn up by one Edward Rogers and another (unfortunately not surviving) drawn up by none other than ‘Mr Thynne’. Accompanied by some glosses to assist particularly in the identification of the more arcane terms for armour and weaponry, the document, presented here in conclusion, reads in its entirety: [f.1r] A note of Stuffe sowld at Stowrton 1590 for ye Ladye Stowrton In primis ij Cheyres of cloth of gowld and one lowe Cheyer of tuftafata!® verye owld andtorne xxs Item 1 stooles covered with owld velvet two with tuftafata ij Lowe stooles of clothe of golde worne out and two lowe stooles of tafata and a verye badd Cuisshion of nedle worke all =_xxs Item a payer of Irone andyrons and a payer of lytell Dogges vs Item a bead steede a fetherbead bowlster rugge with blanketes and curtens of grene clothe all vii Item a cloth of gowld Cuishon a Cheyer and Cushing of nedle worke all torne and worne out’ xxxs Item xxvij morrus pyckes!!' croked and mard with lying XXXS Item for fyrre boordes xxs Item ij coberdes and a table of ashe vnfynished —_xvs Item a cheyer of clothe of gold verye badd ij lowe cheyres of damaske worne out and ij chestes_ xxvjs viijd Item lyght horsmen staves xij and iij launces broke and croked xs Item iiijor whit Corstlettes'? and headpeces © iiij li Item nyne whyt morryens" and nyne blacke wherof many broken xls Item xv) Jackes'* many of which ar mard with rotes and ruste vjli Item xl “ blacke byll heades verye owlde = xvs Item xx "* Calyvers'? with flaskes and vj horsmens peces but verye muche spoyled with rust x li Item gownpowder 1 li Item a payer of wooll wayghtes and a payer of owld troye wayghtes _iijs ilijd Item pysstooles fyve and iij payer of gauntes but verye badd = xxxs Item a payer of trunkes vnbound _ xviijd Itemapresse xs Item fyve payer of almon ryvettes'® which I cannot sell nll Item a owld payer of virginall which I cannott sell nll Item a turkeye carpett delivered to ye lord Stowrton one your letter Item iij owld peces of bocasse’’ not in ye Inventorye Summa totalis xlij li vjs vjd Item to be alowed i1j li x1ij s vjd soe muche due to me one ye fote of last account ili xiij s nijd More for a sylver plate engraven with armes lost at ye Lord stowrtons buryall ij li vjs viijd More in redye monye delivered to Edward your servant in August 1590 xxl Summa xxvijj li [f.2r] The dyfference betwixt Mr Thynnes note and Edward Rogers THE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN SIR JOHN THYNNE JUNIOR AND JOHN, BARON STOURTON 147 Item Cushyens Cheyres and stooles _ vj(?) I sylke quilte a payer of blanketes and tester Item a canapye of tafata Item a boord to stand in a chamber with a draer in Item five peices of arras Item a payer of tonges and fyer shoole Item xxv hogshedes Item a great glasen bottle Item certayne walnut tymber Item two peces of carpytes to lye in wyndoes Item a payer of andyrons Item a myll to myll wheat Item a fanne to wynnoe wheat Item a cobeard Item two peces of blacke armor Item a deske to kepe wrytynges in Item all the matche for ye calyers Item a great chest covered with blacke lether Item a gantlett Notes 'Three times exhibited even in recent years, the portrait was included in the exhibitions “The Treasure Houses of Britain’, National Gallery of Art Washington, 3 November 1985-16 March 1986, no.25; ‘Childhood: a Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Works of Art in Aid of The Save the Children Fund’, London, Sotheby’s, 2-27 January 1988, no.16; and ‘Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630’, London, Tate Gallery, 12 October 1995-7 January 1996, no.51. A useful bibliography will be found accompanying the account of the picture in the last. ? He married first Dorothy daughter of George Nevill: for a differing identification of the sitters see most recently Susan James and Katlijn van der Sughelen ‘New Discoveries concerning the Portrait of the Family of William Brooke, 10th Lord Cobham, at Longleat House’, Dutch Crossing: a Journal of Low Countries Studies, 23, 1999, pp.66-101. 3 Tvan Day ed., Eat Drink & Be Merry: the British at Table 1600-2000, (to accompany the touring exhibition held at Fairfax House, York; Kenwood House, London and the Assembly House in Norwich) London, 2000, p.56. 4 The profusion of precious-metal fastenings and ornaments depicted in the portrait prompted its inclusion in the recent interdisciplinary case study examining both excavated finds and contemporary iconographic and documentary sources: David Gaimster, Maria Hayward, David Mitchell and Karen Parker “Tudor Silver-gilt Dress-hooks: a New Class of Treasure Find in England’, The Antiquaries Journal, 82, 2002, pp.157-196 (see fig.18 and p.180). > Longleat, Thynne Papers LIII f.96r. No other portrait (extant or recorded) of the family or any member of it can be associated with Longleat. °Thynne Papers LX XVII f.142r; see also Thynne Papers LXXIX (Box XXXII) inventory of 23 September 1719, f.153r, 66 ‘Blew parlour’ ‘Lord Cobham a family piece’ and also 2nd Viscount Weymouth 215 15/09/1740 room 79 (Billiard Room and Passage) ‘a Lord Cobhams Family Piece’. ? Longleat North Muniment Room 8963.3. ® Longleat North Muniment Room 8963.26. ° Longleat North Muniment Room 8963.25. '0 “Tuftaffeta’: as the name implies, a kind of taffeta with a pile or nap. '! “Morris-pike’: a form of pike supposed to be of Moorish origin. '2 “Corslet’: light half armour (collar, breastplate, backplate, tassets, vambraces, gauntlets). '5 *Morion’: a helmet (development of the kettle-hat), favoured by infantry, especially archers and musketeers who found the open headpiece offered no impediment when taking aim, in its most distinctive shape with down turned brim narrowing to a pointed beak at rear and front and rising to a lobe-shaped comb (whence ‘comb-morion’). Also “Spanish-morion’ which differed, having a distinctive pointed, almond-shaped skull. '4 ack’: body protection usually for the lightly armed foot soldier, small plates of iron or horn secured between layers of canvas by a trellis work of stitches —a few years later replaced by the buff coat (a jerkin of buff leather). *Caliver’: light musket. ‘6 “Almain rivet’: usually a cheaper form of the corslet, half armour for the ordinary soldier comprising salet (helmet), gorget (collar), breastplate, backplate and splints to protect the arms and back of the hands: the latter appear to have been the distinctive feature of this equipment and in the Stourton list the reference to ‘pairs of Almain rivets’ suggests that it is actually just the splints that are meant. '7 Possibly ‘bocasin’ a fine buckram often used for lining. 148 : THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 2. The Westbury White Horse. NMR 21457/05 17-Sep-2001. © English Heritage. NMR Please note that Figs. 1, 7, 8, 9 and 11 accompanying this paper will be found between pages 154 and 155 Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 148-160 From Pit Circles to Propellers: Recent Results from Aerial Survey in Wiltshire by Martyn Barber, Damian Grady and Helen Winton Given the long and distinguished history of aerial photography in Wiltshire some archaeologists may be forgiven for thinking that aerial photographs are unlikely to reveal new information. This paper examines new discoveries from recent aerial reconnaissance during some of the wettest years on record and highlights the understanding that can be achieved from the interpretation and mapping of aerial photographs taken over the last 80 years. INTRODUCTION In the last few years both the aerial reconnaissance and mapping teams of the Aerial Survey section of English Heritage have been active within Wiltshire. The wet weather over the last few summers has not been conducive to the development of cropmarks in the county, indeed the summer of 2002 could arguably be described as the worst year for cropmarks in living memory. Yet despite the paucity of cropmarks there have been some new discoveries, most notably at the West Kennet palisaded enclosures. In 2001, as part of National Mapping Project (Bewley 2001), the air photographic interpretation and mapping of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site was completed. A report on the mapping of the area within the boundaries of the World Heritage Site (WHS) will be the subject of another publication (Crutchley forthcoming a), but aspects of the archaeological landscape outside the WHS will be examined in this paper. AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE HIGHLIGHTS 2000-2002 From 2000 to 2002 a number of sorties were undertaken over Wiltshire covering all the landscape zones of the county and assessing the potential for cropmark development. Overall the number of cropmarks recorded has been very low and of these few have been new discoveries. The principal reason for this lack of cropmarks has been the record amount of rainfall during the winter and crucial summer months. Even when the rain has not been falling, the numerous overcast days have precluded effective aerial photography. At one point there were more crop circles than cropmarks in the Avebury area. Occasionally good concentrations of cropmarks did appear, most notably in the Avon Valley south of Salisbury in July 2001 when numerous ring ditches of varying forms were recorded. Photography from the Avon valley flights has yet to be fully evaluated, but a number of these ring ditches appear to be newly discovered. On 21 June 2001 two new enclosures were discovered (SU 108663) to the south of West Kennet. On the 1 August 2001 both enclosures were photographed again when the cropmarks were much clearer, revealing a rectangular enclosure, with an entrance on its south east side, and a curvilinear enclosure (Figure 1). The enclosures are situated either side of a dry valley, which eventually opens out in to the Kennet valley near the West Kennet palisaded enclosures. The enclosures appear to lie within an area of fragmented prehistoric field system, which was mapped as part of the Avebury Aerial Survey, English Heritage, NMRC, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2GZ 150 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 3. Liddington Hillfort looking south-east following repairs to erosion scars. Since this photograph was taken more repairs have taken place on the south side which have also been photographed. NMR 18971/17 12-Jan-2001 © English Heritage. NUR World Heritage Site Mapping project (Small 1999). The field system is not immediately obvious on the new photography, so it could be assumed that the banks of the field system have been ploughed away exposing the ditches of earlier enclosures. The banks of the field system that possibly overlie the rectilinear enclosure would appear to respect the enclosure ditches, implying that the enclosure was still visible when the field system was created. The element of the field system that overlies the curvilinear enclosures would appear to ignore the presence of the earlier feature (Crutchley forthcoming b). Deciding on a date and function for these enclosures on current evidence is difficult. If morphology is FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE 151 an indicator of date, the curvilinear enclosure could be part of a prehistoric settlement which may have been contemporary with some elements of the nearby field systems. The rectilinear enclosure is just as difficult to date, but need not be contemporary with the curvilinear enclosure. On the east side of the curvilinear enclosure the ditch curves inwards slightly, which seems to reflect the entrance of the rectangular enclosure across the valley. Could the fact that both enclosures appear to face each other allude to some ritual significance with one enclosure being positioned to respect the other, or could both entrances provide access to a spring in the valley which may have been of practical and/or ritual significance? Only with further evidence and analysis will we be able to answer such questions. While the search for cropmarks is an important aspect of English Heritage reconnaissance work, the last 10-15 years has seen an increase in demand for aerial photography of other types of sites, most notably from architectural colleagues (within English Heritage) to aid research and understanding in urban centres and large building complexes. Buildings associated with the Wiltshire textile industry have been the focus of attention from the late 1990s. More recently, the updating of the national Parks and Gardens Register has led to a request from the Designed Landscapes team of English Heritage for new aerial photography of the most important landscaped parks in Wiltshire. So, when conditions have allowed, the overall landscape design, surviving earthworks, formal gardens and follies have been recorded. Whenever possible opportunities are taken to work in partnership with other organisations. This may involve anything from photographing an excavation to monitoring areas for cropmarks. A major partnership project in 2001 was Timescape Wiltshire organised by the Wiltshire County Council Archaeology Service. The aim of the project was to provide all Wiltshire schools with a CD about the archaeology of the county and English Heritage was asked to supply digital video images of the county’s major monuments from the air. There was a steep learning curve to using a hand held digital camera to produce broadcast quality video footage, but eventually there were enough calm, bright winter days to enable the majority of sites to be filmed from the air, creating a valuable resource for illustration and training purposes. An important ongoing task for aerial reconnaissance is the monitoring of the condition of key monuments in the county from the air. The Westbury White Horse was photographed soon after the recent cleaning process got under way (Figure 2), as was the adjacent Bratton Camp in advance of repairs to the scars on the ramparts. As well as detailed ground survey (Bowden 2001) aerial photographs were taken in advance of and after the repairs to the eroded ramparts of Liddington Hill Fort (Figure 3). Aerial photography has also been one of the many techniques used to monitor the condition of Silbury Hill following the collapse of the 1776 shaft dug by the Duke of Northumberland. Every change in the condition of Silbury Hill has been recorded from the air, from immediately after the hole appeared to the stabilisation of the hole with polystyrene blocks and chalk capping. When the hole first appeared weather conditions were far from ideal for aerial photography, but the need for reconnaissance was paramount. It was during one such flight in low lighting conditions that the south- eastern part of one of the West Kennet palisaded enclosures was seen as a cropmark. Given the amount of rainfall in the previous months, the position of the enclosures so close to the river Kennet and the lack of other cropmarks in the vicinity, it was a surprise to see any cropmarks in the area let alone significant new features. LATE NEOLITHIC PALISADED ENCLOSURES AND ASSOCIATED FEATURES AT WEST KENNET FARM, NEAR AVEBURY The existence of the enclosures (see figure 4 for location) was first brought to the attention of the wider world in the late 1980s through excavations by Alasdair Whittle of Cardiff University (Whittle 1997), those excavations forming part of a broader programme of research focusing on the prehistory of the Avebury region (see for example Whittle 1993, 1994, 1997; Whittle et al. 1999). The site, or rather a small part of it, had first been observed on an aerial photograph taken in 1950 by J.K. St Joseph. On that photograph, the two concentric palisade ditches of Enclosure 1 show clearly as cropmarks in the field south of the River Kennet and east of Gunsight Lane (Figure 5, Field 1). However, the archaeological significance of these cropmarks was not appreciated at the time. 152 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Avebury Silbury Hill , ge Remt 3 Li OR @> ; ee. é West Kennet. Sanctuary enclosures Fig. 4. The location of the West Kennet enclosures in relation to the other major later Neolithic monuments in the immediate vicinity. ©English Heritage. NUR In 1971 (R. Cleal pers. comm.), while undertaking a watching brief along the course of a pipeline, Faith Vatcher, then curator of the Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury, noted the presence of two ditches containing what looked like large post-pipes with sarsen packing and charcoal. Other features nearby were associated with worked flint, animal bone and a single potsherd of late Neolithic Grooved Ware. However, no further investigation of the site occurred, and it was not until 1987 that trial excavation was undertaken at the site by Alasdair Whittle following the realisation that the features recorded by Vatcher almost certainly coincided with the cropmarks visible on St Joseph’s photograph. Between 1987 and 1992, a combination of aerial photography, geophysical survey and excavation saw the known extent of the complex increase dramatically, primarily to the west as Enclosure 2 and its associated internal and external features were identified, and also to the north as excavations by the Trust for Wessex Archaeology (Wessex Archaeology 1989;Whittle 1997, 66-9) showed that an arc of ditch probably belonging to Enclosure 1 existed on the other side of the River Kennet. Meanwhile, a ditch running south-east from Enclosure 2 seemed to connect the complex with another circular cropmark feature (Structure 4) some 240m away. Whittle’s excavations comprised a series of trenches across the main enclosure ditches, plus additional trenches across some of the internal features within Enclosure 2. Enclosure 1 was shown to be sub-circular, measuring up to 240m across, and defined (to the south of the river at least) by two concentric ditches up to 35m apart. Each ditch had held a palisade comprising oak timbers up to 0.40m in diameter and standing to a height of perhaps six metres or more above the surface. Enclosure 2 is more elliptical in shape, probably measuring around 340m across its longer northwest-southeast axis, and a minimum of 200m in width. The enclosing ditch was markedly similar in character to the concentric palisade ditches defining Enclosure 1. Enclosure 2 was shown to contain, towards its south eastern end, three further sub-circular structures, each containing an inner and outer concentric circuit. These for the most part also held timber palisades. Radiocarbon dates obtained from features across the whole complex focus on the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, placing the enclosures towards the end of the Neolithic, though at a time when the first copper and bronze metalwork was appearing in southern Britain. Apart from a single sherd of Middle Neolithic Peterborough Ware, the associated pottery was exclusively Grooved Ware — no Beaker or Early Bronze Age ceramics were encountered. Consequently, establishing a sequence of construction, use and abandonment or destruction has proved particularly difficult. Radiocarbon dates from different features overlap considerably, but the complex clearly has the appearance of being multi-phase. Whittle (1997, 156) suggested that the ‘best guess may be that the enclosures were constructed and used in succession, perhaps overlapping, within a cycle of a few generations’. West Kennet and air photo interpretation The West Kennet enclosures serve to emphasize a number of key concerns connected with cropmark interpretation. As the 37-year gap between St Joseph’s photograph and Whittle’s excavations make clear, the significance of features visible from the air is not always appreciated at the time. Even more remarkable is the fact that part of Enclosure 2 is clearly visible as a cropmark on a photograph taken before the Second World War (NMR AP ref. SU 1068/9, OGS Crawford Collection, National Monuments Record. Photo taken, not necessarily by Crawford, sometime between 1925 and 1938: G Hall pers. comm.). The site also underlines the need for aerial reconnaissance to revisit even apparently well-known cropmark sites. The site plan published in the excavation report (Whittle 1997, fig. 28) is a composite drawn from several years’ FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE 153 1997) = | —| Watching brief “1989 Excavations =} \ y/ j/ West Kennet Farm Inner radial — =a ditches T&2°| \ \ Palisade Structure x é < i= 1 a ; | pe Structure 2:10 as Outer radial ditch 2 Palisade enclosure 2 Structure 1 Field 1 Outer radial ditch 3 IN \ Outer radial ditch 1 PX a Field 3 \ P56. \ Ay Plough levelled round | barrows | Structure 3 Gunsight eae ~ “ie ae =e a Metres Fig. 5. The current extent of the West Kennet complex, pies \ y with an enlarged view of the detail visible at the north end of Field 1. Archaeological features are highlighted in green. Most are plotted from air photographs, though . x some additional detail has been taken from geophysical Structure 3 rN x ~ : surveys and excavation plans. The labelling of individual ‘ce Putte coro, features follows that used by Whittle (1997), with new i ce features numbered accordingly. © English Heritage. NMR. Map background reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale, — Crown copyright reserved. Structure 1 excavation and geophysical survey, but owes much >) to aerial reconnaissance and photography from } J 1950 to 1992. Since Whittle’s excavations ended, new detail has continued to appear sporadically as cropmarks, with the summer of 2000 being particularly productive (for Field 2 at least). Furthermore, it is important to remember that air photo interpretation is itself a highly subjective process, particularly in an area such as this. 154 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Although the broad outlines of the main features are relatively clear, the finer detail is more problematic, particularly given the local soils. For all three fields concerned, frequent darker patches of deeper soil either obscure archaeological cropmarks or prevent their formation completely. In some places, it is extremely difficult to decide whether darker patches visible on the photographs are of archaeological or natural origin. What’s new? The complex as known to circa 1992 is fully described in the final excavation report (Whittle 1997). The site plan published there (ibid., fig. 28) should be compared with Figure 5 here in order to appreciate the extent of additions and alterations. Here it is only intended to describe features recognised since 1992 and their implications for understanding the complex as a whole. 41 photographs taken in May and July 2000 provided the bulk of the new detail. The principal ‘new’ features are as follows: ilk A small pit or post-circle located between the inner and outer palisade ditches of Enclosure 1. The circle is about 9.5m in maximum external diameter and features clear gaps in its circuit to the north-west and south-west. The cropmarks are not clearly defined, but a minimum of 21 pits can be counted. The size and form of the circle resemble the inner ring of Structure 2 within Enclosure 2. Excavated in 1992, that ring was of similar size and comprised up to 22 post-pits with a clear entrance gap on the south side. The large sub-rectangular feature east of the ‘new’ post-circle is difficult to interpret, but need not be contemporary with the late Neolithic features. 2: Additional detail associated with Inner Radial Ditches 1 and 2 inside Enclosure 2. The ditch of Enclosure 2 itself now appears to feature an entrance, possibly flanked by larger terminal posts, roughly midway between the two radial ditches. The funnel shape formed by the two radials is crossed by two further lengths of ditch, each of these also featuring an entrance. The western cross-ditch again has large terminal post-pits on either side of this entrance. The cropmark of the eastern cross- ditch is not defined with sufficient clarity to be sure that a similar entrance arrangement exists there. Interestingly, the three entrances do not align perfectly, and so would not have provided a clear line of sight into or out of the enclosure. 3. A ‘new’ enclosure (Structure 5) exists at the southern end of Gunsight Lane, apparently connected to Enclosure 2 by a straight radial ditch running south east from the latter. The course of this ditch cannot be seen in its entirety, but Outer Radial Ditch 1 can now be seen to pursue an unbroken course (except where crossed by Gunsight Lane) between Enclosure 2 and Structure 4. It may be therefore that Structure 5 was also connected to Enclosure 2 by a continuous radial ditch. If so, its length would be c.220m. Intriguingly, as it approaches the outer ditch of Enclosure 2 this radial ditch appears to turn northwards and continue into Enclosure 2’s interior. On present evidence, it is impossible to be certain but Structure 3 may butt up against a continuation of this ditch, while Structure 2 overlaps it, although this would need confirmation by geophysical survey or excavation. Structure 5, meanwhile, is partly obscured by substantial farm buildings. It is far from being a perfect circle, but the visible cropmarks suggest a diameter of around 90m. Off-centre and equally irregular in outline is an inner enclosure measuring a minimum of 40m across. There appears to be a gap in this inner circuit facing north west although it is not clear if this is genuine. The inner enclosure contains a number of large pit-like features arranged in no discernible order. Given the nature of the soil conditions, it is impossible to be sure, but few if any such pits appear to lie in the area between the inner and outer enclosure ditches. 4, Outer Radial Ditch 2 is a curving length of ditch that appears to connect Enclosure 1 with Enclosure 2. However, the photographs taken in 2000 show this ditch continuing across the outer ditch of Enclosure 1, where it can be traced for 10 metres or so before the cropmark merges with darker soil against the edge of the field. Consequently it is impossible to judge whether or not it continues to meet the inner ditch of the enclosure. 5s A narrow ditch runs roughly parallel with and south of the inner ditch of Enclosure 1. Bisected at one point by another narrow ditch, it is impossible to trace this feature with any certainty into Field 1. Consequently it cannot at present be directly associated with any components of the Late Neolithic complex. Discussion The new features revealed by English Heritage aerial reconnaissance have offered more detail and raised more questions about the functions and phasing of an already complex site. There are, additionally, some hints that more awaits discovery, particularly in the field south of Field 1, which contains glimpses of straight, linear features and, at its southern edge, a further double concentric circular enclosure. It is also possible, though far from certain, that Outer Radial Ditch 1 continues to the south east beyond Structure 4. FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE Fig. 1. New enclosures discovered in 2001 situated either side of a dry valley. Photograph taken looking south. NUR 21271/20 01-Aug-2001. © English Heritage. NUR Fig. 7. Archaeological features (banks in red, ditches in green) between Ogbury Hillfort (bottom left) and Amesbury Down (top right). A field system is situated in the interior of the fort. A large ditched enclosure to the south west of Salisbury Clumps is linked to a network of linear ditches which passes through remnants of prehistoric field systems and appears to use prehistoric funerary monuments as markers. © English Heritage. NMR. Map background reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:10000 maps SU 13 NW and SU 13 NE, Crown copyright reserved. THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Hooklands “ij Plantation a) > work = C Go Ris Smitshen , Mase Police Iralass Station Fig. 8. Archaeological features on Woodford and Smithen Downs (banks in red, ditches in green). Extensive prehistoric field systems are situated around the enclosure on Heale Hill. The possible Roman villa or late Iron Age viereckschanze is near the top left of the map. Post medieval water meadows can be seen in the valley bottom by Woodford village in the lower right of the map. © English Heritage. NMR. Map background reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:10000 map SU 13 NW, Crown copyright reserved. FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE Fig. 9. Archaeological features between Amesbury Down and the River Bourne (banks in red, ditches in green). Prehistoric or Roman ditched enclosures are linked by a series of linear ditches. Possible aggregate field systems are situated north of Cusse’s Gorse in the centre-left of the map. © English Heritage. NMR. Map background reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:10000 map SU 13 NE, Crown copyright reserved. THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 11. Possible settlement enclosures, linear ditches and field systems to the north-west of Druid’s Lodge (banks in red, ditches in green). © English Heritage. NMR. Map background reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:10000 maps SU 03 NE and SU 13 NW, Crown copyright reserved. FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE itis 35) Much of the interior of Enclosure 2 remains seemingly empty, with cropmark evidence currently providing only the merest hint that archaeological features lie among the darker patches of soil. Meanwhile, most of Enclosure 1 lies outside of arable land altogether and we are presumably reliant on further planning applications, such as that which led to confirmation of the presence of a palisade ditch west of Gunsight Lane in 1997 (Eyre-Morgan 1997), to discover what lies north of the river. Perhaps the most eye-catching feature of the recent photography is the circle of pits or post-holes between the palisade ditches of Enclosure 1. The clarity of the cropmark is particularly surprising given the absence of this feature on earlier photographs, even though other features in the vicinity were clearly visible. Of the circle itself, little else can be said at present, though clearly it would be useful to know its chronological relationships with nearby features including the inner and outer palisades of Enclosure 1. An increasingly common theme being explored among the landscapes of the later Neolithic concerns the presence of formalised approaches to or pathways between monuments of the period. At Avebury, as is well-known, such prescribed routes occur on a considerable scale. The sarsen-lined West Kennet Avenue, for example, is presumed to pass by the palisade complex a short distance to the north-east en route between the Sanctuary and Avebury itself. The smaller ‘funnel’ formed by Inner Radial Ditches 1 and 2 echoes in miniature such constructions, although a better parallel might be the post-screens and the post-defined approach leading to the northern timber circle within the Durrington Walls henge (Wainwright and Longworth 1971; Barrett 1994, fig. 1.10), or the posthole structures associated with Stonehenge’s southern entrance (Cleal et al. 1995, 1604-5, 483). In the case of West Kennet Enclosure 2, it appears that passage through the entrance in the enclosure’s outer ditch marked the beginning of a journey towards Structure 3, a double concentric feature comprising an outer and inner ring of timbers with a single substantial upright post within the central area. Whittle’s 1997 plan depicts an entrance gap on the eastern side of the outer circuit of Structure 3, aligning broadly but not exactly with the staggered openings through the cross-ditches. Although a similar gap is shown on the plan presented here, it is important to stress that this is not because a genuine break appears in the cropmark at that point, but because the cropmark evidence is obscured by vehicle tracks and crop damage. Neither an entrance nor a continuous ditch can be assumed on the basis of the available photographs. Only excavation can confirm how much of the complex comprises timber palisades. Virtually all of the features examined so far held substantial and continuous walls or screens of oak, and it would be intriguing to discover if the same applies to Structures 4 and 5 and to Outer Radial Ditch 3, for example. If so, and if contemporary, then Outer Radial Ditches 1 and 3 might have a formed a massive funnel-like approach to Enclosure 2, though the possibility that Outer Radial Ditch 3 crosses into Enclosure 2 clearly raises questions about phasing; likewise the indications that Outer Radial Ditch 2 continues beyond the outer ditch of Enclosure 1. Does it in fact terminate at that enclosure’s inner ditch? As noted above, understanding how the complex developed has proved difficult on the basis of the excavation results. The new cropmark evidence, while not providing any clear answers, has nonetheless underlined the extent to which this was a multi-phase complex rather than a single planned entity. Palisade-defined enclosures are an increasingly widely recognised phenomenon of the British later Neolithic (e.g. Whittle 1997, 158-63; Thomas 2001) and beyond (e.g. Gibson 2002), many of them characterised by the complexity and structural elaboration that also characterises the West Kennet site. The features depicted can be seen to represent a series of major constructional events that repeatedly influenced and altered the ways in which the complex as a whole and individual parts of it could be used and understood, a role also performed for us today by the results of continued aerial reconnaissance. ASPECTS OF THE STONEHENGE WORLD HERITAGE SITE MAPPING PROJECT The primary aim of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site mapping project was to provide an up-to-date interpretation and map of all the archaeology visible on aerial photographs, in advance of the development of the new Stonehenge visitor centre and the tunnelling of the A303. A full report on the 156 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE project will be produced in due course (Crutchley forthcoming a), but this will concentrate largely on the management aspects of the project dealing only with certain examples of archaeology which will be most affected by the proposed developments. As the air photographic interpretation progressed it was felt that there would be some merit in highlighting the archaeological landscapes to the south of the well-studied areas of the Stonehenge environs (RCHME 1979, Cleal et al. 1995, Crutchley forthcoming a), which might otherwise be overlooked. The Stonehenge WHS survey consulted thousands of specialist oblique aerial photographs and historic vertical photographs held by the National Monuments Record (NMR), Wiltshire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) and Cambridge University. The photographs were interpreted, rectified and synthesised to produce a digital map, at 1:10,000 scale, of all archaeological features dating from prehistory to the Second World War. The interpretative information has also been recorded in the NMR’s archaeological database and incorporated into the county SMR. ‘The area under discussion comprises a 15 x 5km block of land which includes the southern tip of the WHS. This area of chalk downland is cut roughly north-south by three river valleys, of the Till and Wylye on the west side, the Avon in the centre and the Bourne on the east (Figure 6), which all flow off the uplands of Salisbury Plain. The land use in the second half of the 20th century has been large- scale arable cultivation. This has major implications for archaeological survey: there is much less opportunity for the kind of detailed earthwork survey carried out on the Salisbury Plain (McOmish et al. 2002), with the notable exceptions of the Medieval settlement at Wilsford cum Lake (RCHME 1986), the prehistoric enclosures at Ebsbury Hill. (Corney 1989), Heale Hill (RCHME 1988a) and Ogbury (RCHME 1988b), as well as the few barrows still extant on Lake Down. The arable fields, however, do reveal a wealth of sub- surface archaeological features as cropmarks. The archaeology in the area between the rivers Wylye and Bourne could be described as typical of the Wessex chalk downland. Hilltops and slopes are covered in prehistoric and/or Roman field systems interspersed with prehistoric settlements and Bronze Age funerary monuments. The medieval and post medieval settlement is along the river valleys, with the flood plains almost entirely given over to water meadows. Rivers Salisbury Plain WHS Training Area Newly mapped boundary area Fig. 6. General location diagram showing the relationship between the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and the newly mapped areas to the south. © English Heritage. NMR The remainder of this paper will concentrate, however, on the prehistoric and possible Roman remains found as part of the survey. Using the Salisbury Plain survey (McOmish et al. 2002) as a comparison, the form, distribution and challenges of dating and attempting to understand cropmark landscapes will be discussed. Prehistoric field systems The dating of prehistoric or so-called ‘Celtic’ fields has been much discussed (McOmish et al. 2002, 51-6). Research so far points to the creation of field systems on the chalk downlands of Wessex from the Bronze Age, for example on the Marlborough Downs (Gingell 1992) and parts of the Salisbury Plain, through to the Romano British period, as found on the Lambourn Downs (Bowden et al. 1993). The field systems in the area to the south of the World Heritage Site, between the rivers Till and Bourne are difficult to date mainly because of their poor state of preservation. The mid to late 20th-century practice of cross ploughing has also made identification of early field systems difficult as the plough patterns sometimes persist through several years as cropmarks and can FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE Dif, have a similar appearance to ploughed out ancient fields. The field systems in the survey area are diverse in character, in contrast to the extensive and seemingly regimented northeast-southwest orientated coaxial systems on Salisbury Plain. Some possible examples of the earliest type of ‘coaxial’ fields identified on the Plain (McOmish et al. 2002, 55), can be seen to the south west of the hilltop enclosure at Heale Hill and inside the large enclosure on Ogbury Hill (Figures 7-8). Examples of fields comparable to the ‘aggregate’ fields on the Plain (McOmish et al. 2002, 56) can be seen around Cusses’s Gorse (Figure 9) and these could be an example of a system which has been re-modelled over a number of years. The re-use and adaptation of the earlier ‘coaxial’ field systems seems to have been a common occurrence on the Salisbury Plain (McOmish et al. 2002, 54-6). Many of the fields to the south of Stonehenge appear to have been enlarged, for example those on Lake Down and Stapleford Down, and could be compared to those on the periphery of the field systems in the SPTA at Orcheston Down (McOmish et al. 2002, 54). Where they appear as parallel lynchets on some of the steeper slopes in the river valleys, for example to the east of Heale Hill (Figure 8), it is possible that parts of the prehistoric fields have been ploughed and adapted during the medieval or post- medieval periods. The variety of form suggests that although the field systems to the south of Stonehenge are almost certainly prehistoric, perhaps Bronze Age, in origin, they do not, however, seem as extensive or as organised as those on the Plain. This could be because they had a more piecemeal development through later prehistory and in some areas may have been altered in the Roman and/or medieval periods. Prehistoric linear boundaries The other major method of land division recorded as part of the survey, and common in Wessex, is the substantial ditched boundary, sometimes called a ‘ranch’ boundary (McOmish et al. 2002, 56-66). Comparisons with excavated evidence and detailed analysis of earthworks elsewhere in Wessex suggests that this type of boundary dates from the late 2nd millennium BC, with re-working or construction carrying on through the Ist millennium BC (McOmish et al. 2002, 61; Corney 1989; Ford 1982). The boundaries mapped to the south of Stonehenge were all defined by single ditches and the dating of these features can be problematic except where they have a clear stratigraphic relationship with more securely dated features. Where a possible relationship is visible between the system of boundaries and the field systems to the south of Stonehenge it is not clear which is the earlier feature. For example, where a boundary passes through the field system at Cusse’s Gorse (Figure 9), and also near Salisbury Clumps (Figure 7), it is unclear if the ditch follows the line of the lynchets or vice versa. In contrast, many of the boundaries and enclosures, especially between Amesbury Down and Winterbourne Gunner (Figure 9), appear to be contemporary and further investigation of the relationships between these features could prove useful. S z =) aN » “ \ rN > a f ES \ ham @ x 5 Na VA io SN ® fe i uN ay ? i pes @ than 200m. Curvilinear enclosure e Curvilinear enclosure @ with dimension greater | Linear ditch DX Fig. 10. Distribution of prehistoric and/or Roman curvilinear enclosures and linear ditches in relation to topography between the rivers Till and Bourne. ©English Heritage. NMR. 158 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE The general distribution of the boundaries to the south of Stonehenge seems to mirror that found further north on the Plain (McOmish et al. 2002, 61) as there is an apparent clustering of boundaries on the lower-lying ground between the rivers Avon and Bourne (Figure 10).The systems of boundaries to the east and west of the Avon appear to have slightly differing relationships with other features in the landscape. For example, the boundaries on Lake Down, to the west of the river, may demarcate the areas between clusters of barrows or alternatively they could be following the northeast- southwest ridges, perhaps forming a corridor down to the river. The boundaries to the east of the Avon seem to have a more complex relationship with the enclosures and field systems: as well as seeming to use barrows as markers (e.g. on Amesbury Down: Figure 7, 9), they also appear to form a system between the enclosures. These boundaries which extend between the Avon and the Bourne seem to control access and/or divide the land between the upper slope and the river Bourne. The apparent pattern of the boundaries in the survey area, laid out in reference to a mix of man-made and natural features, is typical of the Wessex chalk downland (McOmish et al. 2002, 61; Corney 1989, 111-28; Ford 1982). These boundaries could have acted as simple land divisions, perhaps distinguishing the stock ‘ranches’ from the arable areas. It is also likely that the pattern of boundaries is the product of different practical and social issues tied up with farming of the land, possible territorial groups and what seems to be a sensitivity to the funerary monuments created by former inhabitants of the area. Enclosures Although the excavated evidence from elsewhere in Wessex (McOmish 1989, Cunliffe 1991, 213-20) suggests that morphology does not provide a particularly reliable chronology, the mapping of the details and precise form of the enclosures to the south of Stonehenge does provide a starting point for analysis and potential classification schemes which can be tested by further investigation. There are a few cropmark enclosures which may form a distinct group of larger enclosures, each with a length of at least 200m (Figure 10). These enclosures are comparable to the earthwork enclosure at Heale Hill in size and topographical position, below the crest of a hill. A survey of the Heale Hill earthworks suggested that the prehistoric fields post-date the enclosure, implying possible Neolithic or Bronze Age origins (RCHME 1988a). Morphologically similar enclosures are situated on Amesbury Down and north-west of Druid’s Lodge (Figure 7, 11). The internal features, possible storage/rubbish pits and boundaries, suggest that the enclosure at Druid’s Lodge probably functioned as a settlement at some point. The remainder of the enclosures in the survey area vary in size and in minor details in their form, but in general all are defined by at least one ditch and enclose an irregular curvilinear area. None of these cropmark enclosures has been excavated, but morphological comparison to other excavated enclosures suggests that this type of enclosure has a date range from the late Bronze Age through to the Roman period, with the majority probably established at some point in the Iron Age (Cunliffe 1991 213-20; McOmish et al. 2002, 83, 155). Comparison of the cropmark enclosures situated to the south of Stonehenge with those excavated elsewhere in Wessex suggests their function within the landscape is likely to be complex (Cunliffe 1991; McOmish et al. 2002, 71). Some may be stock enclosures associated with open settlement, others may be enclosing settlement and/ or other types of non-domestic activity. Studies of the function of late prehistoric enclosures throughout Britain also suggest the possibility of complex social activities associated with the building, maintenance and use of enclosed spaces (Hingley 1984, Bowden and McOmish 1987). It is possible that we are seeing an extension of this beyond the confines of the enclosure into the wider landscape with the systems of boundaries associated with the enclosures. Perhaps the presence of attached boundaries, rather than the details of form, is a distinguishing factor between the date or function of the enclosures. The possible settlements recorded almost certainly represent a partial picture of the general pattern because unenclosed settlements, which are less likely to show as cropmarks, are not represented. It is also unclear how, or if, the hillforts at Ogbury or Ebsbury relate to the general distribution of enclosures. There does appear to be a clustering of settlement on the slopes overlooking the rivers Avon or Bourne in the southern part of the survey area and further investigation is required to ascertain the significance, if any, of this (Figure 10). It is hoped that the mapping of these enclosures will provide a framework for further work in this area. Particularly important are the relative FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE 159 chronologies of possible settlements, field systems and linear boundaries. Roman Settlement Many of the enclosures may have continued in use during the Romano-British period, but there is one site to the north-east of Heale Hill (Figure 8) which could be Roman in origin. The site consists of a double ditched rectilinear enclosure with an entrance on its east side linked to another possible enclosure to the east by a trackway. This could be the site of a villa, commonly associated with double ditched enclosures. More exotic is the possibility that it is comparable to the putative late Iron Age viereckschanze found at Casterley Camp, however it does not have the setting or associations of that site (McOmish et al. 2002, 59, 155, 160). Discussion The archaeology to the south of the Stonehenge WHS has been compared to that on Salisbury Plain on a number of occasions. Both areas exhibit extensive prehistoric field systems, linear boundaries and settlements, but differ markedly in the current land management. The archaeology of Salisbury Plain is relatively safe from modern ploughing, and the area in the immediate vicinity of Stonehenge is likely be taken out of arable cultivation, but the archaeology in the area to the south continues to be denuded. Questions have been raised about the relative chronologies of the prehistoric field systems, linear boundaries and settlements and further survey work is required to answer these questions. Initially, targeted aerial reconnaissance and interpretation can be used to try and answer some of the questions raised, but there is a need for more geophysical survey and excavation before the archaeology is destroyed. Twentieth-Century Military Remains At this stage there is not enough space to discuss the medieval and post medieval archaeology, but it is worth briefly mentioning some of the few 20th- century military features in the area. One of Wiltshire’s earliest civilian airfields, founded by the ‘Wiltshire Flying Club in 1931, was situated at High Post, between Netton and Winterbourne Dauntsey. Snapshots of some of the activities which took place at the airfield during World War II are visible on RAF vertical photographs taken between 1942 and 1946, when No. 112 squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force was based there. Following the bombing of the main Spitfire factories, in particular at Eastleigh in 1940, High Post became a Spitfire assembly and testing site. A vertical photograph taken in 1943 shows a cluster of three blade propellers adjacent to the main buildings at the airfield and it is possible these are for Lysanders or early Spitfires. The Supermarine prototype TS409 was also initially test flown at High Post but ceased when the jet exhaust began to erode the grass runways. The airfield was decommissioned when Boscombe Down airfield was expanded and many of the structures associated with the former airfield have been removed including pillboxes and a camp to the east at Cusses’s Gorse. CONCLUSION Even in particularly bad years for cropmark formation significant new discoveries can be made and a continuous aerial reconnaissance programme is a useful tool in monitoring the condition of the county’s archaeological monuments. The scope of reconnaissance and air photographic interpretation is expanding to include other disciplines such as garden history, urban survey and modern military remains. Eventually more of Wiltshire’s archaeology which is visible on aerial photographs will be investigated as part of the National Mapping Programme and so the concentration of prehistoric field systems, linear boundaries and settlements described above can be compared to other parts of the region. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND CONTACTS The authors would like to thank the pilots Mick Webb and Marten White for their enthusiasm and com- mitment over the past few ‘cropmark-free’ summers and their skill in keeping the aircraft steady enough to use the video camera. Thanks to Rachel Gale and her team in the NMRC Darkrooms for all the pro- cessing and printing, Geoff Hall for checking the undated Crawford Collection print, Katy Groves and Rose Ogle for cataloguing all the photographs and Kelly Scutts/ Dave Gorman for arranging our photographic loans. The new plan of the West Kennet complex builds on previous plots produced by RCHME and English Heritage, in particular the 1:2500 scale plan produced in 1992 by Simon 160 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Crutchley (RCHME 1992) and the 1:10000 scale plan produced by Fiona Small as part of a National Mapping Programme project (Small 1999). Ad- ditional information was kindly provided by Mike Hamilton (University of Wales College, Newport), Lorraine Mepham (Wessex Archaeology), Sue Farr (Wiltshire County Council Archaeology Service), Ros Cleal (Alexander Keiller Museum) and Professor Alasdair Whittle (Cardiff University). Particular thanks to Deborah Cunliffe for producing the illustrations. For copies of aerial photographs, reports or plans contact NMR Enquiry and Research Services, NMRC, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2GZ. Any organisation undertaking a survey or excavation that could be aided by new aerial photography should contact Damian Grady, Aerial Survey, NMRC, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2GZ. Bibliography BARRETT, J.C., 1994, Fragments from Antiquity. An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell BEWLEY, R.H., 2001, Understanding England’s Historic Landscapes: An Aerial Perspective. Landscapes 2(1), 74-84 BOWDEN, M., 2001, Liddington Castle: archaeological earthwork survey. Swindon: English Heritage BOWDEN, M., FORD, S. and MEES, G., 1993, The Date of the Ancient Fields on the Berkshire Downs. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 74, 109-133 BOWDEN, M. and MCOMISH, D., 1987, The required barrier. Scottish Archaeological Review 4(2), 76-84 CLEAL, R.M.J., WALKER, K.E. and MONTAGUE, R., 1995, Stonehenge in its Landscape: Twentieth- century excavations. London: English Heritage, Archaeological Report 10 CORNEY, M.C., 1989, ‘Multiple ditch systems and Late Iron Age settlement in Central Wessex’, in Bowden M., Mackay D. and Topping P. (eds), From Cornwall to Caithness: Some aspects of British Field Archaeology, 111-128. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 209 CRUTCHLEY, S.P., forthcoming a, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Mapping Project: Management Report. Swindon: English Heritage CRUTCHLEY, S.P., forthcoming b, ‘Recent Aerial Survey Work in the Marlborough Downs Region’, in D. Field, G. Brown and D. McOmish (eds), The Field Archaeology of the Marlborough Downs. Oxford: Oxbow Books CUNLIFFE, B., 1991, Iron Age Communities in Britain. (3rd edition) London: Routledge EYRE-MORGAN, G., 1997, Manor House, West Kennett, Avebury. An Archaeological Evaluation. Hyde, Cheshire: Graham Eyre-Morgan FORD, S., 1982, Linear Earthworks on the Berkshire Downs. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 71, 1-20 GIBSON, A., (ed.) 2002, Behind Wooden Walls: Neolithic ' Palisaded Enclosures in Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1013 GINGELL, C., 1992, The Marlborough Downs: a later Bronze Age Landscape and tts origins. Devizes: WANHS HINGLEY, R., 1984, ‘Towards social analysis in archaeology: Celtic society in the Iron Age of the Upper Thames Valley (400-OBC)’, in B. Cunliffe and D. Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, 72-88. Oxford: University of Oxford Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 2 McOMISH, D., FIELD, D. and BROWN, G., 2002, The Field Archaeology of the Salisbury Plain. Swindon: English Heritage RCHME, 1979, Stonehenge and its environs. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press RCHME, 1986, Lake Deserted Medieval Village, South Wiltshire Project. Archive Report (922387). Salisbury: RCHME RCHME, 1988a, Hooklands Plantation, Heale Hill, South Wiltshire Project. Archive Report (921992). Salisbury: RCHME RCHME, 1988b, Ogbury hillfort, South Wiltshire Project. Archive Report (922002). Salisbury: RCHME RCHME, 1992, West Kennett-East Kennett. Archaeological Survey in the vicinity of the Avebury World Heritage Site. Air Photographic Transcription and Analysis. Swindon: RCHME SMALL, F., 1999, Avebury World Heritage Site Mapping Project, Wiltshire. English Heritage Survey Report. Swindon: English Heritage THOMAS, J., 2001, ‘Neolithic Enclosures: reflections on excavations in Wales and Scotland’, in T. Darvill and J. Thomas (eds), Neolithic Enclosures in Atlantic Northwest Europe, 131-143. Oxford: Oxbow Books WAINWRIGHT, G.J. and LONGWORTH, I.H., 1971, Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966-1968. London: Society of Antiquaries of London, Reports of the Research Committee 29 WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY 1989, West Kennet Farm, West Kennet, Marlborough, Wiltshire. Archaeological Evaluation 1989. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology WHITTLE, A., 1993, The Neolithic of the Avebury area: sequence, environment, settlement and monuments. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12, 29-53 WHITTLE, A., 1994, Excavations at Millbarrow Neolithic chambered tomb, Winterbourne Monkton, north Wiltshire. WANHM 87, 1-53 WHITTLE, A., 1997, Sacred Mound, Holy Rings. Silbury Hill and the West Kennet palisade enclosures: a Later Neolithic complex in north Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books WHITTLE, A., POLLARD, J. and GRIGSON, C., 1999. The Harmony of Symbols: The Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 161-194 Beaker Presence at Wilsford 7 by Humphrey Case! with contributions by Paul Robinson’ and Alison Hopper-Bishop’ The Collared Urn in the well known Early Bronze Age grave assemblage from Wilsford barrow 7, excavated by William Cunnington and Richard Colt Hoare in 1808 and in the Museum of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society since 1878, was re-conserved in 1990 by the Wiltshire County Council Conservation Centre. Its original conservation was by William Cunnington himself soon after excavation; and there is no reason to believe that any other conservation was made between then and 1990. The discovery in 1990 that a Beaker sherd had been incorporated in the earlier restoration implies that the sherd was part of the assemblage excavated in 1808. Presumption of a direct Beaker association with an early Wessex Series grave assemblage of the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC leads to a demonstration of the Beaker roots of similar assemblages. These assemblages are seen as showing the transformation of the material culture of the Beaker elite responsible for Stonehenge - transformation through local inspiration and inventiveness and through far- flung contacts including north British, Irish and especially Breton contacts, although somewhat Jess so central European. These Breton contacts are seen in the Barrow Grave assemblages, which were current from the later 3rd millennium BC to towards the mid 2nd, and which are themselves taken to show ultimate development and transformation of the continental Bell-Beaker material culture which had itself originated in Atlantic Europe in the earlier 3rd millennium BC. In the course of argument it 1s proposed that Wessex Series women’s graves should not be seen as necessarily later than men’s and that both the Barrow Graves and the Wessex Series habitually contain objects of centuries-old tradition alongside more up-to-date innovations. Wiltshire and Dorset barrows are identified following Grinsell (1957, 1959). from Wilsford 5 (‘Bush Barrow’) and about 96 INTRODUCTION by Paul Robinson The barrow designated by L.V.Grinsell as Wilsford 7 lies at SU 1179 4123 in the Normanton Down barrow cemetery to the south of Stonehenge. It is a bowl barrow, although incorrectly classed by Sir Richard Colt Hoare as a bell barrow. Hoare records that in 1808 it measured 102 feet (31m) in diameter and stood 10 feet (3m) above ground level (1812, ~ 202). It lies close to and about 146 metres distant metres from Wilsford 8 in the Normanton Down barrow cemetery (Fig. 3A). At both these barrows, exceptionally prestigious objects, including some made from gold, as with Wilsford 7, were found among the grave goods of the primary burials. The barrow was excavated by Sir Richard Colt Hoare and William Cunnington I in 1808. The published record of the excavation (Hoare 1812, 202 and pl. XXV) is disappointingly brief and conflicts with some details in the preliminary notes made by William Cunnington and preserved in the ' Pitt’s Cottage, 187 Thame Road, Warborough, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 7DH *The Museum, 41 Long Street, Devizes, SN10 1NS °* Exeter City Museum Conservation Service, Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Queen Street, Exeter EX4 3RX 162 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE —_ ae Se LEE E EEE ELLE Fig. 1. Beaker sherd, Collared Urn, and Grape Cup from Wilsford 7. No. 1 at actual size, 2-3 at 1:2 Library of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society at Devizes (Cunnington MSS Book 9, pp. 29-30) compiled at his dictation by his amanuensis, Elizabeth Cunnington, his daughter. What is presumed to have been the primary burial was found ‘in a very shallow oblong cist’. The head lay ‘nearly west’ and the possibility cannot be excluded that the skeleton was extended. (At Bush Barrow the head lay to the south and the suggestion can be made that the skeleton was similarly extended.) In accordance with their normal practice, the skeleton was not removed from the grave. No anatomical records were made. The grave goods infer that the person buried was female (but see below, pp. 171-2). An unspecified number of objects were found with the burial. These include a group of beads and pendants made of gold sheet, amber, jet or shale, BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 fossil encrinite and perhaps other stone. Hoare (1812, 202) infers that these were all found together as ‘a deposit of various elegant little trinkets’. The Cunnington MSS records that the two gold beads were found near the head without making it clear whether or not the other beads and pendants were found with them. The inference is that all the beads and pendants were probably found together by the head. In addition, an incense cup (Grape Cup: Fig. 1, no. 3) was found, its position in the grave not being reported; while a broken Collared Urn of Longworth’s primary series, Form B1 (Fig. 1, no. 2; Longworth 1984, 289) was placed ‘at the feet of the skeleton’. William Cunnington died in 1810, and in 1818 the artefacts from Wiltshire and Dorset excavated by Colt Hoare and himself were purchased by Colt Hoare from Cunnington’s descendants. Colt Hoare removed them to his residence Stourhead House. Thence, in 1878 they were loaned to the WANHS and deposited in the Society’s Museum at Devizes; they were purchased by the Society outright in 1883, becoming known as the Stourhead Collection. The grave finds from Wilsford 7 were published in the catalogue of that collection (Cunnington and Goddard 1896, nos. 140-2, 145a-6 and 280) as well as in the more recent catalogue of the Museum’s Neolithic and Bronze Age collections (Annable and Simpson 1964, 44, nos. 147-158). Both of these lists of objects differ in detail from those given by Cuninngton and Colt Hoare. This is, however, not the place to discuss these (but see notes 5 and 6). The specific subject of this contribution is the Collared Urn (accession number: Stourhead Coll. 280 = DM205) which Cunnington described as follows: ‘At the feet of this skeleton lay a drinking cup which was unfortunately broken to pieces by the weight of the encumbent earth. It was one of the best manufactured and has the neatest ornaments I ever saw upon this kind of vessel. I have succeeded in repairing it sufficiently to enable Mr Crocker to make a drawing of it, see plate... fig... 2. A later hand has recorded next ‘no drawing given’ that is, in Colt Hoare’s published account in Ancient Wiltshire, which includes only illustrations of seven of the beads and pendants from the grave. The sole reference to the Collared Urn in Ancient Wiltshire _ is terse and equally disappointing: “There was also a drinking cup placed at the feet of the skeleton, which was unfortunately broken, but afterwards repaired’. 163 No illustration of the urn by Crocker is known to survive. It was not illustrated by Thurnam in his survey of Wiltshire barrows published in 1871.The first illustrations known of it are in fact the photographs published in Cunnington and Goddard in 1896 (p. 74) and by Abercromby in 1906 (fig. 55) and 1912 (vol, II, pl. LXII, no. 1). These confirm that no restoration or reconstruction of the urn was undertaken between 1896 and 1990 - the year in which the urn was re-conserved to prepare it for display in the new Bronze Age galleries at Devizes. There is no information about the Collared Urn between 1808 and 1896. However it is most unlikely that any reconstruction or restoration further to Cunnington’s work took place while the urn was at Stourhead as we have ne reason to believe that any of the Bronze Age pottery in the Stourhead collection was repaired or restored on the instructions of Colt Hoare or his successors. Similarly there is no reason to believe that the urn was repaired or restored between 1878 and 1896 when the first photograph of it was published. In all probability then, the urn in 1990 was as restored by William Cunnington, between 1808 and his death in 1810. BEAKER SHERD AND COLLARED URN: AND SOME IMPLICATIONS by Humphrey Case Alison Hopper-Bishop’s report (see below) recog- nises two phases of the urn’s earlier reconstruction: an initial one with linseed oil putty during which the Beaker sherd (Fig. 1, no. 1) was incorporated, and a later one using a cement-like material. There seems no reason to believe that the later work was not also by William Cunnington, who elsewhere described using ‘a cement’ in pot restoration (Cunnington 1806b, 343).The first restoration may have been thought sufficient to enable a drawing to be attempted, and the second necessary to strengthen the pot, both for exhibition in Cunnington’s personal museum at the Moss House, Heytesbury (Annable and Simpson 1964, 5), and so that it could be transported temporarily to Etruria, Staffordshire for a replica (now in the Devizes Museum’s collection) to be made for Colt Hoare by Wedgwood (I owe this suggestion to Paul Robinson). 164 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Since the putty filling had been smeared extensively over the surface and the interior obscured by the cement-like material, it is not surprising that the Beaker sherd had eluded previous researchers. The Beaker Sherd Sherd (Fig. 1, no. 1), probably from junction of neck and body of a Beaker (Fig. 2, nos. 1-4) probably of upper medium size (Case 1995c, 56). Breaks: Old but hackly, one recent (?broken during Cunnington’s restoration). Fabric: Surfaces hard; exterior smooth and comparatively well- preserved, reddish-brown (5YR/5/3); interior fairly smooth, reddish-grey (5YR/5/2) where ascertainable (?ingrained chalk or ‘cement’); core ~ 2mm, black (5YR/2/1). Temper. Moderate grog; sparse - moderate rounded flint to 2mm. Decoration: Comb impressions; maximum apparent length of comb 16mm, maximum apparent teeth 6, sub-rectangular, width ~ 2mm. Motifs: Grouped chevron panel, cf. Clarke 1970, 428, motif 371; hatched vertical strip, op. cit.,cf. motifs 38 1 - ill. The sherd is characteristic of my Group B Beaker pottery (Case 1993, 2001, and below, pp. 167, 170). This Group shows the adoption by potters in the Late Neolithic Grooved Ware tradition! of the continentally inspired Bell-Beaker style, a style represented typically in the Group D Beaker Group of southern England, especially Wessex (Case 2001, fig. 3). Some stylistic contributions to Group B from late north-west European Corded Ware are also evident. Ranging chronologically from apparently within the third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC to within the second quarter of the 2nd millennium, Group B has been subdivided into sub-groups Ba, Bb and Bc (Case 2001). All three sub-groups are represented in Wiltshire (respectively e.g.: Shrewton barrow 5k, Case 1995a, fig. 2, no. 6; Amesbury. 51, loc. cit., fig. 4, nos. 5, 7; Winterbourne Monkton, loc. cit., fig. 3, nos. 3, 4); but the affinities of the Wilsford sherd lie most strongly with Group Bb, which like Ba has a strong north British emphasis (Case 2001, maps fig. 8). The Collared Urn Collared Urn (Fig. 1, no.2), newly restored, comparatively small (cf. Woodward 1995, fig. 17.3, for comparative rim diameters; and fig. 17.1, for size ranges in Dorset and Hampshire), fairly Plate 1 A, B. Collared Urn from Wilsford 7 as reassembled in 1990, before gap-filling BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 complete but sherds missing at rim, collar, neck and belly (Pl. 1A and B), exceptionally symmetrical and well-formed (Longworth 1984, no. 1716, Primary Series BI; pl. 10a, before recent restoration). Breaks: Hackly where apparent (and see archive photographs: Devizes Museum). Fabric: Surfaces hard and well-smoothed, exterior moderately abraded over about half the circumference. Dark exterior stains possibly resulting from former restoration, but exterior pinkish grey (7.5YR/7/2) where better preserved, pink (~7.5YR/8/4) where abraded; interior hard to assess, say darker pinkish grey (7.5YR/6/2). Only apparent temper at x10: flint to 8mm+; some voids. Decoration: Grooves and so-called whipped cord impressions, applied with exceptional precision and dexterity. Grooves, round-based ~ 2 mm deep, 2 mm wide (approaching ~ 2.5mm in places). Whipped cord impressions right over left on criss-cross zone. Impressions on collar and body are invasive of grooves, which thus served as marking-out zones. Whipped cord impressions are of two kinds: inside rim, max. L. 19mm, ~ 13 turns, W ~ 1.5mm, elongated and double-pointed suggesting ‘cords’ stretched between fingers and thumb of both hands; elsewhere, max. L. 10mm, 11 turns max. more often 8, W. 2mm, and sub- triangular as though ‘cords’ possibly mounted on a stamp and impressed obliquely. Both kinds of impression recur on Collared Urns, also on Peterborough Ware and on Irish Funerary Vases and Bowls. The ‘cords’ themselves are exceptionally fine for Collared Urns and may have been very fine threads or animal hair. Motifs: Zonal inside rim (Longworth 1984, fig. 13, no. 1); herringbone zones (op. cit., cf. nos. 21, 22 on rim; fig. 14, no. 13 on shoulder); criss-cross or lattice (op. cit., fig. 13, no. 26 on rim); zonal lozenges (op. cit., cf. fig. 9, no. 1). The Urn was a masterpiece; its regularity, hard texture and strictly defined decorative schemes are exceptional. BI as defined by Longworth (1984) is one of the rarer forms over the whole range (op. cit., figs. 18, 26 and 32). Herringbone patterns (often merging into zig-zags) are moderately commonplace as recorded by Longworth (6% on rims and shoulders respectively and frequently on both, and nearly three times more numerous on Primary than Secondary series); but strictly defined _ by linear zones (as here) they are very rare (< 1%). Similarly, linear impressions inside the rim or inside the bevel are moderately commonplace (~8% of urns recorded by Longworth), but criss-cross or 165 lattice patterns on collar, shoulder or body are less so (~4- 5 %) like the sometimes related diamond patterns (with longer vertical axis, ~4%), and rare lozenges (as here with longer horizontal axis: ~1.25%). Lozenges may be outlined as here, hatched or reserved, but on the shoulder as here appear unique; otherwise they are confined to the rim or bevel (e.g. Wilsford: Longworth 1984, pl. 166c). Whipped cord decoration is also not very common on Collared Urns, although fairly widespread (op. cit., map fig. 43). It was considered an early trait by Longworth (op. cit.) and Burgess (1986, 345) who placed the Wilsford urn in their Primary and Middle Series respectively. These typological assessments would be unaffected by the recent reconstruction of the urn, but it must be recognised that if considered as chronological statements they are not fully supported by apparently associated radiocarbon dates (Longworth 1984, 140; and results since), which so far do little more than give Collared Urns an approximate chronological span from towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC to the mid 2nd millennium or somewhat after (as shown in Needham 1996, 124, fig. 2). Longworth and Burgess were partly influenced by seeing whipped cord decoration on Collared Urns (along with other stylistic features) as being in direct descent from late Neolithic Peterborough Ware, especially in its Fengate style. However recent radiocarbon dates for that style in the late 4th millennium BC or around the turn of the 4th and the 3rd (Gibson and Kinnes 1997; Cleal in Allen and Green 1998) suggest a hiatus between the two traditions, even if one may allow for the survival of Peterborough Ware to the mid 3rd. Whipped cord decoration on Collared Urns is probably best seen as a parallel development with (or subsequent to) its frequent and widespread use on Irish Vase and Bowl pottery (O Riordain and Waddell 1999, passim), which began to replace Beaker pottery in Ireland in a major way during the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium BC (Case 1995b, 23). Zonal herringbone, criss-cross and zonal internal rim motifs were also frequently used by the Irish potters. Whipped cord decoration also occurs on fourth quarter north British Food Vessels (e.g. Haughton and Powlesland 1999, 45, fig. 24, West Heslerton grave BA203, barrow 2BA174; 55, fig. 31, West Heslerton grave 2BA544. I am grateful to Terry Manby for these references with radiocarbon results). 166 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Tea Ra Masia stay, peparterovere ari Sa cect a eee Fig. 2. Beakers (after Clarke 1970): 1, Lesmurdie, Banff.; 2, Premnay, Aberdeens; 3, Lanark Moor, Lanark; 4, Garton Slack 163, E. Yorks. Nos. 1-4 at 1:3 CMS S| AAl [| x ore ABERDEENS tots OTHER. NORTH- -fAST SCOTLAND ALL SCOTLAND NORTHERN ENGLAND MIDLAND ENGLAND EAST ANGLIA SOUTHERN ENGLAND ABERDEENS OTHER. NORTH ~ -EAST SCOTLAND ALL SCOTLAND NORTHERN ENGLAND MIDLAND ENGLAND EAST ANGLIA SOUTHERN ENGLAND WALES Table 1. Regional frequencies of associated Beaker decorative motifs: zonal lozenge, zonal herringbone, grouped chevron panel and zonal zig-zag. Other frequencies recorded: criss-cross, other panel (including with zigzags), zonal grouped chevrons, ermine, and fringe motifs. From sample of 91 Beakers derived from total sample of 238 recorded with zonal lozenge, panel with zig-zag, herringbone, and other zig-zag motifs, mostly from Clarke 1970. Other north- east Scotland refers to Banff., Moray, Kincardine and Nairn. BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 The Prehistoric Relationship between Beaker Sherd and Collared Urn Was the relationship non-random? First of all, the sherd’s hackly breaks and comparatively unweathered preservation are evidence that it was a grave find, and make it unlikely that it was in topsoil when excavated by Cunnington, and then misguidedly assigned by him to the grave filling. Next, the possibility cannot altogether be excluded that the sherd came from a grave in another barrow which Cunnington confused with Wilsford 7; but there is no positive evidence for that. The balance of evidence thus favours a non-random association of sherd and Urn: either the sherd came from the filling of an earlier culturally related deeper grave in Wilsford 7 which Cunnington failed to recognise; or marginally more likely it was deposited in prehistoric times in deliberate association with the sherds of the Urn - possibly to assert the real continuity of ancestral traditions (a practice discussed by Woodward in Hughes 2000, 58 - 60). And the Urn’s condition (Pl. 1A and B) suggests that it had not been broken ‘by the weight of the encumbent earth’ (as Cunnington suggested: p. 163), but deposited in the grave in a fragmentary state like at least some Beakers (Case in press, a); and burial of the vessel towards the feet is a fairly general Beaker tendency in southern Britain. The appearance of the sherd gives no indication that it had earlier been built into the fabric of the Urn and refired with it (as in instances suggested in Allen and Hopkins 2000, 310, or Brown 1995, 127). Were Urn and Sherd in the Same Tradition? Whether or not the Beaker had been broken shortly before the sherd was deposited, the presence of the sherd is sufficient evidence that the potter of the Urn was familiar with Beaker decorative traditions. Urn and sherd do show some differences, somewhat in fabric and emphatically in some respects in decoration: for example, whipped cord impressions are very rare on British Beaker pottery (although so-called barbed wire impressions on Beaker Group E are related: Case 2001, 366); and corded internal _ rim impressions although prevalent on Collared Urns are quite restricted on Beakers (normally to Groups C and D). But there are some significant 167 similarities. Zonal motifs are obviously common to both; and the precise marking out of the zones is otherwise extremely uncommon on Collared Urns, while most characteristic of Beaker pottery. Decorative features which the Urn shares with Beaker pottery in general are the criss-cross, the zonal lozenge and zonal herringbone motifs. The criss-cross is not an especially diagnostic motif, being widespread on Beaker pottery (e.g. Fig. 2, nos. 1, 3) and well-represented on Collared Urns. The zonal lozenge however is rare on Collared Urns but fairly widespread on Beaker pottery and recurrent in north Britain (e.g. Fig. 2, nos. 2, 4)’. The zonal herringbone is also quite widespread on both classes of pottery, but especially strongly represented on Beaker pottery in north Britain (e.g. Fig. 2, nos. 1, 2, 3), where together with the criss- cross and zonal lozenge it forms part of a north British style (Table 1), especially characteristic of northeast Scotland, particularly Aberdeens. Other components of this style are grouped chevron panels (e.g. Fig. 2, no. 1) as on the Wilsford 7 Beaker sherd, zonal grouped chevrons (e.g. Fig. 2, no. 3), zonal zigzags (e.g. Fig. 2, no. 2), other panel motifs (including combinations with zigzags, e.g. Fig. 2, nos. 1, 3, 4), and ermine (e.g. Fig. 2, no. 2) and fringe motifs. Zonal grooves as on the Wilsford Urn are also a northern Beaker feature. Some 60% of the Beakers involved in this north British style belong to Group Bb (Table 2), the type to which the Wilsford 7 Beaker is likely to have belonged. BEAKER GROUPS D E Ba Bb Bc total 1 1 28 55 6 91 13 6 62 143 14 238 Table 2. Frequencies by Beaker Group (after Case 2001) of samples of 91 and 238 Beakers recorded in Table 1. The lozenge motif of the Wilsford sherd unlike that of the urn is set vertically, not zonally. Vertical strip decoration, fairly uncommon on Beaker pottery, is also associated with the north British style in question (e.g. Fig 2., nos. 3, 4) although more characteristic of northern England and East Anglia (Clarke 1970, fig. 1051, Toddenham, Norfolk, is a parallel). The north British style as shown in Table 1 is also strongly represented in Irish Group A Beaker pottery’ and the grouped chevron panel motif as on the Wilsford 7 sherd is notably seen at 168 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE A Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads Group (@) Lesser \ \ Cursus \\ \ ° ie) NORMANTON GORSE O 54 Ring -barrow eg Oo [e) Wilsford 52 Fargo/ a0 ot % ® 300 Cursus Group ~ oo fe} Isford 54 ge 2 Amesbury 15 Wilsford Ae O4 fe) PR, NORMANTON ie) DOWN GROUP @ STONEHENGE fe) Amesbur 09 0% © 00 =O New King Barrows © o Barrow ® Barrow referred to in text BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 169 ®@ Winterbourne Monkton \ ; =) Windmill Hille . 2 R Kennet S Bishops Cannings él, ~ Preshute fa ae ) ars dway °. Gh West Overton 66 \ r 8 ® Snes e Beckhampton ( eS ee ) = avs & : a VA ESS SS) aS i ; / ) y >) U af Pah ¢ - } Figheldean 26~ is P Shrewiton ¢g Oona ene Copse \ Cc ; e e ce AZ e° Amesbury 71 N y Norton Upton Lovell ® / Butterfield ‘ Bavant © . Down ) (7 2e s Wils ford a Wy lye 58 : ? oO ; 1S \_ @ Mere 6a kms Knipton ® Great Lockington isle? Barnack Little Cressingham 1 Abingdon lechlade__| @ Radley 6 ~@ “‘e ec teees on Thames i UY a oS LMU Faversham Winterbourne St.Martin 31 Hammeldon ® Weymouth ae Hengistbury Head 3 Mount Pleasant Fig. 3. A, The Normanton Gorse/Normanton Down barrow group and its relationship to Stonehenge and other adjacent barrow groups (after RCHME 1979). B and C, maps of comparanda elsewhere in Wiltshire and southern Britain and in midland England and East Anglia. 170 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Newgrange (Case 1993, fig. 6, no. 4), Knowth B (Case 1995b, Fig. 12, no. 4), Largantea (loc. cit., fig. 13, no. 6) and Knockadoon D (Clarke 1970, fig. 202) and further afield in central Europe (e.g. Case 1995b, fig. 9, no. 4). These and the East Anglian parallels anticipate the widespread connections represented in Wessex Series graves such as Wilsford 7. However Table 1 shows that the impact of this north British Beaker style on southern England was generally slight. In the Stonehenge and Avebury regions, Ba Beakers showing some of these northern features were possibly all relatively early (e.g. Shrewton 5k, Case 1995a, fig. 2, no. 6; Beckhampton, Joc. cit., fig. 4, no. 1), but published sherd references are very few (e.g. W 55, Lesser Cursus tertiary filling, Raymond in Richards 1990, fig. 53, P 230 and possibly P 234; and, more dubiously, northwest of Greater Cursus, Cleal and Raymond in Joc. cit., Fig. 21, P 283 and 284; possibly also Butterfield Down, Amesbury, Cleal in Rawlings and Fitzpatrick 1966, fig. 15, no. 1; also Windmill Hill, Zienkiewicz and Hamilton in Whittle et al. 1999, table 171, passim). The Beaker represented by the sherd in Wilsford 7 would thus have been a northern style rarity. Since the Collared Urn with which it was closely associated shared a common tradition, then both potters may have been northerners in origin or had close ties with the north. The same may have been true of the person with whom sherd and Urn were buried* and whose ‘head was placed towards the west’ (Hoare 1812, 202) or ‘nearly west’ (p. 162 above). The orientation may have been intentionally in the general direction of Wilsford 5; but it is worth noting that west - east orientations are a recurrent continental Corded Ware trait and very strongly associated with north British Ba and Bb Beaker Groups and with the motif complex shown in Table 1 (Clarke 1970, 455-6 and passim; Tuckwell 1975 for prevalence in east Yorkshire; Shepherd 1984, 12 for concentration in the Aberdeen region; and A.N. Shepherd in Greig 1989 for northeast Scotland generally, noting that western orientations characterised female burials and eastern male - as with continental Corded Ware). Also, the double- axe pendant and one of the ribbed beads reported from Wilsford 7 (Fig. 6, nos. 15 and e.g. 14; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 148, 147, 154) have been identified as jet (Pollard er al. 1981, 154, table 5) which contributes to suggesting northern connections (but cf. Watts et al. 1997). Similar connections were suggested by comparisons between the jet plate from Law Hill, Angus (Shepherd 1985, 208-9) and the gold belt-hook in Wilsford 5 (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 176; Hoare 1812, 204 and pl. X XVII, no. 1); cf. also the maceheads from Wilsford 5 (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 175; Hoare 1812, 204 and pl. XXVII, no. 3) and Towthorpe C39, E. Yorks. (Mortimer 1905, 5-6). A CORE AND A SUB- CORE GROUP OF WESSEX SERIES BURIALS Wilsford 7 belongs to a Core group of five southern English Early Bronze Age barrow burials with exceptional gold and amber grave goods within a much larger, more widespread and sometimes loosely defined Wessex Series (a term now generally replacing ‘Wessex Culture’ as coined by Piggott: 1938). This group comprises: Wilsford 7 and 8 in the Normanton Gorse/Normanton Down barrow group overlooking Stonehenge (Fig. 3A; respectively Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 147- 158, 179 - 192 and references); likewise in the Stonehenge region, Upton Lovell 2e (the co-called Golden Barrow), about 18km west (Fig. 3B) in the valley of the Wyle, tributary of the Wiltshire Avon (op. cit., nos. 226-8, 231-3). Further afield are Preshute la (the so-called Manton Barrow), in the Avebury region (Fig. 3B), somewhat under 30km north-northeast from Wilsford 7 (Cunnington 1907; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 195-210); and Hengistbury Head 3, Hants., about 50km south on the Channel coast (Fig. 3C) near the mouth of the Wiltshire/Hampshire Avon (Bushe Fox 1915). Related to this Core group is a Sub-group of three further barrow burials: Little Cressingham 1, Norfolk (Fig. 3C), about 35km southeast of the Wash (Gerloff 1975, 75, pl. 46; Lawson 1980, 6-8), with grave goods related to some of those uncertainly associated at Winterborne St. Martin 31, Dorset (the Clandon Barrow), about 10km from the Channel coast (Fig. 3C) and 50km east of Hengistbury Head (Grinsell 1959, 152; Gerloff 1975, 74, pl. 46); also related is Wilsford 5 (the Bush Barrow) adjoining Wilsford 7 on Normanton Down, with exceptional gold objects but no amber (Fig. 3A; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos.168-178; Hoare 1812, 202-5 and pls. XXVI, XXVII). BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 Armorican British B Knife WINTERBOURNE ST. MARTIN 31 Fig. 4. Association diagram of Core and Sub-Groups of Wessex Series burials Additionally, Gerloff (1975, 258-260, ‘female burials’) lists seven other gold/amber associations: four from Wilts, Dorset and Hants.; two from East Anglia, including Great Bircham, Norfolk; one from Orkney; also the pommel from Hammeldon, Devon (Gerloff 1975, no. 194). The coherence of the Core and Sub-group is shown in their interlocking series of associations (Fig. 4) and in the generally exceptionally fine craftsmanship these display, such as the Urn and Grape Cup (Fig.1) from Wilsford 7 - and especially the gold objects of the so-called Wessex Linear Style, such as the belt-hook and lozenge-shaped plates in Wilsford 5 (Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 176, 168, 177; Hoare 1812, 204 and pls XXVI, XXVII). Taylor (1980, pl. 25; 1999, 111-2 and references) has argued that a highly inventive local school of craftsmanship was involved in producing these gold, amber, jet and shale objects, some of the pieces considered to be by the same hand - although interestingly the halberd-pendants from Wilsford 8 and Preshute la (Fig. 6, nos. 1, 8; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 180, 200) appear to stand apart (Coles and Taylor 1971, 12). A number of sources for the gold seem indicated (Taylor 1999, 111-2) - some of it possibly recycled (from formerly Beaker- associated objects?). The gold work like that in Beaker association (e.g. Case 1977) shows simple linear and sometimes dotted patterns, but the execution of the best pieces as from Wilsford 5 is very different (loc. cit., 23 - 24; Needham 2000a, - 30, 31). Some tendency for miniaturisation is apparent in the craftsmanship: as in the Fabergé- like halberd-pendants, the double-axe jet bead from Wilsford 7 and the pendant from Wilsford 8 (Fig. WILSFORD 8 pendant WILSFORD 7 6, no. 7; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 192) and in the comparatively small Collared Urn from Wilsford 7, and possibly in the accessory pots including Grape and Perforated-Wall cups from Wilsford 7 and 8, Upton Lovell 2e, Preshute la and Hengistbury Head 3 (e.g. Figs. 1 and 5), although their small size may have been for portability (note 11, below). All the burials or assemblages in the Core and Sub-groups were reported as primary, except for those at Upton Lovell 2e (Hoare 1812, 98-100) and Winterborne St. Martin 31 (Grinsell 1959, 152). Burials at Wilsford 8, Upton Lovell 2e and Hengistbury Head 3 were by cremation; where ascertainable the remainder were inhumed. Wilsford 5 was reported as male (Hoare 1812, 203) and the same may have been true of Little Cressingham 1 (Barton 1852) and the anomalous Winterborne St. Martin 31.’The remainder are generally assumed to be female (e.g. Gerloff 1975, 258-260); Preshute la was so reported (Cunnington 1907/8, 19-20), like the recently excavated woman’s inhumation burial at Shrewton 5j, about 15km northeast of Upton Lovell 2e (Fig. 3B) with grave goods including amber disc- and wooden pestle-beads (Green and Rollo-Smith 1984, 273-5, 309-310). Pestle-beads occur also at Little Cressingham 1 (Gerloff 1975, pl. 46F, nos. 8 and 9) and probably at Wilsford 8 (Fig. 6, nos, 4-6; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 183, 184, 187; not specifically described in Hoare 1812, 202, but pl. XXV, no. 6 appears to show Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 184). At Little Cressingham and Shrewton pestle-beads were apparently in male and female association respectively; and a young adult male was possibly 2; THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE associated with quite numerous jet and amber beads nearby (Fig. 3A) at Amesbury 39 (Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 467-472; Denton in Ashbee 1981, 29). Thus, assumptions that burials with ornaments only are necessarily female may be incorrect; similarly, an observation that wealth was more commonly displayed with females than males (Harding 2000, 92) needs some qualification. Moreover, cross - gender displays have not been seriously considered by British prehistorians (but cf. Taylor 1999, 112 on Wilsford 8; and Wierman 1998 for central European Corded Ware practices). Consensus opinion is that the Core and Sub- group discussed here were early in the Wessex Series: Wessex I (following ApSimon 1957), dating to the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC. However, radiocarbon results from Wessex Series burials are few (recent summary in Garwood 1999, table 9.4; also Gerloff 1993, 95-6). Almost all are peripheral to the Core and Sub-group series; and in my view it is not feasible from these results to date Wessex Series trends closer than with reference to quarter-millennium spans. Ranges expressed in half-centuries or single centuries would be unrealistic. This should be borne in mind in raising two questions prompted by the Beaker sherd from Wilsford 7: Is there other evidence of Beaker contributions to the Wessex Series? Do other Wessex Series burials show a mixture of archaic traditions and apparently more recent ones? In what follows, answers to these questions are sought through analysing some components of the Core and Sub-core groups, especially objects of gold, amber, jet and pottery (as associated for example at Wilsford 7)° and of copper and bronze (as at Wilsford 5), in relation to comparanda at home and abroad. This search contributes to a picture of the significance, both in the Stonehenge landscape and further afield, of the Normanton Gorse/ Normanton Down barrow group (Fig. 3A) to which Wilford 7 belongs. As a prelude, note that an adequate number of Beaker-associated radiocarbon results, especially relating Group B Beakers in south and north Britain to the first quarter of the 2nd millennium (Case 1983, fig. 1), suggests that these are promising questions; and that both gold and amber recur in Bell-Beaker association in continental western Europe (e.g. respectively, Joussaume 1981, 504; du Gardin 1998), although amber is not very frequent. And gold and amber are present together in Beaker association in north Britain (Burial 1, Driffield C38, Yorks., Ba Group, Kinnes 1985, 19-22; Culduthel Mains, Inverness, Bb Group, Clarke er al. 1985, 94, pl. 4.16). BEAKER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CORE AND SUB- CORE GROUPS The gold foil (?) plaque (or armlet?) from Upton Lovell 2e (Fig. 5, no. 1, after Crocker watercolour; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 232; Hoare 1812, 99 and pl. X) Clarke (1970, 230-1) indicated central European parallels, but a derivation nearer at hand is more convincing. This object is a larger and more elaborate version of the Beaker-related Irish gold plaques of Belleville type (Case 1977, fig. 4, nos. 1- 4, 27; metal compositions, Taylor 1999, 113-4), themselves related to the similarly associated French appliques rectangulaires of mainly Atlantic distribution (Eluere 1982, fig. 35; Joussaume 1981, fig. 231, nos. 10-15). The elaboration consists in linear-based motifs recurrent throughout the Beaker decorative range (as Clarke noted: 1970, 230-1): the ubiquitous criss- cross hatching; and the rarer positive or reserved wedge-ended or indented rectangles sometimes formed from or combined with parallelograms (op. cit., 428, cf. motif 351i). Radiocarbon dating suggests that these rarer motifs were current on Beaker pottery from the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium BC into the first quarter of the 2nd, as in Group B association in north Britain (associated with the characteristic north British motifs discussed above pp. 166, 167; e.g. Keabog cist 1, Kincardine and Deeside: Shepherd and Brucel987)’, and nearby in Wiltshire in Bb association at Amesbury 51 in the Fargo/Cursus barrow group (Fig. 5, no. 7; burial 1: Ashbee 1975/ 6, fig. 11). And positive and reserved patterns in Group D context at grave 4660, Barrow Hills, Oxon. (Barclay and Halpin 1999, fig. 4.23, P 27) appear related. Clarke noted motifs somewhat similar to 351i on the Knipton, Leicestershire, bronze bracelet in Bb association (1970, fig. 955) and less convincingly on another bracelet in burial association at Amesbury barrow 41 (Fig. 3A; Annable and Simpson 1964, 42, no. 117).This type 3511 motif, which recalls textile and in some cases string patterns (‘cat’s cradles’), is matched by the borings of the spacer-plates of the amber necklace from Upton Lovell 2e (e.g. Fig. 5, nos. 5 and 6). BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 173 > a ss % Be Oh SX “8, 4: % 1% 0 ‘s Sy q o “a ANNAN MX POO 5 % x we % ? ot, «s ‘i Re WX [Rs i Ks ! ( AA 7 eCO PO COCCEE OSES SE Cosnernnecne® Lay COS cc for Ere ee 6 rec cworre cece Oe eee : RESIS re ornare eed 7 SESE ec as fe AE fe ff ¢. ect pao z3530 < ¢ bode EESES EEge fe co F Steers =f eg & ‘SR EEN eraa ~ cc REESE ETE c ES ecee 5, IMTNI9 ho’ CO ceed] SEE SERS eRRO SE £ BEER CO mm Rne er fet et ls] > 5 9 9 % aD COmeerc]e Ceceece Eee, B Cn Iecccccccnoet cctcer oec]eckeccey ecoeccecrecececcecec]e ecececce rere ce cee ccccer, © ee ceecete ce ccc ccceceececg TET ce CCKE CR CELE (ceveceCewecced e ° ° © ° Fig. 5. Grape Cup and ornaments from Upton Lovell 2e, nos. 1-6; Beaker from Amesbury 51, no. 7; Pendant and Perforated-wall Cup from Wilsford 8, nos. 8 and 9; Conical Cup from Preshute 1a, no. 10. Nos. 1-10, all at 1:2 174 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE The amber spacer-plate necklace from Upton Lovell 2e (e.g. spacer-plates, Fig. 5, nos. 5 and 6; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 227; described in Hoare 1812, 99) Irish gold lunulae, north British spacer-plate necklaces of jet, shale or similar substances, and amber spacer-plate necklaces share a continuous more or less exclusive geographical distribution (Harding 1993, fig. 2), and appear to show an artistic development from the lunulae of the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium BC with characteristically Beaker-derived decoration (Taylor 1970; Case 1995b) to the amber necklaces as here of the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia and the first quarter of the 2nd. Motif 3511 however is rare on Irish lunulae (Taylor 1970, pls. XIII, XIV, motif no. 32), absent as a boring pattern on the northern necklaces (information Alison Sheridan) and confined to the southern amber ones. Later again and further afield, these provided models for a few amber spacer-plates with similar borings in central European Tumulus Culture associations of the mid 2nd millennium and in two of the four in recorded Aegean contexts (Gerloff 1975, pl. 63, triangular symbol). Gold-covered shale(?) conical V-buttons or pendants from Upton Lovell 2e and Wilsford 8 (Fig. 5, nos. 2, 8; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 233, 181; Hoare 1812, 99 and pl. X, 201 and pl. XXV, no. 1); and related gold conical covers from Hengistbury Head 3 (Bushe Fox 1915; Clarke et al. 1985, pl. 4.55) These have a strong Beaker ancestry. V-buttons in jet, shale or amber are a well-known Beaker association (Shepherd 1985). Similarly, conical or sub-conical rivet caps of gold foil or sheet embellish stone wristguards in Group D association at Barnack, Cambs.: (burial 28; Kinnes 1985, A7; 3770435 BP, BM-2956), and in Ba and Bb associations at Driffield, Yorks., and Culduthel Mains, Inverness (p. 172). All these Beaker comparanda may date from the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium® like the conical foil or sheet copper or bronze caps from the Migdale hoard, Sutherland (Piggott and Stewart 1958, GB26; 365575 BP, OxA-4659)°. Comparanda from further afield are copper or bronze rivet-caps on typologically late Irish bronze halberds (Harbison 1960a, 46), and matched in the great central European Unetician hoards (von Brunn 1959, taf. 17, no. 4b; 20, no. 1c), some components of which may date likewise from the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium BC. Some other gold objects in the Wessex Linear Style The conical gold macehead mountings from Winterborne St. Martin 31 (Shepherd in Clarke et al. 1985, pl. 5.49) are clearly related to the covers noted above, likewise the so-called boxes from Upton Lovell 2e (Fig. 5, no. 3; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 231; Hoare 1812, 99 and pl. X; probably better considered as mounts for wands or staffs as Cunnington first believed, 1806a, 128-9, pl. VII. I owe this suggestion to Paul Robinson). But the Beaker affiliation of other objects in the same style seems more remote. Such are the twin covers for ovoid and squat fusiform beads (lignite?) from Wilsford 7 (Fig.6, nos. 12, 13; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 156, 157; cf. Hoare 1812, pl. XXV, nos. 7, 8) - although they may be early enough, since covers possibly for a similar fusiform bead from barrow 2, Barrow Hills Field, Radley, Oxon. (Barclay in Barclay and Halpin 1999, fig. 5.3), are datable by extrapolation to the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia (although a date early in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium is preferred by Garwood: 1989, 289). Likewise in the same tradition of gold foil decorative embellishment belong the gold bound (non-jet) fusiform bead from Preshute 1a (Fig. 6, no. 10; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 196) and the similar amber discs from the same grave group (Fig. 6, no. 9; op. cit. no. 195) and from Wilsford 8 (Fig. 6, nos. 2, 3; op. cit., nos. 188, 189; Hoare 1812, no. 201 and pl. XXV, no. 3). These like the amber spacer-plates from Upton Lovell 2e have attracted comparisons from further afield and in later contexts. The bead from Preshute la and the squat fusiform bead from Wilsford 7 (Fig, 6, no. 13) have been compared to a gold mounted amber bead or pendant from Zurich-Mozartstrasse, Lake Zurich, reported from a context dated dendrochronologically to 1607- 1503 BC (Barfield 1991; Gerloff 1996, 13), although unfortunately unstratified. The comparison however seems quite apt, since the object is in the same general tradition as the Wiltshire ones, although it is squatter and about twice the size and its gold embellishment is not circumferential but axial. Finally, comparisons of the amber discs to one in somewhat later Late Minoan context are well known (e.g. Gerloff 1975, 214 -15). BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 TT: ll IMM rr! lil ‘tl 8 KID | Gp GD 11 Fig. 6. Ornaments: Wilsford 8, nos. 1 - 7; Preshute la, nos. 8 - 11; Wilsford 7, nos. 12-18; Wilsford 16 east, nos. 19, 20. Nos. 1-20, all at 2:3 Other Beaker traditions The gold-embellished bronze or copper pendant from Wilsford 8 (Fig. 6, no. 7, newly drawn; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 192; Clarke er al. 1985, pl. 4.32) has also attracted widespread comparisons. Hoare described it correctly as ‘horn-like’ (1812, 201 and pl. XXV, no. 2), but it has been interpreted as a representing a central European Early Bronze Age ingot torc (e.g. Ashbee 1960, 146), such as recurring in the central European hoards (von Brunn 1959, e.g. taf. 13) or present probably earlier in the Singen cemetery, Wurttemberg (Krause 1988, Ab. 42a). But it seems unlikely that its damaged terminals were originally looped outwards as on the ingot torcs, and its double curvature is quite inconsistent. Alternatively, Aegean comparisons seem highly questionable (Branigan 1976, 97; cf. Harding 1984, 113-14). I regard it as one more example of local inventiveness and miniaturisation: in representing the horns of domesticated longhorn cattle or of an aurochs - symbols of riches, abundance and power (cf. apparent cattle cult associated with Beaker burials: in Group D association at Bishops Cannings 81, near Avebury (Robertson Mackay 1980); and in Bb association at Irthlingborough 1, Northants. (Davis and Payne 1993). 176 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 7. Beaker, copper knife, stone wristguard and flint arrowhead from Roundway 8, nos. 1-4; copper knives from Shrewton 5k and Lockington, Leics., nos. 5, 6; copper knife, gold-ornamented wooden pommel, bronze midrib knife and low-flanged axe from Wilsford 5, nos. 7-10; bronze flat axe from Clontarf, Co. Dublin, no. 11. No. 6 after Hughes 2000. Nos. 1-11, all at 1:3 BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 The jet double-axe bead or pendant from Wilsford 7 (Fig. 6, no. 15; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 148; Hoare 1812, 202 and pl. XXV, no. 12; Pollard et al. 1981, P54) is another example of native inventiveness and a tendency towards minaturisation’®. One need not look further for models than the stone battleaxes of Roe’s Intermediate or Variant Forms, themselves developments from a basic Beaker- associated type (Roe 1966). In Food Vessel and Collared Urn associations nationally, Intermediate battleaxes are quite frequent in Wiltshire: for example at Wilsford 58 (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 216) and very doubtfully associated with a Grape Cup at Windmill Hill, Avebury (op. cit., nos. 234, 235). Grape Cups as at Wilsford 7, Preshute 1aand Upton Lovell 2e (Fig, 1; Fig. 5, no. 4; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 155, 209, 228; Hoare 1812, 202, 99 and pl. XD are highly localised (Gerloff 1975, 208) and seem likely to be another product of inventive local craftsmanship'!. A roughened surface was much favoured by potters in the British Group B Beaker tradition, as for example locally at Crescent Copse, Shrewton (Cleal in Heaton and Cleal 2000, fig. 3, P5). Rows of knobs or bosses appear on Group D Beaker pottery at Stonehenge (Cleal in Cleal et al. 1995, 17, fig. 195, P17) and Lechlade, Glos. (Darvill in Allen et al. 1982, fig. 15, no. 29), and also on Group A pottery at Monknewton, Co. Meath (Sweetman 1976, figs. 13, 15). The contexts of the knobbed cups at El Mar, Brittany and Mont Ube, Jersey (Hawkes 1939, 86, 219; Gerlofff 1975, 226) are uncertain, but both may have been contemporary with the Beaker period. Pertorated-wall cups as at Wilsford 8 (Fig. 5, no. 9; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 179; Hoare 1812, 201 and pl. XXV) and Hengistbury Head 3 (Gardiner 1987, fig. III, 40, P III) may be another local invention, but resemblances of some kind are more widespread. Conical cups as at Preshute la (Fig. 5, no. 10; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 199) occur however occasionally in Beaker associations (some references to comparable undecorated cups in Case 1995a, 13). Finally, bell-barrows as at Wilsford 8 have sometimes been claimed as Wessex Series innovations (Clarke et al. 1985, 119 for references) but they had antecedents already in the Beaker period (Amesbury 71, phase II, Christie 1967, 339- 343, with Beaker sherd, Smith in loc. cit., 350, no. WT. 2; Amesbury 51, phases i and 11, Ashbee 1975/6, 27). Similarly, ring-barrows (e.g. West Overton 6b, burial phase, Smith and Simpson 1966; Lambourn 17, Berks., with its earthwork surviving apparently virtually unaltered into recent times, Case 1956/7, pl. I) can be seen as forerunners of disc-, saucer- and pond-barrows. The Armorico-British type A copper knife from Wilsford 5 (Fig. 7, no. 7; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 169; Hoare 1812, 203-4) Gerloff listed thirteen of this type (1975, nos. 108- 121), with flat blade, vestigial tang and multiple rivets, ranging from the Channel coast to Orkney, with more than half from Wilts., Hants., and Dorset. ‘Two of the five analysed examples are tin-bronzes, that from Wilsford 5 copper-arsenical alloy, and those from Weymouth 8 and Winterbourne Stoke 5 are arsenical tin-bronzes (op. cit. 267, Appendix 10). Gerloff (e.g. 1975) and other researchers describe these blades as daggers; but they are termed here knives, since their flat thin forms would make them untrustworthy stabbing weapons, but well-adapted for cutting like the pan-European Beaker-associated West European type knives (e.g. Fig. 7, no. 2) from which they were derived. An example related to the Wilsford 5 knife was indeed recently found associated with Group B Beaker pottery at Lockington, Leicestershire (Hughes 2000; Needham in op. cit., 26-7; Woodward in op. cit., 52-54). This knife (Fig. 7, no. 6) is also of arsenical copper (Hook and Meeks in op. cit., 28). Both knives are regarded as likely imports of Breton types termed Quimperlé and Rumedon respectively (Needham in op. cit., 40; Needham 2000b, 183, fig. 20, no. 113). These Breton types (about 15 and 40 examples respectively) are regarded as primeval to a series of about 200 knives and daggers recorded from the Breton Barrow Graves (Needham 2000b, 195- 207). With their vestigial tangs and thin blades, they are essentially developments from the characteristic Bell-Beaker-associated tanged West European knife towards massive size — some being exuberantly de- scribed as swords. These developments centred on the Atlantic fringe (Needham in Hughes 2000, 40- 2), earlier itself containing the cradle of the Bell- Beaker (Case 1993, 248; 1995b, 17-20, and in press, b; also Salanova 2000, 35-54, 185-8, 191-2 for the importance of Brittany). Massive tanged knives were also deployed in Ciempozuelos Beaker contexts in the Spanish Meseta (Garrido-Pena 2000, figs. 91, 92, pl. 99). 178 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE The rivet attachment of the Barrow Grave blades could be seen as a factor of increasing size; and it was an early innovation in Beaker contexts in southwest Europe (possibly around the mid 3rd millennium at Forcalquier-La Fare, Alpes-de- Haute-Provence: Lemercier 1997/8, 35; and in an earlier Chalcolithic tradition). Rivet reinforcement was early in Britain too as seen in the knife from Shrewton 5k (Fig. 7, no. 5; Case 1995a, fig. 2, no.7; 3940+40 BP, BM-3017). The Shrewton knife also serves to illustrate that copper arsenical alloys were an early Beaker-associated practice (analysis: Gerloff 1975, 266) and its disproportionately large tang suggests that the knife may have been whetted down from a longer blade. Another but indirect link with Beaker-associated craftsmanship can be seen in the gold armlets in the Lockington hoard. Their style of relief ornament contrasts strongly with the Wessex Linear Style, but also be seen as Beaker-derived (Needham 2000a, 50-5; figs. 7,8). The Breton Barrow Graves Over 80 grave assemblages from some 200 Breton barrows (Briard 1984, 211 ff)!’ traditionally divided into a so-called Primary series characterised by arrowheads and a Secondary one by pottery, have recently been reclassified by Needham (2000b) into five more or less sequential assemblage groups. Pottery is associated with the latest of these groups (so-called series 5). The earliest (series 1), with a major concentration in the Cotes-d’Armor towards Britain, includes the Quimperlé type knife as represented in the Lockington hoard (Needham Joc. cit., 156-8). This group and especially series 2 includes most of the well-known rich assemblages of knives, axes and arrowheads with objects not only of bronze, copper and flint but also gold, silver, amber, jade, jet and traces of wood and textiles. Associated with these assemblages of mostly indigenous character are a few elements of emphatically foreign type such as the metal-hilted knife from St. Fiacre, Morbihan (loc. cit., fig. 6, no.6), of ultimately central European character; a fashion for pins (dress- or hat- or hair-pins? or skewers even?) which could have been similarly inspired (p. 180); and also halberds (although not certainly grave-associated: Briard 1984, 83) which could have teen Irish-inspired. However the Bell-Beaker-related involvement in the Barrow Grave assemblages is their most conspicuous element, as the late Jean L’ Helgouach recognised (2001, 295-7). Even though the bell- Beaker itself is absent (sherds being confined to the barrow mounds: Briard 1984, 116) these assemblages can be seen as including the ultimate splendour of the classic three-fold symbolic equipment (copper knife - wristguard - projectile head) associated with the Bell-Beaker more or less throughout its European range (Case in press: e.g. locally at Roundway 8, Fig. 7, nos. 1-4): in their Quimperlé and Rumédon knives, their wristguards of schist or other stone (Briard 1984, 106, 140; Needham 2000b, fig. 6, no. 16) and of amber and gold (Briard 1984, 106-7; Needham 2000b, fig 6, nos. 17-19), and their series of exotic barbed-and - tanged arrowheads of flint (Briard 1984, 97-106), even bronze (op. cit., 126-7). Radiocarbon results from the Barrow Graves (Briard 1984, 205; selection in Needham 2000b, 186-7), although more numerous than from the Wessex Series are scarcely more informative at first sight. Results from charcoals, mostly with high standard deviations, more than once show significant age-differences within apparently related deposits; and some have means rather early in the 3rd millennium, considerably earlier than would seem appropriate for Wessex I. This situation is only made more tantalising by strongly divergent results from the Lockington knife’s scabbard, which appears to have been made of composite materials (Watson in Hughes 2000, 47). One result is assignable to the third quarter of the 3rd millennium (3910+60 BP: OxA-6173), the other to around the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia (3630455 BP: OxA-6447). Needham (2000b, 157; also in Hughes 2000, 43-4) adopts a compromise between the two results, suggesting a terminus ante quem within the first quarter of the 2nd millennium. But OxA-6173 is not inconceivable. If Bell-Beaker origins in south- west Atlantic Europe were around the turn of the first and second quarters of the 3rd millennium (Case 1995b, 17 - 18, and in press), it would not be surprising for long riveted knives to have been developed by the mid millennium. The Lockington knife might be one such; if so, it would not be very surprising for it to be more or less contemporary with or little if at all later than the rivet-tanged copper-arsenical knife from Shrewton 5k of the third quarter of the 3rd millennium (Fig. 7, no. 5; references above). Be that as it may, a date for the Lockington hoard itself in the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium would be consistent with comparisons between its relief-decorated gold bracelets and some BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 decorative bronzework in the Migdale hoard, Sutherland (Piggott and Stewart 1958, nos. 3, 4, 54; 3055+75 BP, OxA-4659; discussion of goldwork in Needham 2000a). A date just as early for some of the Breton Barrow Graves is implied by Krause’s arguments (1988, 165-6; but cf. Gerloff 1993, 75 and Gross-Klee 1999, 60) that rivet-tanged knives at the Singen cemetery, Wiirttemberg, of the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium were inspired by Breton examples. A fourth quarter date for some of the associated furniture of the Breton Barrow Graves would explain the apparent absence from Brittany of such late Beaker-associated assemblages as the epicampaniforme of the Midi; and even a third quarter date seems arguable (Bailly and Salanova 1999, fig. 2). Such early dates also suggest that quite a long- standing Breton school of fine craftsmanship may have preceded the Wessex Series goldwork. Decoration by minature gold rivet-pins from the hilts of the Armorico-British type A knives from Wilsford 5 (Fig. 7, no. 8; Hoare 1812, 204 and pl. XXVII, no. 2) and presumably Winterbourne Stoke 5 (Annable and Simpson 1984, no. 266) is well- known. Both knives are possibly Breton imports (Needham 2000b, fig. 20, nos. 113, 108) and Needham (loc. cit., 158-9) lists eleven examples of decoration of this kind from the Barrow Graves, some of which, including associations with Rumédon and Quimperlé knives, may date from the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium or earlier. Similar decoration appears to have been in a west European Beaker tradition: for example, embellishing the hilt of a tanged knife in Ciempozuelos Beaker type association at Canada Rosal, Sevilla (Harrison 1974, 82-3). The linear-decorated gold-covered wristguard from the Barrow Grave La Motta (Needham loc. cit., fig. 6, no. 19) could also suggest some foreign inspiration for the Wessex Linear Style itself (and compare a linear decorated gold bracelet associated with a massive tanged knife in burial context at Quinta da Agua Branca, Viana de Castello: National Museum, Belem, Lisbon). Some of the Breton hilt fragments with gold rivet-pin decoration appear to show linear or curved outline patterns (Briard 1984, 88-91, fig. 56A) some of which may be recalled in the dotted outlines around skeuomorphic rivets on central European metal-hafted halberds (von Brunn 1959, taf. 16, nos 1 and 2, Dieskau 2; cf. also on two flanged axes from Griefstedt, op. cit., taf. 3, nos. 1 and 3). Conversely the chevron pattern at Tanwedou, 179 Cotes-d’Armor (Needham 2000b, fig. 8 no. 3) recalls Wilsford 5, also the lost fragment in Armorico-British association from a Dorset(?) barrow (Gerloff 1975, nos 122, 123). Rivet-pins were closely set both in Brittany and at Wilsford 5 (Briard 1984, figs. 55,56; Annable and Simpson 1964, pls), but the apparently densely ornamented pommel at Wilsford 5 (Fig. 7, no. 8; Hoare 1812, pl. XXVII, no. 2) seems exceptional, and it is possible that the blade may have been rehafted by a local British craftsman, trained in a Breton school but working in a local Beaker tradition - the multiple chevron motif lower on the hilt being combined with a zone of hatched elbow pattern, a rare combination on Beaker pottery but matched nearby on a Group Bb Beaker from Shrewton barrow 5a (Clarke 1970, fig. 643). The Armorico-British type B midrib knife from Wilsford 5 (Fig. 7, no. 9; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 170; Hoare 1812, 203-4) This type (Gerloff 1975, nos. 122-134) is similar to type A but with a stout central midrib. Its greater longitudinal strength would have made it more suitable for stabbing, but the term midrib knife is used here rather than dagger to stress its derivation’’. In my view, more specialised daggers only emerged in generally Wessex II association, with some of Gerloff’s type C and subsequent and related types, with both ogival profiles and more emphatically lozenge-shaped cross-sections, e.g. Amesbury 15, (Fig. 8, no. 5; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 351), and as on the hybrid type at Norton Bavant (Butterworth 1992, fig. 5, no. 1), and more prominently at Upton Lovell 2 (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 347). Type B has a more emphatic north British distribution than type A (7/12). The six analysed examples are all tin-bronze, including examples in the Core and Sub-group: Winterborne St. Martin 31, Little Cressingham 1 and Wilsford 5 (Gerloff 267, Appendix 10). Type B is comparable to the Trévérec variant in the Breton Barrow Graves (Needham 2000b, fig. 6, no. 2; fig. 7, no. 1). Trévérec variants (about 15 recorded altogether: Joc. cit., Appendix I) are associated, as in Wilsford 5, with Quimperlé and/or Rumédon variants in over a third of their recorded instances (Joc. cit., fig. 3). Needham regards them as a somewhat later variant (Joc cit., 156, series 2 and 3) with the midrib adopted from fourth-quarter or somewhat earlier halberd technology (Needham 180 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 2000a, 43), presumably Irish. This is plausible and would appear to be one more instance of the continuity of Beaker traditions, since both Irish halberd and Beaker copper technology shared for the most part common metal resources in the Munster region (Coghlan and Case 1957; Case 1966), exploited by Beaker-users from the third quarter of the 3rd millennium (O’Brien, 2001); and some of the halberds are of high arsenical alloys". The identification of a halberd, associated with a west European type knife and early axe in the Whitespots hoard, Co. Down (Case 1966, fig. 13, nos. 8-10: all of Munster-type metal and the putative halberd of copper-arsenical alloy), is unfortunately questionable (Joc. cit., 162 and Harbison 1969a, no.116; contra Needham 1996, 126, table 1); but an undoubted halberd of Munster-type metal was associated with early axes and riveted knife at Frankford, Co. Offaly (Harbison 1969a, fig. 1C; and note also the possible association of a halberd and an exceptionally long rivet-tanged knife at Faversham, Kent (Case 1966, fig.11,nos.1 and 2). ARCHAIC AND MORE RECENT TYPES IN WESSEX SERIES BURIALS The chronological span of the Breton Barrow Graves The amber disc-shaped and trapezoidal pendants probably from Wilsford 7 (fig. 6, nos. 16-18; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 151, 149, 150; Hoare 1812, 202 and pl. XXV, no. 9) have been compared in form if not decoration to Breton amber pendants (Briard 1984, fig. 85; Needham 2000b, fig. 6, nos, 21-3) from the Barrow Grave Plouvorn, Kernonen, Cotes-d’Armor (Briard 1984, 262-3; Needham 2000b, fig. 3, no. 11, series 2). As with almost all Barrow Grave deposits, burial traces did not survive at Plouvorn; but the excavator considered the pendants to have adorned a single burial (Briard 1984, 55, 138) more or less centrally placed in the massive stone-built trapezoidal burial chamber (op. cit., fig. 31), with adjacent to it discrete offerings of bronze knives and axes and flint arrowheads, some in wooden boxes (coffrets). One of these deposits (Briard 1984, fig. 56; Needham 2000b, 172-3) consisted of two superimposed ‘Treévérec type midrib-knives placed athwart another knife of possibly Quimperlé type (all in their scabbards?). The hilts of all three had been decorated with minature gold rivet-pins and in the traces of the scabbard of the uppermost blade were - two copper or bronze pins. One ring-headed pin is of a type recurrent in central Europe; and in the Barrow Graves generally in silver and present in Needham’s series 1 contexts (2000b, fig. 5, no. 11; 178), but a somewhat later date for the type would present no serious problems in a west European context (cf. bone example in first quarter of the 2nd millennium context in grave pit 11, Radley, Oxon.: Barclay in Barclay and Halpin 1999, fig. 4.82; 3320+70 BP, OxA-1886). The other pin however is wheel-headed (Briard 1984, fig. 56; Needham 2000b, fig. 6, no. 13), unique in the Barrow Graves but comparable to central European Tumulus Culture pins datable not earlier than 1600 BC (Speyer type, A2/B period in conventional classification: I am grateful to Sabine Gerloff for comment). Thus the implication is that the early Barrow Grave cult endured for some three-quarters of a millennium, with archaic types appropriate to the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium or earlier still being deposited in graves towards or around the mid 2nd. This implication would be consistent with the strongly divergent radiocarbon results from this barrow; and it would not be inconsistent logically with Needham’s interpretation of the deposits here and at some other barrows as successive rather than unitary (2000b, 168-76, contra Briard 1984, e.g. 39).'To deny the implication that the early Breton Barrow Grave cult was long enduring, one would have to assert (as Needham does: 2000b, 180) that the wheel-headed pin was an early local invention independent of central European models. In my view, however, it could reasonably be taken as one more example of long-range east-west interchanges of ideas and objects towards or around the mid 2nd millennium: as suggested by the Zutrich- Mozartstrasse bead and seen in the central European and Aegean spacer-plates — or earlier as seen in the metal-hilted knife at St Fiacre (p. 178) and the Irish Ballyvalley type axe in the Saxo- Thuringian Dieskau 2 hoard discussed below (p. 181). Finally, as a commentary on the preceding paragraphs, note that successive early Wessex Series barrow burials are elusive. Both the 1803 and 1807 deposits at Upton Lovell 2e should be secondary (I am grateful for discussion with Paul Robinson). Another might be inferred from the summary records of Winterborne St. Martin 31 (Grinsell BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 1959,152), but the earlier burials at Weymouth 8 are indeterminate (op. cit., 141). In contrast, mixture of archaic and more recent types is altogether more apparent; but first one must return to Wilsford 5 and consider its date. The bronze axe from Wilsford 5 (Fig. 7, no. 10; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 178; Hoare 1812, 203 and pl. XXVI, no. 1) This hammer-flanged and stop-bevelled thin butted axe is best matched among technologically advanced examples of the Irish Ballyvalley type (Harbison 1969b, 32-55; cf. also bevelled-edge variant from Clontarf, Co. Dublin, Fig. 7, no. 11: Ashmolean Museum 1927. 2754), rather than among Scottish (type Bb: Coles 1968/9, 10-15) or Breton examples (e.g. Briard 1984, 77-9) or most central European axes (e.g. von Brunn 1959, passim); and the same is true of other smaller or more fragmentary examples in Wessex Series associations: including Weymouth 8, Dorset, with three fragmentary Armorico-British type A knives and gold pommel cap, with goldwork comparable to Wilsford 5 (Grinsell 1959, 141; Clarke er al. 1985, pls. 4.58, 4.59); and apparently Breach Farm, Glamorgan, with flint barbed-and-tanged arrowheads and an Aldbourne cup (Grimes 1938). The metal composition of the Wilsford 5 axe also favours Irish connections (cf. Northover’s Irish metal group F2, the Clontarf axe being of group C metal). C and F are the dominant groups associated with Irish technologically advanced flat axes, F associated with southern Ireland, C with a more northerly emphasis (I am grateful to Peter Northover for information). About half the Irish Ballyvalley and nearly a third of the Scottish Bb axes (among them the tech- nologically advanced forms) are decorated, charac- teristically with so-called rain pattern. Decorated axes in this style were secondary to a Beaker burial at Willerby 235, Yorks. (Kinnes and Longworth 1985, 111); another was deposited at the west entrance of the Earthwork Enclosure, Mount Pleasant, Dorchester, Dorset (Britton in Wainwright 1979, 128-138), and another was in the central European Dieskau 2 hoard (von Brunn 1959, taf. 16, no.3). Central European analogies Connections have often been proposed between Wilsford 5 (and other burials of the Core and Sub- group) and the Unetician so-called Princely Graves 181 (Fuirstengraber) of central Europe: specifically, Helmsdorf, Leubingen and the recently identified Dieskau 1, within an area of about 1000 square km in the Saale basin, the first two under massive barrows; and the linear barrow group of Leki Male, about 300km northeast, and southwest of Poznan (summaries and references in O Riordain 1937, 204-8; Coles and Harding 1979, 40-3; Clarke et al. 1985, 142-5, 311-3; Gerloff 1996, 14; Harding 2000, 97-8). Also brought into comparison are central European hoards of bronze objects such as Dieskau 2 (O Riordain 1937, passim; von Brunn 1959; Clarke et al. 1985, 146, 315-8), mainly from the Saale basin and with some contents in common with the Princely Graves. Both the Princely Graves and the Wessex Series Sub-group burials are of apparently heroic nature, under barrows with weapons or implements cf copper, bronze and stone, and ornaments of gold and amber. But the resemblances to the Wessex Series, although beguiling, are less close than in the case of the Breton Barrow Graves. The axe/knife association as at Wilsford 5 is indeed recurrent in the central European graves and hoards but associations with the halberd are almost as frequent. The metal-hafted knives recurrent in central Europe, and similar fine castings such as the so-called metal-hafted halberds, are missing from the Wessex Series. The gold-bound amber halberd-pendants from Wilsford 8 and Preshute 1a (Fig. 6, nos.1, 8; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 180, 200; Wilsford 8, Hoare 1812, 201 and pl. XXV) have often been compared to central European metal-hafted halberds (as represented at Leki Male; and in the hoards, e.g. Dieskau 2, von Brunn 1959, taf. 10, nos. 1 and 3; Melz II, Schoknecht 1971) but the resemblances are not very close, and the unornamented amber haft from Hengistbury Head 3 (e.g. Clarke et al. 1985, fig. 4.55) could as readily represent a purely wooden haft as present indeed at Helmsdorf and apparently elsewhere throughout the halberd world, including Ireland. The serpentine adze or pick at Leubingen and the stone battleaxe at Helmsdorf could be seen as ritual equipment equivalent to the maceheads from Wilsford 5 (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 175) and Winterborne St. Martin 31 (Clarke et al. 1985, pl. 4.54) and further afield at Towthorpe C39 (Gerloff 1975, pl. 45 A, no. 3). But this can only serve to emphasise that craft tools such as the adze or pick and the cushion-stone from Leubingen and the bronze chisels at Helmsdorf, Leubingen and Leki Male are absent from the Wessex Core and Sub- 182 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE group. The gold and amber objects in both series are not closely matched. Ashbee’s well-known reconstruction of the Wilsford 5 burial as extended (1960, 77) would match the criss-cross burials at Leubingen but not the contracted burial at Helmsdorf. (Ashbee admitted that Hoare’s account of the Wilsford 5 burial was imprecise, but cf. extended burial at Towthorpe C39, East Yorks., also in Armorico-British A association; Mortimer 1905, 5-6, Gerloff 1975, no. 111.) Finally, unlike the Breton Barrow Graves, the central European contexts show little or no Beaker cultural inspiration; the apparent representation of a West European knife in the Neuenheilingen hoard seems exceptional (von Brunn 1959, taf. 66, no. 3). Reliable dendrochronological radiocarbon dates for Leubingen and Helmsdorf bracket the first quarter of the 2nd millennium rather closely (respectively 1942+10 BC; 1840+10 BC: Becker et al. 1989). A result from Leki Male barrow 1, grave A (3605+35 BP; Gerloff 1993, 97), where a metal- hafted halberd was represented, suggests a terminus post quem around the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia. Three results were obtained from the wooden cores of metal-hafted halberds in the Melz II hoard, Mecklenburg - Pommern (Gerloff loc. cit.: 3815+100 BP, 3720+100 BP, 3675+100 BP; Bln- 985, 982, 983; Schocknecht 1971, where the cores were identified as ash and one of lime; Muller 1999 Abb. 19b), and suggest with rather more emphasis a fourth quarter date for the metal-hafted type. And a similar date (3690+40 BP; GrN-11895) came from a Unetician grave at Feuersbrunn, Lower Austria (Gerloff 1993, 97: Muller, Joc. cit.) with non-metal hafted halberds and a waisted flanged axe - an axe type occurring variously in the hoards and Princely Graves, and represented by a socketed skeuomorph in the Melz II hoard. These results taken together suggest first, that these assemblages like those in the Breton Barrow Graves, represent a prolonged tradition rooted in the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium and extending through most of the first quarter of the 2nd; and secondly, that such connections as there were with the Wessex Series were significantly earlier than the Wessex-inspired central European and Aegean ones, suggested by the Ztrich- Mozartstrasse bead and the amber spacer-plates. What was the date of Wilsford 5? The upper half of a Biconical Urn presumably collected from its surface (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 558), possibly derived from a burial inserted in the mound, can be taken to belong to the fully developed series of such Urns and thus provide a terminus ante quem for the barrow around the mid 2nd millennium (I am grateful to David Tomalin for comment)!*, although stratification and association at Amesbury 71 could suggest a later terminus (reference: note 16 below). Thence, extrapolating backwards, the decorated Ballyvalley type axe from Mount Pleasant, Dorset was on the surface of primary silting (Wainwright 1979, fig. 24) where the Main Enclosure’s west entrance ditches had been redug towards the end of the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium (op. cit., 38: 3734+41 BP, BM-645; 3728+59 BP, BM- 646), thus during the Beaker period. It had been sealed by silting equivalent to that associated elsewhere at the redug west entrance with Collared Urn and Beaker sherds and spanning the turn of the millennia and the first quarter of the 2nd millennium (op. cit., 40: 3619455 BP BM-790; 3459+53 BP, BM-789). This suggests that the axe was deposited early in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium, and I adopt this provisional date for the Wilsford 5 burial and the deposit of its Ballyvalley type axe, thus equivalent in date to the Leubingen Princely Grave and about midway within the chronological range of the Breton Barrow Graves. Does Wilsford 5 show a mixture of archaic and more recent types? It appears it does, since its Breton type knives belong to a tradition which goes back to at least the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium (p. 179). Such an early date finds some confirmation in the Killaha East hoard, Co. Kerry (Harbison 1969a, fig. 2A), where a long riveted copper-arsenical knife of the same general family as the Breton, Lockington and Wilsford 5 examples was associated not only with a bronze halberd, but also with bronze axes of the Irish Killaha type considered typologically earlier than the Ballyvalley type as represented in Wilsford 5. Do other Wessex Series burials show a similar mixture? Thus at Wilsford 5 an innovative type axe was buried with knives in an earlier tradition. Identifying other similar examples involves mainly objects of the Wessex Linear style; and involves accepting Taylor’s arguments that these were the products of a fairly BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 short-lived local school of craftsmanship (references, p. 171). This school can be taken to have been active in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium - or even around the turn of the 3rd or 2nd millennia. Such an early date would be consistent with Breton origins for some of the craftsmanship involved (p. 179) and with the inferred date at Radley 2 (p. 174). Some geographically significant assemblages from the Sub-group and others need be no later than Wilsford 5: southwards, the lost assemblage from a ‘Dorset’ barrow (Gerloff 1975, pl. 46 B) and near the coast Weymouth 8, an assemblage resembling Wilsford 5 quite closely (op. cit. pl. 46 A; Grinsell 1959, 141); and on the coast itself possibly Hengistbury Head 3, despite its cremation burial, since its halberd pendant may not be later than the latest development of the halberd in Ireland and its recurrent deposits in central Europe from the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium (p. 182). Towards the East Anglian coast, Little Cressingham 1 need not be appreciably later than Wilsford 5, even though its gold pectoral does not seem to have been worked by the same hand as some of the Wiltshire pieces (Taylor 1980, 46). Other assemblages suggest contrastingly wide chronological ranges, with objects made early in the 2nd millennium or around then remaining fashionable or revered for very long periods. At Wilsford 7, Beaker sherd, Collared Urn and Wessex Linear style goldwork together appear to tie the assemblage to the first quarter of the 2nd millennium, but the resemblance of the amber disc and trapezoidal pendants to those at Kernonen suggest a fashion lasting to about the mid 2nd millennium (p. 00). Similarly, the gold-bound ovoid and fusiform beads in Wilsford 7 (Fig. 6, nos. 12 and 13; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 156, 157) appear to have been quite closely matched by those among the lost finds from a bell-barrow at Great Bircham near the Norfolk coast (Thurnam 1871, 525, figs. 216, 217; Clarke 1960, 75), which included a cremation in a Biconical Urn with arciform lugs (so-called horseshoe handles)'°— a pottery sub-type which may not have become prevalent in southern Britain until the second quarter of the 2nd millennium. Likewise, whereas the halberd-pendants at Wilsford 8 and Preshute la could fix both assemblages no later than the first quarter of the 2nd millennium, central European and Aegean comparanda suggest that their gold-bound amber discs and beads remained fashionable or revered 183 towards or around the mid millennium. Amber spacer-plates at Upton Lovell 2e suggest a similarly late survival, whereas the affinities of the gold plaque, button cover and ‘boxes’ are first quarter if not earlier (pp. 172, 174); their late survival seems emphasised by the small bronze blade from the same assemblage (illustrated more complete in Hoare 1812, pl. XI than in Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 229 or in Gerloff 1975, Pls. 24, no. 272; 53A, no. 6), which can be compared to probably second quarter examples at Norton Bavant (Butterworth 1992, fig. 5, no. 2) and Wilsford 23 (Fig. 8, no. 2). Winterbourne St. Martin 31 might be another example showing late survival of earlier types, but it is doubtful whether the assemblage is coherent (Grinsell 1959, 152) and the identification of its Aldbourne cup is uncertain (Clarke et al. 1985, 274-5). However there are other examples outside the Core and Sub-core groups: Winterbourne Stoke 5 (Hoare 1812, 122-3 and pl. XVID) with two knives of Armorico-British type A, both of Rumédon type and one a Breton import (Needham 2000b, fig. 20, no. 108) with possibly a gold pin decorated scabbard (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 266 and pl.), associated with the well-known sherds of a handled pot of later Breton affinity (Tomalin 1988, 209-10 and passim, but cf. Needham loc. cit., 181); Hammeldon, Devon, with Wessex Linear style gold and amber pommel and a Camerton type Wessex II dagger (Gerloff 1975, no. 194, 109-10); Breach Farm, Llanbleddian, Glamorgan, with thirteen flint barbed-and-tanged arrowheads, a Ballyvalley type bronze axe and a Wessex II type Aldbourne cup (Grimes 1938)!". Wilsford 23, in the Normanton Down Group (Fig. 3A), qualifies with a hybrid midrib knife / Camerton type dagger (Fig. 8, no. 1; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 164; Gerloff 1975, no.135, type B/C) and a bronze crutch-headed pin of Wessex II type (Fig. 8, no. 4; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 166; Gerloff 1975, 111) with lozenge decoration like the Urn in Wilsford 7. Type B/C would also apply to the blade at Norton Bavant, Wilts. (Fig. 8, no. 6; Cleal in Butterworth 1992, 13 - 14) associated as also at Wilsford 23 with a Wessex II whetstone-pendant (Fig. 8, no. 3; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 163; Gerloff 1975, 112-3; Hoare 1812, 199 and pl. XXIV). Finally, Amesbury 15 (Fig. 3A; Grinsell 1957, 207; Hoare 1812, 205-6), a bell barrow 400 metres north-west of the Normanton Group, intervisible with Stonehenge (Cleal in Cleal et al.1995, fig. 23) and near its midwinter sunset alignment, with a Snowshill type 184 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 8. Bronze dagger and midrib knife, stone whetstone-pendant and bronze pin from Wilsford 23, nos. 1-4; bronze daggers from Amesbury 15 and Norton Bavant, nos. 5, 6; bone-belt hooks from Norton Bavant, Wilsford 16 west, and Wilsford 18, nos. 7-9. Nos. 6 and 7 after Butterworth 1992. Nos. 1-9, all at 1:2 BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 dagger (Fig. 8, no. 5; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 351; Gerloff 1975, no. 160) and an unusual wooden structure (?dismantled parts cf. Breton structures, e.g. Briard 1984, 42-6), might show late survival of an early type if its ‘richly ornamented drinking cup’ (Hoare 1812, 207) was indeed a Beaker. (But note that Cunnington and Colt Hoare similarly described the Collared Urn from Wilsford 7: p. 163 above; Hoare 1812, 202). Foundation and female burials Like the Breton Barrow Graves and central European hoards and Princely Graves, the contents of the Wessex Series show long-enduring traditions. The burial assemblages described above show ranges of early to late, approaching sometimes half a millennium. A number of explanations could be argued with varying plausibility. Only Norton Bavant has a radiocarbon date (3410+35 BP; BM- 185 2909): best taken as second quarter of the 2nd millennium BC. Useful help might be provided by high-precision dating of primary human bone which may remain at the base of Cunnington’s infilled excavations at Wilsford 7 and 5. In default, a view must be taken; and the one adopted here is that Wilsford 5, Little Cressingham 1, Weymouth 8, the ‘Dorset’ burial and possibly Hengistbury Head 3 are first quarter of the 2nd millennium; and that Wilsford 7 and 8, and Preshute la are not significantly later. Wilsford 23 like Norton Bavant should be second quarter of the 2nd millennium and likewise Upton Lovell 2e and the same is taken to be true for Breach Farm, Hammeldon, Great Bircham and Amesbury 15, and may be so for Winterbourne Stoke 5. This view implies that there were strategically placed foundation burials of men, such as Wilsford 5 and Little Cressingham 1, and that men’s burials continued into the second quarter (Norton Bavant), Tae ee EM CMS Fig. 9. Beaker from Wilsford 2b, no. 1. Beakers and associations from Wilsford 1, nos. 2-8; no. 6 bone, no. 7 boar’s tusk. Nos. 2-8 partly after Clarke 1970. Nos. 1-8, all at 1:3 186 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE but that women’s burials (Preshute la) and some ‘female burials’ in Gerloff’s definition (1975, 258- 260; but cf pp. 171, 172 above) were not necessarily if at all later than men’s (contra Gerloff 1975, 245; 1996, 15). STONEHENGE AND THE NORMANTON GORSE / NORMANTON DOWN BARROW GROUP I take the view that the stone constructions at Stonehenge were built by Group D Beaker users over a rather prolonged period, starting during the third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC (Case 1997 in review of Cleal et al. 1995). The Beaker-period burial in the ditch was made around the turn of the third and fourth quarters (Case loc. cit., 164) and stone construction was virtually completed during the fourth quarter (loc. Clt., 1165). By the fourth quarter in my reckoning, Beaker barrow burials began to appear at locations southwest to northwest of the monument, at what later became the sites of three of the four major barrow groups surrounding it (Fig. 3A): at the Winterbourne Stoke Cross Roads Group, barrows 10 and 54 (Annable and Simpson 1964 nos. 105, 53-8 and refs); at the Fargo/Cursus Group, Amesbury barrows 51 (e.g. Fig. 5, no. 7; Ashbee 1975/6), 54 (Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 67- 9 and refs.) and the so-called ‘Fargo henge’ ring- barrow (Case 1995a and refs.); and at the Normanton Gorse/Normanton Down group, Wilsford 2b (Fig. 9, no. 1; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 103 and ref.) and Wilsford 1 (Fig. 9, nos. 2-5, 8; Clarke 1970, figs. 67, 183, 182, 138, 219 and catalogue entries; Field 1961; information Edwina Proudfoot)'*. These barrows are on the fringes of later developments at their respective groups, as at Lambourn, Berks., and Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxon., and are similarly widely spaced (Case 1956/7, pl. 1, nos. 17, 31; Barclay in Barclay and Halpin 1999, fig. 9.11) and at the Fargo/Cursus group they followed a linear pattern (Ashbee 1975/ 6, fig. 1; cf. Radley, op. cit.). However, to the immediate east of the monument knowledge about the New and Old King Barrows (Fig. 3A) is limited. At present they appear to be anomalous groups (Richards 1990, 273; Cleal in Cleal et al. 1995, 488-9) with little evidence for Beaker-associated activity in their vicinity (Cleal and Allen 1994, 72). Further east however an exceptionally rich burial has recently been discovered at Boscombe Down, Amesbury (information Andrew Fitzpatrick). Of these Beaker burial clusters by Stonehenge, Wilsford 1 and 2b may be among the earliest and are significant since they belong exclusively to the D Group as represented at the monument itself, and they lie in the general direction of its midwinter sunset alignment!’. They can be taken as a development from a Beaker focus represented by typologically early Beakers from barrows about 900m south and downslope (Wilsford 52, 54: Smith 1991, fig. 8, P 4; fig. 12, P 6-8; and the decoration towards the base of Fig. 9, no. 3 from Wilsford 1 has some affinity with that of P 214 from the North Kite earthwork alongside Wilsford 52 and 54, Raymond in Richards 1990, fig. 136)°°. Wilsford 2b with burials of men and Wilsford 1 predominantly with women, children and infants appear at least partly to reflect an enduring Beaker- associated gender-age separation in burial (Case in Case and Whittle 1983, 105). Wessex Series developments at these Stonehenge Beaker burial clusters are outstanding examples of a well-known and widespread general trend in barrow burial in Britain, with cremation generally replacing inhumation and sometimes accompanied by Food Vessels, Urns and minature vessels - for example in southern England in the Thames valley (Barclay in Barclay and Halpin 1999, 323-5) and in south Dorset (Healy in Smith et al. 1997, 287-290). Among other features, this trend partly reflects fresh styles of settlement pottery in Britain replacing Beaker wares from the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium (e.g. Healy 1995, esp. 179-183), and the fading away on a pan- European scale (from the turn of the millennia in Britain) of the symbolically-charged association of Beaker-knife-wristguard-arrowhead. Thus the Normanton Down group spread eastwards from its Beaker foundation burials in a general linear pattern (Fig. 3A; cf. Radley, Barclay and Halpin op. cit. above) along the ridge of the near skyline from Stonehenge (Cleal in Cleal et al., figs. 22, 23). Wilsford 5, a comparatively massive example in the most conspicuous position (Cleal in op. cit., 490; cf. similar positions of Weymouth 8 and Winterbourne St. Martin 31) is taken to be the foundation burial of the new series, with 7 (similarly with an inhumation burial and (?) aligned on 5) and 8 (with a cremation burial) little if at all later. I BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 suggest that they formed a single dynastic burial place early in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium. Barrows (generally with cremation burials where recorded by Colt Hoare) then continued to spread eastwards from Wilsford 8 (Fig. 3A) with expansion lasting through the first quarter into the second - if the date obtained from Norton Bavant (p. 185) can be applied to Wilsford 16 west and Wilsford 18 similarly with bone belt-hooks (Fig. 8, nos 7-9; Butterworth 1992, fig. 5, no. 4; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos, 306, 313; Hoare 1812, 200 and pl. XXIV)”!. Finally, a second quarter date would be appropriate for Wilsford 23 (p. 185) near the extreme east of the group. Thus a process by no means necessarily uniform took place over some 15 generations or more (counting about 25 years each), during which the material culture was changing, with the development of efficient daggers reflecting a more competitive social pattern, and with land tenure tending to become more regularised with an increase in arable (seen in the silting of the Y-holes at Stonehenge: Allen in Cleal et al 1995, 332). Accretion to the Normanton Down barrow group at its west during the later part of this process is taken to be represented by Amesbury 15, and by disc-barrow 3 (with cremation burial and jet, amber and faience beads; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 390-5; Hoare 1812, 205), and perhaps its neighbours 2 and 4 and possibly at least one secondary burial at Wilsford 5 (p. 182). Thereafter, the axe-carvings at the Sarsen Circle recalling the Arreton style (Lawson and Walker in Cleal et al. 1995, 32) and the comparative frequency of Middle Bronze Age pottery at the monument (including Deverel-Rimbury sherds: Cleal in op. cit., 357-9) show that activity continued to be associated with the monument, around which land divisions had become still more formalised (Allen in op. cit., 333). Of the post-Beaker barrow developments around the monument, Wilsford 5, 7 and 8 overlook Stonehenge and appear uniquely closely attached to it. These burial assemblages and others show the transformation of the material culture of the Beaker élite who had built the monument and now controlled access to it - a transformation deriving from the monument’s exceptional reputation (in its ingenious and enduring stone construction) as a medium for communicating with the Otherworld and influencing it (opinions along these lines in e.g. Darvill 1997, Whittle 1997). 4 At Wilsford 5, 7 and 8, the transformation is above all seen in the products of a school of craftsmanship which included the potter of the Urn 187 in Wilsford 7, and which combined old and new designs with unsurpassed inventiveness and skill, in producing products charged with symbolism for a group of initiates - including minature ornaments for those accustomed periodically to eyeing each other at close quarters”’. These exotic objects and outlying examples of variously similar craftsmanship suggest that this élite lay at the hub of a complex web of gifts and exchanges to and fro, which variously drew in widely and in turn transmitted materials, knowledge, ideology and practices, even objects themselves (e.g. Beck and Shennan 1991; Shennan 1993, 59-66; Needham 2000b, 181-191), for example: early, outwards, fairly short-range and possibly random at barrow 2, Radley, Oxon (p. 174); late, outwards, long-range and very long-range and possibly less random at Plouvorn, (p. 180), Ztirich-Mozartstrasse and in the Aegean (Harding 1984, 79-80); and early and late, inwards, over the medium range and non-random, concerned with the supply of amber and its working (Shennan 1993, 65); and inwards over a longer range seen in the Breton knives at Wilsford 5 and Winterbourne Stoke 5, the Irish axe in Wilsford 5, pottery syles at Wilsford 7, and possibly gold supply. Exchange of kin may have been involved as implied at Wilsford 7 (p. 170), and regional and more distant examples may also show long enduring contacts between close kin: at Preshute La, possibly near a source of the Stonehenge sarsens, being only 2.5km east of the great spread of boulders surviving around Fyfield Down to Lockeridge; at Upton Loveil 2e, towards a potential route from the source of the bluestones and one of gold procurement (Case 1997, 166); at Little Cressingham I and Great Bircham, Norfolk near the East Anglian sources of amber~’; and at Weymouth 8, Winterbourne St. Martin 31 and Hengistbury Head 3” near likely points of access for continental kin, gifts (p. 177) and specialist craftsmen (pp. 179). Transformation was fuelled by ideology and was intense but selective, symbolised above all by exceptional craftsmanship. It was not achieved following a massive influx of resident population (note Allen’s view that the work force necessary for building Stonehenge was local: 1997, 14); nor was it reflected in major productive activity (cf. the high frequency of early axe moulds and axeheads in northeast Scotland: Coles 1968/9, fig. 25), nor at this stage in exceptionally massive procurement of exotic substances (cf. the minute mass of gold in Wessex Series burials with that represented by Irish lunulae, Taylor 1999, 111; and note that, although 188 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE an exceptional quantity of amber was represented at Upton Lovell 2e, pre-eminence of Early Bronze Wessex in its procurement was less than at first appears; Beck and Shennan 1991, 77, 80, 98). Nor was it seen in sustained effort at Stonehenge itself, where comparatively minor modifications at the Bluestone Horseshoe and Circle may possibly have extended into the first quarter of the 2nd millennium (Cleal in Cleal et al. 1995, 231; I owe this suggestion to Mike Pitts), and where the presumably second quarterY and Z hole modifications were abandoned (Walker in Cleal et al. 1995, 256-265); nor was it seen in the Normanton Down and nearby barrow groups in exceptionally big barrows on an international scale.” ADDENDUM Northern connections (p. 170 above) are also suggested by general comparisons between the gold discs from a burial at Barnhill, Angus, and the gold and amber discs from Wilsford 8 (Taylor in Clarke et al. 1985, 186-7, and pls. 4.31 and 4.32). A radiocarbon result probably early in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC associated with the Barnhill burial (Sheridan 2002, 795) can also strengthen arguments for a similarly early date in Wiltshire for the discs from Wilsford 8 and that from Preshute la. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am especially grateful for comment and infor- mation from Nicholas Griffiths and Paul Robinson; and to Rosamund Cleal, Andrew Fitzpatrick, Sabine Gerloff, Alex Gibson, Ian Kinnes, Andrew Lawson, Terry Manby, Giovanna Bermond Montanari and members of the research group Archéologie et Gobelets, Mike Pitts, Peter North-over, Edwina Proudfoot, Alison Sheridan, Derek Simpson, David Tomalin, and Ann Woodward. Nicholas Griffiths drew the illustrations. Drawings of objects in the Stourhead Collection ar 19e mostly based on illustrations in the 1964 Museum catalogue (Annable and Simpson 1964). Fig. 1, nos. 1 and 3, Fig. 5, nos 1 and 3 and Fig. 6, no.7 have been redrawn; and attention has been given to earlier publications and to the Crocker watercolours in the Wiltshire Heritage Library at Devizes, which were commissioned by Colt Hoare and on which some of the illustrations in Hoare (1812) were based. Notes 1. Not surprisingly some decorative motifs such as the zigzag panel are shared with later Grooved Ware (e.g. Woodhenge: Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 3) despite differences in fabric in the two traditions in Wessex (Cleal 1995, fig. 16.2, 190-2). 2. Notable Beaker contexts in Wiltshire, both Group D: Mere 6a and Bishops Cannings 81 (reserved), Case 1995a, fig. 2, nos. 1, 10. 3. Case 1995b, 20-1, 23. Motifs of this north British style are also characteristic of Irish lunulae (Taylor 1970, pls. XIII, XIV) and are represented in Irish Bowl and Vase pottery (Case 1995b, 20-22). 4. Some light on this might be thrown on this by analysis of dental enamel if skeleton was re-excavated? Cf. Budd, Evans and Chenery 2002. 5. Excavated in 1803 (Cunnington 1806a, 128-129) and re-excavated in 1807. Unfortunately there must be an element of doubt as to whether the Collared Urns excavated in 1807 (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 230, and presumably Hoare 1812, pl. XI) were associated with the 1803 assemblage; this is reflected in Fig. 4. 6. See note 5 above. In addition to doubt concerning the urns from Upton Lovell 2e, doubt must exist as to whether Annable and Simpson nos. 152 and 154 (not otherwise quoted here) may be correctly associated with the Wilsford 7 assemblage (information Paul Robinson). Otherwise, provenances of objects in the Stourhead Collection as catalogued in 1964 and specifically quoted here are taken as reliable. Some degree of their reliability is inferred from quoted page and/or plate references in Hoare (1812). 7. And note rectangular ‘Chinese box’ motif also on the gold pectoral at Little Cressingham 1 (Gerloff 1975, pl. 46, F 10). 8. If not earlier, since the base of the pendant or button from Upton Lovell 2e (Fig. 5, no. 2), like those of the wooden pestle- beads from Shrewton 5j (Green and Rollo-Smith 1984, fig. 28), may recall the solar imagery (Darvill 1997, 187, 190) attributed to Group D associated gold discs, as at Mere 6a (Case 1995a, fig. 25.no:3)). 9.'Too small however for most of the buttons surviving in the hoard. 10. Cf. miniature shale or jet pendant possibly in form of a bronze flat axe, associated with amber bead in cremation pit 1043, Ashville, Abingdon, Oxon.: Parrington 1978, fig. 26, nos. 2-5. Miniaturisation is also a Beaker characteristic: cf. knives with inhumation burial, Dorchester-on-Thames site XII, Oxon. (Whittle et al. 1992, 179). 11. Allen and Hopkins (2000) suggest that miniature vessels were used in group sessions as burners for producing trance-inducing smoke; but personal fumigation seems another possible use - with seductive intent or for quelling parasites. BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 12. Out of a total number of some 750 barrows; op. cit., 19-21. 13. A fully objective term for all three (knives, midrib knives and daggers) would be blade (cf. French lame). 14. And the persistence of copper-arsenical metal for halberds in the central European Princely Graves and hoards alongside axes apparently exclusively of tin- bronze (Otto and Witter 1952, passim) appears significant, since some halberds were being made of tin-bronze at this date in central Europe and Ireland. 15. A first appearance of the Biconical Urn in southern Britain in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium seems possible, with full development in the second quarter and demise in the third. Another sherd, a body sherd about 3.5 by 2.5cm, recently identified as from the surface of Wilsford 5 (information Paul Robinson) is of indeterminate Early Bronze Age character. 16. Jars or Urns with arciform lugs had a long life in north-west France extending towards the mid 2nd millennium, but with antecedents in the Beaker period before the end of the 3rd millennium (Billard er al. 1992), if not earlier. Locally a late date for the sub-type seems indicated by association with a Class I bronze razor at Amesbury 71, following a Beaker - Food Vessel - Collared Urn sequence (Christie 1967, 348). 17. The only other apparently Wessex Series or related associations with barbed-and-tanged flint arrowheads are at Beauly, Inverness, with an Armorico-British type B blade (Green 1980, 291; Gerloff 1975, no. 133), Figheldean 26 with a Grape Cup, Collared Urn and bronze riveted blade (Longworth 1984, 286; Kinnes 1994, A27) and Roundway 5b (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 285; Green 1980, 340). 18. In 2001 two Beaker burial pits (adult male and child inhumations respectively) were excavated within about 10 metres north of Wilsford 1. The associated pottery (information Andrew Lawson, Rosamund Cleal) appears to be similar to that from the barrow. 19. Although they may not have been intended to have been visible from the monument (Cleal in Cleal er al. 1995, 490). Nearby, Amesbury 15 lies close to this alignment and was probably visible, but I take it to have been a later development. 20. Evidence for other potentially early Beaker activity (including Shrewton 5k) lies north of the monument and generally at greater distance (Case 1995a, 4) and note Upton Lovell 2c (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 98); but I have suggested that rich burials (such as that recently excavated at Boscombe Down, p. 186) may also lurk nearby as primary burials beneath Wessex Series barrows (Case 1997, 166) such as Wilsford 5 (a specific suggestion I owe to Derek Simpson) or even Wilsford 7. The primary inhumations at Weymouth 8 and Winterbourne Monkton 31 might also have been Beaker-period burials. 189 21. But note continuation of early traditions in Wilsford 16 east with ribbed beads (Fig. 6, nos 19 and 20; Annable and Simpson 1984, no. 308, 309, ?non-jet) comparable to those in Wilsford 7 (Fig. 6, no. 14; op. cit., no. 147, ?jet or non-jet) and Preshute 1a (Fig. 6, no. 11; op. cit., no. 197, lignite). . Both outdoors and indoors. Efficient architecture seems implied by the delicate work as seen for example in the gold rivet-pins at Wilsford 5, with craftsmen able to work on stable surfaces, under dust-free conditions, in good light and still air. 23. The source of the amber from Little Cressingham itself is unfortunately unidentifiable but the remainder from the Core and Sub-groups has been identified as of Baltic origin, presumably washed up on the east coast of Britain (Beck and Shennan 1991, 33-5). 24. Note a bronze axe identified as of Breton Barrow Grave type found nearby (Gardiner 1987, 59, fig. Ill, 43). 25. Barrows of mass equivalent to exceptionally large locai examples such as Wilsford 5 (requiring about 10,500 man-hours earth moving: Startin in Case and Whittle 1982, 155), Winterbourne Stoke 4 and 5 and Amesbury 45 (Fig. 3A) are not uncommon in Brittany, and these Wiltshire examples fall short of exceptional Breton ones such as Plouvorn or St. Fiacre or central European Leubingen or Helmsdorf. bo bo THE CONSERVATION OF A BRONZE AGE COLLARED URN FROM WILSFORD BARROW 7 by Alison Hopper-Bishop The Urn was received for conservation by the Wiltshire County Council Conservation Centre in 1989 to prepare it for display in the new Bronze Age galleries at Devizes Museum. The treatment, undertaken over a four-month period as part of a post-graduate internship in early 1990, took 185 hours. Excavated at the beginning of the 19th century, the Urn had been restored by the excavator William Cunnington, shortly after excavation. Our conservation revealed two stages in this earlier restoration: an initial reconstruction followed by a further phase of treatment possibly to strengthen the original work. This second phase was visible in the form of an exceptionally hard, cement-like layer covering much of the interior of the vessel. Initial examination in the conservation laboratory revealed 190 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE a robust and stable fabric. However, it was apparent that the two phases of restoration were becoming increasingly unstable. The Urn had been reconstructed from many fragments. All of the joins and cracks as well as missing areas were filled with an exceptionally hard gap-filling material that varied in colour from pale yellow-brown to much darker, dirty yellow-brown. The joins were visibly weakening, with some small cracks appearing along their length. The shape of the vessel had slumped somewhat out of alignment following reconstruction - perhaps explaining the necessity for the internal cement-like layer. In general the gap-fills were very poorly shaped, not at all sympathetic to the external profile of the vessel. In many places the fill material was smeared extensively over the surface of the sherds. In addition, the interior of the vessel was almost completely obscured by the grey cement-like substance. During later cleaning it was discovered that the interior of the vessel, where gap-fills were needed, had been lined with a layer of thin card; the cement-like substance was applied over the top of the lining. The base of the vessel had also been made up on one side with layers of thin card and water-soluble adhesive, apparently so that the vessel would stand level following reconstruction. There was no sign of any adhesive along or around any of the joins; it was suspected that the gap-filling material had also been used as an adhesive which joined all the sherds together In addition to the hard fill materials, there were deposits of a softer, grey-white material (probably gypsum) covering many areas of the exterior and rim. There were patches of a pale orange paint covering both gap-fills and original surface, and the entire vessel was covered with a thick layer of dust. Almost every sherd exhibited dark, oily or waxy staining extending a few millimetres from break edges towards the centre of the sherd. The staining was most severe along those edges abutting the gap- filling material. Apart from its structural instability, both the shape and the appearance of the Urn were entirely compromised by the deterioration that occurred since the early reconstructions were carried out. Although the surviving restoration was a fascinating example of early conservation techniques, it was considered that in this case the long term stability and visual appearance of the vessel were of prime importance. It was therefore agreed that, once a careful photographic record had been made and series of samples taken of all gap- filling materials and tests made on them, the vessel would be dismantled, cleaned, and reconstructed according to current conservation practice. These procedures are summarised below. Full details are deposited in the archives of the Museum of the WANHS at Devizes. Tests and Disassembly The orange overpaint was dispersed and easily removed when a dampened cotton wool swab was rolled across the surface. No trace of any adhesive was found where samples of the gap filling material were removed for tests, confirming suspicions that this material had been strong and of sufficient tack to double as an adhesive. Analysis by Raymond White of the National Gallery confirmed it to be a linseed-oil based putty, thus explaining the oily stains around the broken edges of the sherds. This gap filling/adhesive was harder in texture than the ceramic body of the vessel and therefore impossible to remove mechanically, particularly between joins, without risk or damage to the vessel. A method was therefore developed to deliver a controlled level of moisture to the vessel, which would soften the degraded putty sufficiently to allow the sherds to be taken apart whilst at the same time supporting the vessel so that it did not collapse. During dismantling it became clear that the joins were very wide apart and the original completed reconstruction distorted in shape. Several intriguing anomalies appeared as the vessel was dismantled. A number of sherds had not been positioned correctly, even though they were a part of the vessel. Usually these sherds were ‘floating’ in the putty matrix. More curious was the discovery of a decorated sherd (Fig. 1, no. 1) in a particularly distorted section of the rim of the vessel which did not belong to the vessel at all, being of both different pattern and fabric. Reassembly After cleaning sherd by sherd, the vessel was reassembled using ethyl methacrylate co-polymer adhesive. Contrary to expectations, bearing in mind the previous reconstruction method, the sherds ‘keyed’ together very well (Pl. 1A and B). Finally, gaps were filled with plaster of Paris (calcium sulphate) tinted with acrylic colours, and with the impressed decoration reproduced with a plaster modelling tool. BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 Bibliography ABERCROMBY, J., 1907, The Relative Chronology of some Cinerary Urn types of Great Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 41, 185-274 ALLEN, M.J., 1997, ‘Environment and Land-use: The Economic Development of the Communities who built Stonehenge (An Economy to support the Stones)’, in B. W. Cunliffe and A. C. Renfrew, 1997 (eds), Science and Stonehenge, 115-144. London: Proceedings of the British Academy 92 ALLEN, M.J.,and GREEN, M., 1998, The Fir Tree Field Shaft: the date and archaeological and palaeo- environmental potential of a chalk swallowhole feature. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 120, 25-38 ALLEN, C., and HOPKINS, D., 2000, Early Bronze Age Accessory Cups from Lincolnshire: Early Bronze Age Pot?. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 297 - 317 ALLEN, T.G., DARVILL, T.C., GREEN, L.S., and JONES, M.U., 1982, Excavations at Roughground Farm, Lechlade, Gloucestershire; a prehistoric and Roman landscape. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit ANNABLE, F.K., and SIMPSON, D.D.A., 1964, A Guide Catalogue of he Neolithic and Bronze Age Collections in Devizes Museum. Devizes: WANHS ApSIMON, A.M., 1954, Dagger graves in the Wessex Bronze Age. University of London Institute of Archaeology Annual Report 10, 37-62 ASHBEE, P., 1960, The Bronze Age Round Barrow in Britain. London: Phoenix House ASHBEE, P., 1975/6, Amesbury barrow 51: Excavation 1960. WANHM 70/71, 1-60 ASHBEE, P., 1981, Amesbury barrow 39: Excavation 1960. WANHM 74/75, 3-34 BAILLY, M., and SALANOVA, L., 1998, Les dates radiocarbones du Campaniforme en Europe occidentale: analyse critique des principales séries de dates. Actes du Colloque “C 14 Archéologie”. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Frang¢aise 26, 219-224 BARCLAY, A., and HALPIN, C., 1999, Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume 1: The Neolithic and Bronze Monument Complex. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit BARFIELD, L.H., 1991, Wessex with and without Mycenae; new evidence from Switzerland. Antiquity 65, 102-107 BARTON, T., 1852, Antiquities discovered at Little Cressingham, Norfolk. Norfolk Archaeology 3, 1-2 BECK, C., and SHENNAN, S., 1991, Amber in prehistoric Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books _ BECKER, B., KRAUSE, R., and KROMER, B., 1989, Zur absolute Chronologie der frihen Bronzezeit. Germania 67(2), 421-442 BILLARD, C., BLANCHET, J-C., and TALON, M., 191 1992, Origines at composantes de |’ Age du Bronze dans le nord-ouest de la France. 117e Congr. Nat. Soc. Hist. Scient. (Clermont Ferrand), 579 - 601 BRANIGAN, K., 1970, Wessex and Mycenae: Some evidence reviewed. WANHM 65, 89-107 BRIARD, J., 1984, Les Tumulus d’ Armorique. Paris: Picard BROWN, N., 1995, ‘Ardleigh reconsidered: Deverel Rimbury pottery in Essex’, in I. A. Kinnes and G. Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’: Essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 123-144. Oxford: Oxbow Books BRUNN, W.A. von, 1959, Die Hortfunde der friihen Bronzezeit aus Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen und Thuringen. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin, Bd. 7 BUDD, P., EVANS, J., and CHENERY, C., 2002, ‘Locating the early childhood residence of the Individual’, in M. Pitts, An Anglo-Saxon decapitation and burial at Stonehenge, WANHM 95, 137-9 BURGESS, C., 1986, ‘Urnes of no small variety’: Collared Urns reviewed. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 339-351 BUSHE FOX, J.P., 1915, Excavations at Hengistbury Head, Hampshire in 1911 - 12. London: Society of Antiquaries, Research Committee Report III BUTTERWORTH, C.A., 1992, Excavations at Norton Bavant Borrow Pit, Wiltshire, 1987. WANHM 85, 1-26 CASE, H.J., 1956/7, The Lambourn Seven Barrows, Berkshire. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 55, 15- 31 CASE, H.J., 1966, Were Beaker-people the first metallurgists in Ireland? Palaeohistoria 12, 141-177 CASE, H.J., 1977, ‘An early accession to the Ashmolean Museum’, in V. Markotic (ed), Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean: studies presented in honour of Hugh Hencken, 18-34.Warminster: Aris and Phillips CASE, H.J., 1993, Beakers: Deconstruction and After. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59, 241-268 CASE, H.J., 1995a, Some Wiltshire Beakers and their Contexts. WANHM 838, 1-17 CASE, H.J., 1995b, ‘Irish Beakers in their European Context’, in J. Waddell and E. Shee Twohig (eds), Ireland in the Bronze Age, 14-29. Dublin: Government Publications Office CASE, H.J., 1995c, ‘Beakers: loosening a stereotype’, in I. A. Kinnes and G. Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’: Essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 55-67. Oxford: Oxbow Books CASE, H.J., 1997, Stonehenge Revisited. WANHM 90, 161-168 CASE, H.J., 2001, ‘The Beaker Culture in Britain and Ireland: Groups, European Contacts and Chronology’, in F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers Today: Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe, 361-377. Trento CASE, H.]J., in press, a, ‘Beaker burial in Britain and 192 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Ireland’, in Symposium Les Seépultures du Neolithique Final et des Bronze ancien, 2700-2000 av. J.C., Sion, Valais, 2001 CASE, H.J., in press, b, ‘Beakers and the Beaker Culture’, in Symposium on the Northeast Frontier of Bell Beakers. Poznan 2002 CASE, H.J., and WHITTLE, A.W.R., 1982, Settlement patterns in the Oxford Region: excavations at the Abingdon causewayed enclosure and other sites. London: CBA Research Report 44 CHRISTIE, P.M., 1967, A Barrow-Cemetery of the Second Millennium B.C. in Wiltshire, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33, 336-366 CLARKE, D., 1970, Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and Ireland, volumes 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press CLARKE, D.V., COWIE, T.G., and FOXON, A., 1985, Symbols of Power at the time of Stonehenge. Edinburgh: HMSO CLARKE, R.R., 1960, East Anglia. London: Thames and Hudson CLEAL, R.M.J., 1995, ‘Pottery fabrics in Wessex in the fourth to second millennia BC’, in I. A. Kinnes and G. Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’: Essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 185-194. Oxford: Oxbow Books CLEAL, R.M.J., and ALLEN, M.J., 1994, Investigation of Tree-damaged Barrows on King Barrow Ridge and Luxenborough Plantation, Amesbury. WANHM 87, 54-84 CLEAL, R.M.J., WALKER, K.E., and MONTAGUE, R., 1995, Stonehenge in its landscape: Twentieth- century excavations. London: English Heritage, Archaeological Report 10 COGHLAN, H.H. and CASE, H.J., 1957, Early Metallurgy of Copper in Ireland and Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 23, 91-123 COLES, J.M., 1968/9, Scottish Early Bronze Age Metalwork. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 101, 1-110 COLES, J.M. and HARDING, A.F., 1979, The Bronze Age in Europe: An Introduction to the Prehistory of Europe c.2000 - 700 B.C. London : Methuen COLES, J. and TAYLOR, J., 1971, The Wessex Culture: a minimal view. Antiquity 45, 6-14 CUNNINGTON, M.E., 1907, Notes on the opening of a Bronze Age barrow at Manton, near Marlborough. WANHM 35, 1-20 CUNNINGTON,W., 1806a, Account of Tumuli opened in Wiltshire, in three letters from Mr. William Cunnington to Aylmer Bourke Lambert, Esq. F.R.S. and F.A.S. communicated by Mr. Lambert. Archaeologia 15, 122-9 CUNNINGTON,W., 1806b, Further Account of Tumuli opened in Wiltshire, in a letter from Mr. William Cunnington F.A.S. to Aylmer Bourke Lambert, Esq. FE.R.S., FA.S. and F.L.S. communicated by Mr. Lambert. Archaeologia 15, 338-46 CUNNINGTON, W. and GODDARD, E.H., 1896, Catalogue of Antiquities in the Museum of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society — at Devizes. Part I: The Stourhead Collection. Devizes DARVILL,T., 1997, ‘Ever Increasing Circles: The Sacred Geographies of Stonehenge in its Landscape’, in B. W. Cunliffe and A. C. Renfrew (eds), Science and Stonehenge, 167-202. London: Proceedings of the British Academy 92 DAVIS, S. and PAYNE, S., 1993, A barrow full of cattle skulls. Antiquity 67, 12-22 ELUERE, C., 1982, Les Ors Préhistoriques. Paris: Picard FIELD, E.V., 1961, Excavation and fieldwork in Wiltshire, 1960, South Wilsford. WANHM 58, 30-31 GARDIN, C. du, 1998, Le Campaniforme et de l’ambre: mythe ou réalite? Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Frangaise 95, 343-350 GARDINER, J., 1987, in B. W. Cunliffe, Hengistbury Head, Dorset, vol. I: The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement, 3500 BC - AD 500. Oxford: Committee for Archaeology GARRIDO-PENA, R., 2000, El Campaniforme en la Meseta Central de Ja Péninsula Ibérica (c. 2500-2000 AC). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 892 GARWOOD, P., 1999, “The chronology of depositional contexts and monuments’, in A. Barclay and C. Halpin (eds), Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume 1: The Neolithic and Bronze Monument Complex, 275-309. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit GERLOFF, S., 1975, The Early Bronze Daggers in Great Britain: and a Reconsideration of the Wessex Culture. Munich: Prahistorische Bronzefunde Ab.VI, Bd. 2 GERLOFF, S., 1993, Zu Fragen mittelmeerlandischer Kontakte und absoluter Chronologie der Frihbronzezeit in Mittel- und Westeuropa. Prahistorische Zeitschrift 68, 58-102 GERLOFF, S., 1996, ‘Wessex, Mycenae and related matters: the Chronology of the British Bronze Age in its European Setting’, in R. Peroni, M. Novotna and B. Novotny (eds), Section II, Colloquium XX, 11- 19. XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forli, Italy GIBSON, A., and KINNES, I.A., 1997, On the Urns of a Dilemma: Radiocarbon and the Peterborough Problem. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(1), 65- 72 GREEN, H.S., 1980, The Flint Arrowheads of the British Isles. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 75, 1-1 GREEN, C., and ROLLO-SMITH, S., 1984, The excavation of eighteen Round Barrows near Shrewton, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50, 255-318 GREIG, M.K., GREIG, C., SHEPHERD, A.N., and SHEPHERD, I.A.G., 1989, A Beaker cist from Chapelden, Tore of Troup, Aberdour, Banff and BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 Buchan District, with a note on the orientation of beaker burials on north-east Scotland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 119, 73-81 GRIMES, W.F., 1938, A barrow on Breach Farm, Llanbleddian, Glamorgan. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 107-121 GRINSELL, L.V., 1957, ‘Corpus of Wiltshire barrows’, in R.B. Pugh (ed), A History of Wiltshire I, part 1, 134-246. London: Institute of Historical Research (Victoria History of the Counties of England) GRINSELL, L. V., 1959, Dorset Barrows. Dorchester: Longmans GROSS-KLEE, E., 1999, Glockenbecher: ihre Chronologie und ihre Verhaltnis zur Schnurkeramik aufgrund C14—Daten. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fir Ur - and Frtthgeschichte 82, 55-61 HARBISON, P., 1969a, The Daggers and Halberds of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland. Munich: Prahistorische Bronzefunde, Ab. VI, Bd. 1 HARBISON, P., 1969b, The Axes of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland. Munich: Prahistorische Bronzefunde, Ab. IX, Bd. 1 HARDING, A.F., 1984, The Mycenaeans and Europe. London: Academic Press HARDING, A.F., 1993, ‘British amber spacer-plate necklaces and their relatives in gold and stone’, in C.W. Beck and J.Bouzek (eds), Amber in Archaeology, 53-58. Prague: Institute of Archaeology HARDING, A.F., 2000, European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press HARRISON, R., 1974, A closed find from Canada Rosal, Prov. Sevilla and two Bell Beakers. Madrider Mitteilungen 15, 77-94 HAUGHTON, C. and POWLESLAND, D., 1999, West Heslerton: the Anglian Cemetery, vol. 1.Yedingham: Landscape Research Centre HAWKES, J., 1939, The Archaeology of the Channel Islands, volume II: The Balliwick of Jersey. Jersey: Société Jersiaise HEATON, M., and CLEAL, R.M.J., 2000, Beaker Pits at Crescent Copse, near Shrewton, Wiltshire, and the Effects of Arboreal Fungi on Archaeological Remains. WANHM 93, 71-81 HEALY, F., 1995, ‘Pots, pits and peat: ceramics and settlement in East Anglia’, in I.A. Kinnes and G. Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’: Essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 173-184. Oxford: Oxbow Books 173-184 HOARE, R.C., 1812, The Ancient History of South Wiltshire. London: Miller HUGHES, G., 2000. The Lockington Gold Hoard: an Early Bronze Age cemetery at Lockington, Leicestershire. Oxford: Oxbow Books JOUSSAUME, R., 1981. Le Néolithique de l’Aunis et du Poitou occidentale dans son cadre atlantique. Rennes: Equipe de récherche du C.N.R.S., no. 27 KINNES, I.A., 1985, 1994, British Bronze Age Metalwork, A7-Al6, A17-A30: Beaker and Early 193 Bronze Grave Groups. London: British Museum KINNES, I.A., and LONGWORTH, I.H., 1985, Catalogue of the Excavated Prehistoric and Romano- British Material in the Greenwell Collection. London: British Museum KRAUSE, R., 1988, Die endneolithischen und frihbronzezeitliche Grabfunde auf der Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Hohentwiel. Stuttgart: Forschungen und Berichten zur Vor- und Frugeschichte in Baden-Wurtemburg, Bd. 32 LEMERCIER, O., 1997/98, Le Campaniforme dans la moyenne et basse vallée du Rhone. Archéologia 1997/ 98, 30-35 . LHELGOUACH, J., 2001, ‘Le cadre culturel du campaniforme armoricain’, in F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers Today: Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe, 289-299. Trento LONGWORTH, I.H., 1984, The Collared Urns of the Bronze Age in Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press MORTIMER, J.R., 1905, Forty Years Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire. London: Brown MULLER, J., 1999, Zur Radiokarbondatierung des Jung- bis Endneolithikums und der Frthbronzezeit im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100 - 1500 v. Chr.). Bericht der Romisch - Germanischen Kommiussion 80, 31-90 NEEDHAM, S.P., 1996, Chronology and Periodisation in the British Bronze Age. Acta Archaeologica 67, 121-140 NEEDHAM, S.P., 2000a, The Development of Embossed Goldwork in Bronze Age Europe. Antiquaries Journal 80, 27-65 NEEDHAM, S.P., 2000b, Power Pulses across a Cultural Divide: Cosmologically Driven Acquisition between Armorica and Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 151-207 O’BRIEN, W., 2001, ‘New light on Beaker Metallurgy in Ireland’, in F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers Today: Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe, 561-576. Trento O RIORDAIN, S.P., 1937, The Halberd in Bronze Age Europe: A Study in Prehistoric Origins, Evolution, Distribution and Chronology. Archaeologia 86, 195- 321 O RIORDAIN, B., and WADDELL, J., 1993, The Funerary Bowls and Vases of the Irish Bronze Age. Dublin: National Museum of Ireland and Galway University Press OTTO, H., and WITTER, W., 1952, Handbuch der 4ltesten vorgeschichliche Metallurgie in Mitteleuropa. Leipzig: Barth PARRINGTON, M., The excavation of an Iron Age settlement, Bronze Age ring-ditches and Roman features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, 1974-76. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit PIGGOTT, S., 1938, The Early Bronze Age in Wessex. 194 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 52-106 PIGGOTT, S., and STEWART, M., 1958, The Migdale Hoard, Sutherland. Inventaria Archaeologica GB 26 POLLARD, A.M., BUSSELL, G.D., and BAIRD, D.C., 1981, The analytical investigation of Early Bronze Age jet and jet-like material in Devizes Museum. Archaeometry 23, 139-167 RAWLINGS, M., and FITZPATRICK, A.P., 1996, Prehistoric Sites and a Romano-British Settlement at Butterfield Down, Amesbury’, WANHM 839, 1-43 RCHME, 1979, Stonehenge and its Environs. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press RICHARDS, J., 1990, The Stonehenge Environs Project. London: English Heritage, Archaeological Report 16 ROBERTSON-MACKAY, M.E., 1980, A ‘head and hoofs’ burial beneath a round barrow, with other Neolithic and Bronze Age sites on Hemp Knoll, near Avebury, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 46, 123-176 ROE, F.E.S., 1966, The Battle-Axe Series in Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, 199-245 SALANOVA, L., 2000, La question du Campaniforme en France et dans les iles anglo-normandes. Paris: Societe Préhistorique Frang¢aise SCHOKNECHYT, U., 1971, Ein neuer Hortfund von Melz, Kr. Rébel, and die mecklenburgischen Stabdolche. Jahrbuch Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg, 233-253 SHENNAN, S., 1993, ‘Amber and its value on the British Bronze Age’, in C.W. Beck and J. Bouzek (eds), Amber and Archaeology. Prague: Institute of Archaeology SHEPHERD, I.A.G., 1985, ‘Jet and amber’, in Clarke et al., 1985, 204-216 SHEPHERD, I.A.G., 1986, Powerful Pots: Beakers in north-east prehistory. Aberdeen: Anthropological Museum, University of Aberdeen SHEPHERD, I.A.G., and BRUCE, M.F., 1987, Two Beaker cists at Keabog, Pitrichie, near Drumlithie, Kincardine and Teeside. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 117, 33-40 SHERIDAN, A., 2002, The radiocarbon dating programmes of the National Museum of Scotland. Antiquity 76, 794-6 SMITH, I.F., 1991, Round barrows Wilsford-cum-Lake G51 - G54: Excavations by Ernest Greenfield in 1958. WANHM 84, 11-39 SMITH, I.F., and SIMPSON, D.D.A., 1966, Excavation of a Round Barrow on Overton Hill, North Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, 122-155 SMITH, R.J.C., HEALY, F., ALLEN, M.J., MORRIS, E.L., BARNES, I., and WOODWARD, P.J., 1997, Excavations along the Route of the Dorchester By- pass, Dorset, 1968. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology, Report 11 SWEETMAN, P.D., 1976, An earthen enclosure at Monknewton, Slane, Co. Meath. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 76C, 25-72 TAYLOR, J.J., 1970, Lunulae reconsidered. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 38-81 TAYLOR, J.J., 1980, Bronze Age Goldwork of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press TAYLOR, J.J., 1999, ‘Gold Reflections’, in A.F. Harding (ed.), Archaeological Studies in honour of John Coles, 108 - 115. Oxford: Oxbow Books THURNAM, J., 1871, On British Barrows, especially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining Counties. Part II: Round Barrows. Archaeologia 43, 285-544 TOMALIN, D.J., 1988, Armorican Vases a anses and their occurrence in Southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 203-221 TUCKWELL, A., 1975, Patterns of burial orientation in the round barrows of east Yorkshire. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 12, 95-123 WAINWRIGHT, G.J., 1979, Mount Pleasant, Dorset: Excavations 1970-1971. London: Society of Antiquaries, Research Report 37 WATTS, S., POLLARD, A.M. and WOLFF, G.A., 1997, Kimmeridge jet - a potential new source for British jet. Archaeometry 39, 125-143 WHITTLE, A., 1997, ‘Remembered and Imagined Belongings: Stonehenge in its Traditions and Structures of Meaning’, in B.W. Cunliffe and A.C. Renfrew (eds), Science and Stonehenge, 145-166. London: Proceedings of the British Academy 92 WHITTLE, A., ATKINSON, R.J.C., CHAMBERS, R. and THOMAS, N., 1992, Excavations in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Complex at Dorchester- on-Thames, Oxfordshire , 1947-1952 and 1981. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 143-201 WHITTLE, A., POLLARD, J., and GRIGSON, C., 1999, The Harmony of Symbols: the Windmill Hill causewayed enclosure. Oxford: Oxbow Books WIERMANN, R. R., 1998, ‘An anthropological approach to burial customs of the Corded Ware Culture in Bohemia’, in M. Benz and S. van Willingen (eds), Some New Approaches to the Bell Beaker ‘Phenomenom’. Lost Paradise?, 129-140. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 690 WOODWARD, A., 1995, ‘Vessel size and social identity in the Bronze Age of Southern Britain’, in I.A. Kinnes and G. Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’: Essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 195-202. Oxford: Oxbow Books Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 195-205 ‘A Family Chapel. . . to an Archdruid’s Dwelling’: an investigation into the stone circle at Winterbourne Bassett, Wiltshire by Andrew David', David Field’, Joerg Fassbinder’, Neil Linford, Paul Linford and Andrew Payne A recent geophysical survey and re-assessment of field-drawings made in the early 18th century by William Stukeley suggest that the currently accepted, and scheduled, location of the Winterbourne Bassett stone circle must now be considered 1n doubt. That such a monument once existed seems highly probable, but its identification with a scatter of stones at Upper Oxleaze may well be erroneous — these being part of a naturally-occurring distribution without any deliberate patterning. It seems more likely that the circle in fact once lay to the south of a lane leading to Clyffe Pypard. INTRODUCTION The giant henge and stone circles of Avebury, and its neighbouring monuments, have tended to dwarf interest in a number of subsidiary sites in northern Wiltshire where there are records or remains of large sarsens that have been interpreted as parts of former stone circles (Burl 2000, 310-311). The examples near Avebury include Falkner’s Circle, of which only one stone remains, and two lost sites at Clatford and Langdean. A fourth example, with an apparently more secure antiquarian pedigree, and with several surviving but fallen stones, is located near the village of Winterbourne Bassett, a few miles to the north of Avebury. That these sites are indeed those of stone circles has become something of an ingrained assumption, even if the field evidence is thin or non-existent. Clearly, it would be helpful to re-examine both the antiquarian evidence and the surviving physical evidence to try and locate and characterise these sites definitively, so that they can - be more fully considered within the wider context of the Avebury landscape in the second and third millennia BC (Cleal and Montague 2001). Such efforts are best directed at sites where the evidence is most compelling, that is where surviving stones coincide, or seem to coincide, with the original antiquarian evidence. At the time of writing, the site of Falkner’s Circle is under detailed field investigation following geophysical survey in 2002 (Gillings er al. forthcoming). Here, we report upon geophysical and documentary re-investigation of the Winterbourne Bassett site, undertaken since 1998. HISTORY The stone circle at Winterbourne Bassett, Kennet, Wiltshire, has always been something of an enigma. It is placed by the Ordnance Survey Archaeological Division and by the National Monument Record at NGR SU 0936 7552 to the west of the village on a north-facing slope alongside a small stream, a tributary of the Kennet known as the Lambourne. This is acommon name on the chalk and not to be ! (David, Linford, Linford and Payne) English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Eastney, Portsmouth, PO4 9LD. ? English Heritage, National Monuments Record Centre, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2GZ. * Bavarian State Department of Historical Monuments 196 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE confused with its namesake below Windmill Hill or a little further east with the Lambourn Downs. Early maps indicate that the area was formerly known as Winterbourne Bassett Common but that the meadow containing the site, Upper Oxleaze, had been enclosed by at least 1773 while the commonland immediately to the south had been incorporated into the Manor of Rabson and cultivated by 1840 (Crittall 1952: British Library MT 6.1(1) — A survey of Winterbourne, Rapson, Richardson, Upper Richardson alias Whyr, Summers’s Hanh alias Trotman’s Farms 1760: WSRO TA/ Winterbourne Bassett). The circles were first recorded by Stukeley in his Abury. He relates that: At Winterbourne Bassett, a little north of Abury, in a field north west of the Church, upon elevated ground, is a double circle of stones concentric, sixty cubits diameter. The two circles are near one another, so that one may walk between. Many stones have of late been carry’d away. West of it is a single, broad, flat, and high stone, standing by itself. And about as far northward from the circle, in a ploughed field, is a barrow set round with or rather composed of large stones. I take this double circle to have been a family- chapel, as we may call it, to an archdruid dwelling near thereabouts, whilst Abury was his Cathedral. (Stukeley 1743, 45) The site was evidently forgotten, and its position not marked on Andrews and Dury’s Map of Wiltshire of 1773 (Crittall 1952), but investigated by Hoare in preparation for the second volume of his Ancient Wiltshire. Using Stukeley’s description, Hoare traced the site to the valley slopes of the Lambourne to the west of the village: ‘By the above description I was enabled to find the remains of this circle, which is situated in a pasture ground at an angle of a road leading to Broad Hinton, and consists at present only of a few inconsiderable stones’ (Hoare 1821, 95). Hoare’s map depicts the position of the site adjacent to the junction of the Winterbourne Bassett to Clyffe Pypard and Broad Hinton toYatesbury roads (at NGR SU 0936 7552), the latter now for most of its course a Green Lane. This is the position subsequently adopted by the Ordnance Survey. By the first half of the 18th century the locals were apparently already in the process of dismantling the circle and many stones had been ‘carry’d away’ (Stukeley 1743, 45). Use of the local naturally occurring sarsen for construction purposes was widespread in the villages situated alongside the winterbournes feeding the Kennet. For example, when the chancel and nave of the church of St Katherine and St Peter, Winterbourne Bassett, were re-built during the 14th century (Freeman 1983, 192) it was in sarsen. A number of houses in Winterbourne Bassett, including the substantial Rabson Manor, were constructed of sarsen in the 17th century (ibid, 185, 188) and by the time of Hoare’s visit, some time before 1821, only a ‘few inconsiderable stones’ remained of what he considered to be the circle. Unusually, Hoare did not elaborate and he described neither the number of stones present nor their position or form. Neither did he provide an illustration. The impression is that so few stones remained that the circle could not be reconstructed. When A.C. Smith first encountered the site in about 1880 he indicated that there was ‘no trace of a circle, and only three or four stones lying about to mark where the circle once stood’ (Smith 1884, 76). In fact he recorded six stones lying on the surface and he set about probing for buried examples, discovering the position of nine others. He noted that the exercise was in fact so successful that he encountered fragments of broken sarsen at regular intervals which he thought pointed to the former location of stones since demolished (Smith 1884). The Rev W.C. Lukis prepared a plan of the site in 1882 (Lukis 1883), discovering an additional stone in doing so, and this was published in Smith’s monograph in 1884. The plan (Figure 1) depicted | Ec 1 Fig. 1. Plan of the Winterbourne Bassett concentric circles as posited by A.C. Smith in 1884 ‘A FAMILY CHAPEL ...TO AN ARCHDRUID’S DWELLING’ 197 a loose grouping of stones interpreted by Smith as forming inner and outer concentric circles around a central stone. The inner circle incorporated five stones and attained a diameter of 148 ft. (45.1m), while the outer consisted of ten stones and measured 234 ft (71.3m) in diameter, although five stones in the north did not fit into the pattern. It is an interesting reflection upon the contemporary attitude to Stukeley’s records to note that Smith and Lukis, whilst using his account and Hoare’s subsequent assumption to locate the site, then largely ignore Stukeley’s description. Not only do they locate a central stone, seemingly not visible in 1724, but they enlarged both circles well in excess of the maximum of 60 cubits diameter (approx. 34m) that he noted. The Ordnance Survey Ist edition 25-inch map published in 1886 depicted eight stones and labelled them as the remains of a stone circle. To the north- west an isolated stone situated in the adjacent meadow, Lambourne Ground, was shown. A further stone was added to the site on the 1900 edition. On the foregoing evidence the site was scheduled as an Ancient Monument (Wilts 24) in 1924, the area so protected being the western portion of Upper Oxleaze (OS field number 4252), incorporating both the stones mapped by Smith and an outlying recumbent stone some 80m to the south-east which must have been deemed of related significance. The limits of the scheduled area (see Figure 2) were defined on its western and southern sides by the edges of the field, the remainder of the circuit curving across the field, around the stones. Other stones were apparent elsewhere in the field, to the north and north-east, as marked on the contemporary OS map, but these were ignored. When visited by the Ordnance Survey Archaeological Division in November 1972 Smith’s six stones were observed to be lying on the surface among ridge and furrow, the field not having been disturbed for a considerable period. The published survey was revised (although this is missing from the archive) and the stones measured by the OS Investigator. All were prone as they were in Smith’s day. None was large. Stone (Smith’s lettering) Height (m) Width (m) A Ground level 2.5 B 0.5 1.6 C 0.1 OM D 0.5 1.1 E Ground level 1.6 F 0.2 1.7 The outlier described as west of the circle by Stukeley was suggested to be that shown on the 1960 OS 6-inch map at NGR SU 09357563, although the OS investigator drew attention to the very large stone (referred to above) some 3.5 m across, lying recumbent to the south-east of the circle at NGR SU 09407545. Ten years later the English Heritage Field Monument Warden’s report states: “Five recumbent stones visible, four making up arc of circle, one inside the circle. All measure about 1m square. A sixth stone lies near the gate to the field to the north-west and may have been part of the monument’ (FH Site File AA/72392/1). THE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS The attention of the Ancient Mounuments Laboratory (AML) was initially drawn to the site as a possible target for geophysical survey by Ros Cleal and Becky Montague of the Alexander Keiller Museum, Avebury, and Chris Gingell, during a site visit with AML staff in May 1996. The subsequent decision to undertake fieldwork was at least partly inspired by the success of the survey of the stone circles at Stanton Drew in the following year (David 1998; David et al. forthcoming). It seemed that the conditions at Winterbourne Bassett were rather similar and that there might be an opportunity here not only to confirm and amplify the antiquarian record, but perhaps to detect formerly unseen features such as post pits. The results would also inform the future management and conservation of the monument. That the site lay unobstructed in a large grassy field, with a potentially undisturbed magnetic background, were practical advantages; a visit to the site could also be timed to coincide with the availability of highly sensitive caestum magnetometer sensors in use by Dr Joerg Fassbinder as part of a wider collaboration with the Ancient Monuments Laboratory. The geophysical surveys were undertaken during 9-11 June 1998, and included magnetic survey, using both fluxgate gradiometers and total field caesium magnetometers, and earth resistance survey. The survey grid of 30m by 30m squares, and the differing coverage by these instruments is shown in Figure 2.The local geology is Lower Chalk (IGS 1974) overlain here by well-drained calcareous clayey/silty soils of the Blewbury Soil Association (SSEW 1983). 198 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE | WINTERBOURNE BASSETT, WILTSHIRE. Geophysical surveys, June 1998. SU0975 N 157 756 755 7154 093 094 Magnetometer and earth resistance survey = : | Magnetometer survey only ee © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved. [ Ba . Caesium magnetometer survey _ Approximate limit of scheduled area —7— Eee 9()m Fig. 2. Location of geophysical survey area, and the limit of the scheduled site The survey area covers 2.3ha of the western part of the field. All of this (grid squares 1-28) was surveyed initially with Geoscan FM36 magnetometers, with a sampling interval of 1.0m x 0.25m. A rather smaller area (1.68ha: grid squares 6-24) was surveyed with a Geoscan RM15 resistivity meter, using the Twin Electrode (Twin Probe) configuration, with a mobile probe spacing of 0.5m, and a sampling interval of 1.0m x 1.0m. Operation of the caesium magnetometer was halted after coverage of a yet smaller area (0.76ha) on account of the very poor weather conditions then prevailing and the unexceptional magnetic response being obtained. The instrument used comprised a customised non-magnetic cart on which two Scintrex CS2 sensors were mounted horizontally ‘A FAMILY CHAPEL .. Mee : nat ae fone we Br Ac AK ah one Sa nas Fig. 3. Greyscale image of fluxgate gradiometer data 0.5m apart, providing a high resolution sampling interval of 0.5m x 0.25m. The heightened sensitivity of the CS2 sensors (+ .001nT) over that for the FM36 fluxgate sensors (+0.5nT) offered the opportunity of detecting very weakly magnetised features. The magnetometer surveys were part of a series then being conducted by the AML and Dr Joerg Fassbinder of the Bavarian State Department of Historical Monuments, in a project aimed at comparing the effectiveness of the two types of instrument on archaeological sites in England (Cole et al. 1999). The results of the magnetometer surveys were disappointing. The fluxgate data (Figures 3-4) demonstrates a generally very bland response across the entire survey area with most background variations scarcely exceeding +0.5 nT, and thus at the limit of the sensitivity of the instrument. There is a thin scatter of irrelevant ferrous responses across the field and along its margins where fencing has been detected. Although no obviously significant anomalies are apparent in the area of the presumed circles, there are a small number of discrete anomalies nearer the edges of the survey area. To the north-east, in grid squares 4-5, are two anomalies (approx. 10nT), 15m apart, which measure about 2m in diameter and may represent buried pits (A and C on Figure 3). Of interest is the presence of an exposed sarsen 6- 7m from the easternmost of these anomalies, and lying over 70m away from the presumed outermost stone circle. A third smaller pit-like anomaly (approx 1.0m diameter; 8 nT) lies about 20m to the south-west of the other two, in grid square 9 (B on Figure 3). Near the western margin of the field, in grid square 11, are two further weakly . TO AN ARCHDRUID’S DWELLING’ 199 90m, Fig. 4. X-Y trace plot of fluxgate gradiometer data defined anomalies which may also be pit-like features (D and E on Figure 3). Coverage with the caesitum instrument, whilst more limited in area, overlapped the presumed location of the circles generously. Despite the increased sensitivity of the data, the lack of Fig. 5. Greyscale image of caesium magnetometer data 200 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE apparently relevant magnetic anomalies in this area seems confirmed (Figure 5). The distribution of ferrous signals is accentuated, and the magnetometer has picked up the ridge and furrow running northeast-southwest across the site. The furrows are apparent as weak negative anomalies, which is unusual, and may result from a relatively high subsoil magnetic susceptibility, compared to that of the topsoil: measurements on samples of the latter from each grid intersection reveal very low values (average: 6.9 x 10° SI/kg), whilst a sample of subsoil gave a value of 14.5 x 10° SI/kg. If this relatively high value for the subsoil is typical of the site the reversed magnetic signal might be explained — the furrows being in-filled with low susceptibility material contrasting with a higher susceptibility subsoil at a shallow depth. The caesium magnetic data also show a slight linear negative magnetic anomaly, dog-legged, crossing the ridge and furrow in grid squares 11- 13. Whilst difficult to explain, this anomaly may (by analogy with the interpretation of the ridge and furrow offered above) represent a broad and shallow ditch. It is very weakly defined, however, and does not convince as part of any possible prehistoric circular arrangement. Apart from this and the ridge and furrow, there is little else to remark upon in the data (the pit-like anomalies referred to above being outside the area of caesium magnetometer coverage). The earth resistance data are more revealing (Figure 6). Here the ridge and furrow is more prominent as a series of linear bands of alternating high and low resistance. More significantly, there are a large number of discrete high resistance anomalies of various sizes scattered about the plot. Careful re-scaling of A.C. Smith’s plan and comparison of this with the plot shows that at least seven of these match with buried stones located by probing 117 years earlier (Stones 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Figure 1). Together with the presence of Smith’s stones A-F, still exposed at the surface, this represents a highly satisfactory correlation with the 19th-century record. Where the resistance survey departs from the latter, however, is in its location of numerous additional high resistance anomalies AN J 165 1S40 1915 Ohms Fig. 6. Greyscale image of earth resistance data ‘A FAMILY CHAPEL. ..TO AN ARCHDRUID’S DWELLING’ 201 which must also be considered to be buried stones. Many of these (e.g. in grid squares 17 and 22) are of the same scale and magnitude as those previously identified by probing, but many others (e.g. in squares 8, 9, 13 and 19) are substantially larger and, taken together, their distribution extends well beyond the circles, and moreover seems to be random. Several of the larger anomalies, with dimensions of 5m or more, could represent very large buried sarsens, or perhaps groups of smaller stones. Although there are several larger anomalies near the road (grid squares 21, 23), there seems to be a rather greater concentration downslope towards the stream. Background resistance also increases in this area (grid squares 1-5, 8-10). The high resistance anomaly to the immediate south- east of the outlier in grid square 25 may represent an adjacent buried stone, but is more possibly the effect of localised poaching by cattle. Apart from the ridge and furrow, the most obvious artificial feature that has been detected by the resistance survey is indicated by a linear high resistance anomaly running for some 40m between grid squares 20 and 24. This might perhaps be a feature such as a stone-lined or ceramic drain, or might be a wall. There are very faint suggestions of other linear features in this part of the survey area, but all are too tentative to warrant the credibility lent by any attempt at delineation. DISCUSSION The implications of the geophysical survey results may be briefly summarised as follows. Despite the use of detailed and highly sensitive magnetometry, no convincing evidence was found for circular patterning or pit features in the area of the presumed stone circles. Whilst a possible broad and shallow ditch may have been located here by the caesium instrument this interpretation is speculative and the feature is not apparent in the corresponding earth resistance data. The very low values of soil magnetic susceptibility have resulted in a subdued magnetic response and in such circumstances it is possible that slight features such as postholes and gullies (and unburnt stone) might well have been missed. Such low magnetic susceptibility also indicates a lack of prolonged human settlement, of any age, in the survey area. A few magnetic anomalies, perhaps indicating pits of uncertain significance, have been noted near the limits of the scheduled area. The earth resistance survey also shows no conclusive evidence for prehistoric features. It has successfully detected most of the stones that compose the circles proposed by A.C. Smith, but these are shown to be part of a much wider and apparently random distribution of equivalent anomalies — with the inevitable implication that Smith’s discoveries, whilst genuine, were simply part of a wider spread of relict sarsen, rather than a deliberate composition. Smith’s imposition of circularity upon the stones he saw — tentative at best (Figure 1) — does not now seem so easily sustainable in this light. None of the stones seen by Smith was standing and that the stones mapped by Lukis were in fact naturally positioned sarsens must be considered highly likely. As elsewhere, the Lower Chalk bench here appears to have once contained a good spread of sarsens and large examples still turn up from time to time and are hauled to the edges of fields where they soon disappear, doubtless to local gardens. In 2000 a large heap of such removed sarsens was noted adjacent to Winterbourne Monkton Field by members of the Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group. The place-name Stanmoor (stonemoor), depicted as a large open field on the Tithe Award of 1840, lies just a kilometre to the west of the circle site, and also indicates the widespread presence of surface stone (even if the name is now reserved just for a small coppice). Smith himself records that large sarsens frequently caught the ploughshare about a kilometre to the west of the site above Clyffe Pypard and were hauled away by a team of horses (Smith 1884, 78). Hoare’s siting of the circle lies on the slopes of a small valley and it is in such positions that sarsen might be expected to accumulate in a similar manner to the well known ‘trains’ a little to the south. This is supported by the observation of much sarsen material in the local field edges today along the northern field boundary of Lambourne Ground, and along the banks of the stream generally. One is reminded too of the presence of exposed sarsens, but not previously considered monumental, elsewhere in the field under consideration. Stukeley’s illustration An unpublished pen and ink wash sketch of the site (Figure 7) by Stukeley, archived amongst the Gough Maps at the Bodleian Library, Oxford (Gough Maps 231 Fol 216), may provide something of an answer. Crucially, Stukeley depicts the double concentric circle as being within view of Avebury. ie) io) bo THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 7. Sketch of the Winterbourne Bassett stone circle by William Stukeley, 1724 (Copyright: Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Gough Maps 231, fol. 216) In the background of the illustration the tower of St James Church at Avebury is visible, as is Silbury Hill; beyond them the unmistakable profile of Tan Hill. The problem is immediately confronted, as none of these are visible from the scheduled site. The latter faces north and any view southwards towards Avebury is obscured by the rising ground of the ridge or spur which separates the Lambourne from its neighbouring stream to the south. Move a mere 50m to the south, however, to the summit of the ridge, and the panorama is as Stukeley illustrated it. There could of course have been a degree of artistic licence and perhaps Stukeley simply embroidered his horizon with Avebury landmarks for effect. Also, it was not unknown for him to adopt birds-eye viewpoints for his panoramas (e.g. Ucko et al. 1991, pl. 26). However, even if Stukeley could mould his sketches to illustrate his theories (ibid.), there is no indication that the circles at Winterbourne Bassett were part of any such schemes. It most resembles a field sketch, as a considerable amount of detail is presented, and any embroidery in these circumstances would have been highly out of character, as in so many other such illustrations he was at pains to set position and perspective as correctly as possible. There is no indication that he did anything other on this occasion, deliberately including Silbury Hill and Avebury church as specific geographical markers. If the illustration is correct, the stone circle must be located to the south of the ridge in full but distant view of Avebury. This is ‘elevated ground’ as described by Stukeley, rather than the valley slope, and it would place the site at about NGR SU 0930 7535, that is south of the Winterbourne Bassett to Clyffe Pypard road and east of the former Broad Hinton to Yatesbury road, in the field described on the Tithe Award of 1840 as Rabson West Field (OS field number 3730).The field was arable at the time of the Tithe map survey and any surface evidence of the circle presumably long gone by that time, and not visible to enquirers. Should the illustration depict the site where Smith and others subsequently located it, the Winterbourne Bassett to Clyffe Pypard roadway and other features on the common might be expected to be shown immediately behind (1.e. to the south of) the circle. Instead, field boundaries approximating those depicted on the Tithe Apportionment appear in the middle distance — suggesting that the circle in fact lay to the south of the roadway. Beneath the illustration is the caption ‘Double circle of stones 100 ft. diam. At Winterburn basset 20 May 1724. Outr circle consists of 60 stones’. This contrasts a little with the published 60 cubits ‘A FAMILY CHAPEL ...TO AN ARCHDRUID’S DWELLING’ 203 (Stukeley 1743, 43), that is approximately 34m, and makes the circle quite small, just over 30m. There is also a discrepancy in terms of the number of stones. Whereas the caption indicates that there must be well over 60, the drawing depicts a total of only 49. Some may of course be hidden from view behind other stones, but it may be that some were too small or not prominent enough for Stukeley to incorporate them from his viewpoint. If the circle is only 30m across then some of the stones depicted must merely be small boulders, whilst others are larger. A single large stone lies in the south-west, perhaps two in the south-east, and a group of three or four in the north-east. None of these is particularly striking, or stands out in any way — as if marking entrances, for example. The largest must be little over 1m in height. Nor is there any discernible difference in stone size between the two circuits. There are a number of gaps in both circles though these may simply be where stones have been removed. The spacing between the circles appears to be quite small, in the order of an average stone width, perhaps a metre. In the south there are a considerable number of stones missing from one of the circles, probably the inner, but it is not possible to be certain about this. In fact, with the exception of the foreground where two arcs are clear Fig. 8. Air photograph of a ring ditch and other features some 300m north-northeast of the stone circle site (Copyright: Libraries and Heritage, Wiltshire County Council) 204 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE enough, the sketch is surprisingly ambiguous in its representation of the remainder as a double circle. On balance the illustration appears to depict a genuine monument. The fact that many stones are small, prone, missing etc., and that the drawing does not depict a neat geometric arrangement, or cluster of boulders, does help to suggest that the arrangement is not simply the result of recent removal from a group of naturally placed boulders for, say, house construction, or alternatively, of dumping of stones from a cultivated area. As depicted by Stukeley, however, it is worth noting the dissimilarity with the only other double circle in the vicinity, the Sanctuary, where stones are regularly and more widely spaced, a contrast so marked that Stukeley made no comparison. Instead he gives the monument a subsidiary role to Avebury, ‘a family chapel’, disconnected from the grander scheme, and for local use only. Associated features According to Stukeley a barrow or cairn lay to the north of the circle in a field then under cultivation. His description suggests that it may have had a peristalith or kerb of sarsens, or, in view of his phrase ‘composed of large stones’ it might perhaps have been a ruined chambered tomb or cairn. Its position within a then cultivated field also allows the possibility that it was little more than an accumulation of stone resulting from field clearance. Grinsell recorded this as Winterbourne Bassett Ic, a destroyed sarsen cairn and observed that it had been levelled prior to 1883 when Lukis visited the site (Grinsell 1973, 200; Lukis 1883, 347; Barker 1985, 23). Whether we accept a revised location for the stone circle, or use the existing one, the nearest field depicted as cultivated on early maps was Winterbourne West Field (OS field numbers 0005 and 5200) on the northern slope of the Lambourne valley. This was arable in 1840, and from its name is likely to have been in cultivation since the Medieval period. Given the scanty description, this appears to be the most likely general location for the barrow. An oblique aerial photograph taken in January 1977 by Roy Canham (AER 694: NMRWTC 19042/694) depicts a large ring ditch within the eastern part of this field (OS 5200) at NGR SU 095 759 (Figure 8). The circular ditch lies within an extensive scatter of chalk, evidently the remnants of a levelled mound, while it is in part surrounded by an arc of dark patches that might mark the position of extracted boulders. A further mound, NMR No. SU 07 NE 11 (Wilts 580), situated 300m to the east of the stone circle was considered by Grinsell (1973) to be a doubtful barrow and was in turn discounted by Barker (1985). At a similar distance from the circle, though west of it, Stukeley observed an outlying standing stone. A single stone stands today at the road junction, but this has been raised only recently. The outlying stone depicted on the OS Ist edition 25- inch survey may have helped confirm the view that Smith’s site was genuine. CONCLUSIONS The evidence, both of the geophysical survey and of the Stukeley sketch published here for the first time, suggests that the currently accepted, and scheduled, location of the Winterbourne Bassett stone circle must now be considered in doubt. That such a monument once existed seems highly probable but the balance of evidence suggests that its identification with a scatter of stones located at Upper Oxleaze may well be erroneous. The earth resistance survey has located a large number of sarsens which we interpret as part of a naturally- occurring distribution without any deliberate patterning. Scrutiny of the Stukeley sketch and the alignment identified therein seems to confirm the consequent implication that the circle in fact lies elsewhere. In this case, using the directional clues provided by the sketch, it seems more likely that the circle in fact once lay to the south of the lane leading to Clyffe Pypard, either on the crest of the spur here, or on its southern flank. Perhaps a flanking location can be surmised as it seems that Stukeley’s viewpoint was from a slightly raised position with respect to the circles — unless this was a deliberate manipulation to enhance his depiction of the site’s lay-out. Unfortunately, the reference by Stukeley to a nearby barrow and outlying stone is not very helpful as neither can now certainly be identified, although the ring ditch identified from an air photograph must be a contender. Future fieldwork should perhaps firstly focus upon the currently accepted site of the circles to test the hypothesis advanced above that the stones there are not part of a deliberate placement. An artificial arrangement would be signalled by the presence of stone holes and other signs of construction as well as, perhaps, associated features and cultural material undetected by non-intrusive ‘A FAMILY CHAPEL . ..TO AN ARCHDRUID’S DWELLING’ 205 survey. The presence of ridge and furrow suggests at least some potential for the preservation of an underlying surface. Should some stones be shown to have been buried in pits — a characteristic not defined by the geophysical surveys, then, as at Avebury itself, the likelihood will be that they were once deliberately placed upright, rather than naturally prone. Both the magnetic and the earth resistance surveys located anomalies that would bear further investigation by excavation. The resistance data, apart from indicating many previously unrecorded buried stones, also detected a linear feature of unknown significance; the magnetometer survey tentatively located a broad and shallow ?ditch feature within the scheduled area and, although distant from the presumed site of the circles, a number of pits — all which deserve to be investigated. If the circles cannot be pinned down in this way, then fieldwork would need to be expanded to search the area to the south of the road. Unfortunately, however one may interpret the evidence presented above, no certain and specific revised location suggests itself for detailed survey. Although the area around SU 0930 7535 provides an optimistic focus, it would be necessary to apply geophysical survey, both earth resistance and magnetometer survey, over an area of about 15 hectares — a feasible but rather daunting task given the uncertainty that the site would be detectable even if its true location was covered. The difficulty of detecting stone settings — if these have been removed — needs no reiteration (Ucko et al. 1991; David 2001). For the time being, and until such further investigations can be carried out, it seems that the exact whereabouts and character of the circles and any associated monuments at Winterbourne Bassett remain uncertain. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The assistance of a number of individuals in preparing this report is gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank David Jones for allowing the surveys to take place on his land. Graham Brown kindly inspected the map of Winterbourne Bassett at the British Library. Figures 7 and 8 are supplied with kind permission of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and of Wiltshire County Council respectively. Louise Martin kindly prepared the figures relating to the geophysical surveys. Mark Bowden corrected and made useful comments to an earlier draft of the text. Bibliography BARKER, C.T., 1985, The long mounds of the Avebury region. WANHM 79, 7-38 BURL, A., 2000, The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany. New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press CLEAL, R.M.J., and MONTAGUE, R., 2001, ‘Neolithic and early Bronze Age’, in A. Chadburn and M. Pomeroy-Kellinger (eds), Archaeological Research Agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology COLE, M., DAVID, A., FASSBINDER, J.W.E., LINFORD, N., LINFORD, P., and PAYNE, A., 1999, ‘Comparative high resolution caesium vapour and fluxgate gradiometer survey at a range of archaeological sites in England’, in J.W.E. Fassbinder and W.E. Irlinger (eds), Archaeological Prospection, 22-23. Arbeitshefte des Bayerischen Landesamtes Fhr Denkmalpflege, Band 108. CRITTALL, E. (ed.), 1952, Andrews and Dury’s Map of Wiltshire 1773. Devizes: WANHS Records Branch 8 DAVID, A., 1998, Stanton Drew. PAST (Newsletter of the Prehistoric Society) 28, 1-3 DAVID, A., 2001, ‘Geophysical Survey’, in A. Chadburn and M. Pomeroy-Kellinger (eds), Archaeological Research Agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology DAVID, A., COLE, M., HORSLEY, T., LINFORD, N., LINFORD, P., and MARTIN, L., Forthcoming, ‘A rival for Stonehenge?’ The results of geophysical survey at Stanton Drew, England FREEMAN, J., 1983, ‘Winterbourne Bassett’, in D.A. Crowley (ed), A History of Wiltshire 12, 184-192. London: Institute of Historical Research GILLINGS, M., POLLARD, J., WHEATLEY, D. and PETERSON, R. Forthcoming, Excavations on the Avebury monuments GRINSELL, L.V., 1957, ‘Archaeological gazetteer’, in R.B. Pugh. and E. Crittall (eds), A History of Wiltshire 1(1). London: Institute of Historical Research HOARE, R.C., 1821, The Ancient History of Wiltshire, Volume 2. London: Lackington, et al IGS 1974, Geological Survey of Great Britain (England & Wales), Marlborough: Sheet 266. London LUKIS, W.C., 1883, Report on the prehistoric monuments of Wilts., Somerset and South Wales. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London 2 Series 9(3), 344-55 SMITH, A.C., 1884, Guide to the British and Roman Antiquities of North Wiltshire. Devizes: WANHS SSEW, 1983, Soil Survey of England and Wales, 1:250,000 Soils of England and Wales Sheet 5: South West England. London STURELEY, W., 1743, Abury, a temple of the British Druids with some others described. London UCKO, P.J., HUNTER, M., CLARK, A.J., and DAVID, A., 1991, Avebury Reconsidered: from the 1660s to the 1990s. London: Unwin Hyman Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 206-228 Notes and Shorter Contributions Recent work on St Laurence’s Chapel, Bradford- on-Avon: an interim report by David A. Hinton During September 2000 the author and students from the Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, excavated on the south side of the Anglo-Saxon chapel of St. Laurence, Bradford- on-Avon, to try to establish whether there had been a chamber under the floor of the former south porticus. In the 18th century the chapel was used as a school, with a house for the school-master replacing the former south porticus. The house was pulled down in 1881, two large buttresses being built up against the scars of the porticus walls. The house had a cellar, and the architect J.T. Irvine recorded dressed ashlar masonry visible in it below the south door into the nave, and in its east wall a projecting plinth of stonework different from that above. Irvine took this as evidence for a crypt, but uncharacter- istically did not give stone-by-stone drawings of the masonry, only a few lines to show coursing. The cellar was filled in, so, as H.M. Taylor wrote “excavation and careful study. .. is clearly needed to settle with certainty whether this space is an Anglo-Saxon crypt or a late medieval cellar’ (Taylor 1973, 153,n.12). The imminence of the millennium anniversary of King Ethelred’s gift of Bradford to Shaftesbury Abbey in 1001, as a refuge for Edward the Martyr’s and other relics, provided an appropriate occasion to see whether the chapel could be better understood. Excavation was between and to either side of the two buttresses. Everything west of the east buttress was backfill of the cellar, as the house had been wider than the former porticus. To the east, the ground had been made up after 1881; Irvine had been able to record the deep rubble footings of the nave at the end of a slype between the house wall and a tumble-down stable (reproduced in Taylor 1972, pl. xviii). No medieval levels were therefore disturbed, and the only medieval artefacts expected or found were a few worked stones in the rubble. The masonry exposed below the south door proved to be indubitably Anglo-Saxon; not only could no stonework have been inserted in that position without showing disturbance, but the coursing and fine jointing is very similar to that in the rest of the chapel, even including an example of ‘joggled’ stone cutting, a technique which may be unique in England at Bradford. It was originally expected that it would be feasible only to expose the first two or three courses of this masonry, enough to establish its date. The footings of the Victorian buttresses were so substantial, however, that with the agreement of the Trustees’ architect, MrV. Gibbs, it was decided to continue downwards, and in the end it was possible to expose the whole wall down to the level of the cellar floor. Most of the joints had been re-pointed during restoration work, but some of the lowest retained lime mortar. Irvine’s interpretation was further confirmed by the bottom part of the east buttress, which was found to rest on two courses of fine-jointed Dept. of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS masonry, also lime-mortared. One stone of a third course survived in the corner, bonded into the south wall and in the same line of coursing as one of those in that wall, so there can be no doubt that the work is coeval. The bottom courses of the south wall and one stone in the east, forming the north-west corner, had horizontal slots roughly cut in them. Another stone found loose in the rubble had another slot in this series. There was presumably a flight of steps here, and archaeologically it would not be possible to say that they were not Anglo-Saxon in date. Irvine, however, referred in a letter of 1874 to seeing the base of a south door jamb ‘below the old stairs in the cellar’ (quoted in Taylor 1972, 97), which suggests that the steps were cut in the school- master’s days. If the steps were post-medieval, there is no trace of the original access into the crypt. The south wall masonry is not pierced for a stairway leading down from the nave floor — nor was there a smaller opening for a viewing shaft. Either the chamber was self-contained, with an outside door, or it was accessible only from within the south porticus, by some presumably fairly narrow and steep stairway. A point in support of the former is that the natural fall of the ground at Bradford would have meant that most if not all of the chamber would have been exposed. It was not a crypt in the sense of being underground. This helps to explain why the south wall masonry has no trace of springing for a stone vault, normal in crypts — but they would usually be buttressed by the earth outside. At Bradford, the 207 ceiling of the undercroft must have been flat, supported by north-south joists. Further work could be done at Bradford, since only the north end of the chamber was revealed, and Irvine’s drawings suggest that its east wall was about the same length as that of the north porticus. Although he did not see any trace of either south or west walls, something might yet be recognisable below the level of the cellar floor. A full report will not be prepared until it is known whether there will be an opportunity to pursue this option. The 2000 excavation has been backfilled, as scaffolding put across it to allow access to the south door proved both expensive and unsightly. Some sort of bridging structure is to be considered, however, which might allow at least part of the masonry to be seen, and at the same time provide wheel-chair access, a fitting millenary contribution to the chapel. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Department is grateful for the support of the Trustees of the Chapel, which enabled the work to take place. Help with creating the photographic record was given by Tom Cromwell, of English Heritage’s Central Archaeological Service. Bibliography TAYLOR, H.M., 1972, J.T. Irvine’s work at Bradford- on-Avon. Archaeological Journal 129, 89-118 TAYLOR, H.M., 1973, The Anglo-Saxon Chapel at Bradford-on-Avon. Archaeological Journal 130, 141- 171 From Tiny Seeds. . . a Correction by Antoinnette Rawlings Since publication of a paper about the Darby and Joan seed picture (WANHM 94, 177-81), a relative of one of the previous owners and a member of the Society made contact to clarify its recent provenance. The museum had been informed, incorrectly as it turns out, that the seed picture had come to auction having been salvaged from the effects of Katherine Pleydell-Bouverie after her death. In fact, Katherine never owned the picture although it had belonged to some close relatives. At some point the seed picture was handed down from Constance Jane Pleydell-Bouverie to her nieces, Mary Esther and Margaret Makgill- Crichton-Maitland of Knook Manor near River and Rowing Museum, Mill Meadows, Henly on Thames RG9 1BF 208 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Warminster. When Margaret (known as Marjorie) moved to a smaller house in 1961, she gave the picture to her cousin Nancy Pleydell-Bouverie. Caught up in a pile of old clothes and rubbish, it was saved from destruction in a bonfire by the gardener’s wife and remained with her until its acquisition by the museum in 1997. (The acquisition was made possible by grant aid from the MGC/V&A Purchase Grant Fund, The Beecroft Bequest and the Primrose Trust.) The Society is indebted to Mr Wilson for this information. A possible source of the sorghum seed used to create the picture has been suggested by Henry R Arnold of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Sorghum was in cultivation in Britain by 1596 and was referred to in the catalogue of the plants in Thomas Gerard’s garden, published in that year. It was first reported growing in the wild in 1890 and is usually found near docks or rubbish tips, the seed deriving from wool shoddy or waste bird-seed. Mr Arnold suggests that sorghum may have been imported for food for caged birds as early as the eighteenth century and this might be the source of the seed head in the picture. A Bronze Genius figure from Badbury by Bernard Phillips! and Martin Henig’ THE SITE While searching in a ploughed field to the east of the village of Badbury a metal detector user located a small bronze figurine. The finder, Joe Rossi, showed his discovery to the first author who contacted the second author concerning the find. The site of discovery is situated on the plateau lying between the edge of the chalk escarpment and Liddington Hill, which fronts the higher chalk of the Marlborough Downs. Lying on the Oxford clay, at the bottom of the escarpment and beneath the find spot Roman remains were discovered in 1956 (SU194 806). Subsequent excavation uncovered the foundations of a building (Ravetz 1958). In 1969 construction of the M4 motorway largely destroyed an extensive and richly endowed Roman- British villa complex here (Fowler and Walters 1981, 91-110). Rescue work by the former Swindon Arch- aeological Society recovered much of the villa buildings’ plan and retrieved finds that demonstrate occupation from the mid Ist to the early 5th centuries. On top of the chalk plateau and east of the figurine’s findspot, the motorway construction also revealed an early Romano-British farmstead (Fowler and Walters 1981, 115-119), and, close to the find location at SU 196 807, a chalk walled building of unusual shape. Pottery, terracotta tile and stone roofing tile from the structure suggest a Romano-British date (Fowler and Walters 1981, 110-111). A visit to the findspot by the first author revealed a scatter of pottery in the ploughsoil, containing sherds ranging in date from the Bronze Age through to the 19th century. The most numerous, however, were coarseware sherds dating to the Ist or 2nd centuries AD. The small and worn nature of the scattered sherds would suggest that they derived from spreading of night soil and farmyard waste as fertilizer on fields belonging to the villa or farmstead. THE FIGURINE The figurine is fairly small, only measuring 71mm in height. It was solid cast in bronze, but with some secondary tooling especially in the richly patterned hair. Like many Roman-period bronzes it evidently has a high lead content so it is quite heavy for its size (0.1185kg). It portrays a clean-shaven youth. His head is large in relation to the body, in order to give it particular emphasis (a feature characteristic of Romano-Celtic art). All the features of the face are there apart from the ears, which are covered by. ' 15 Yiewsley Crescent, Stratton St Margaret, Swindon SN3 4LT * Institute of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont St., Oxford OX1 2PG NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 209 Fig. 1. A Bronze Genius Figure from Badbury (Drawn by Chris Silvanus). Scale 1:1. the ample profusion of hair. The expression is, however, rather bland and mask-like. The best features here are the eyes, somewhat almond shape with well-defined pupils and lids; the nose is worn and has sustained slight damage; the mouth is slit- like. The hair is elaborately coiffured from a prominent topknot above the forehead through a series of folds framing the brows and the face and terminating in a U-shaped fringe behind, at the nape of the neck. Little of the body is shown because the torso is swathed in the ample mass of a mantle elegantly patterned with transverse folds front and back; the end of this garment draped over the right shoulder of the subject. Below this garment can be seen the skirt of a tunic with vertical pleating front and back. Apart from the rather mask-like face, only the hands and lower legs project from the drapery. A groove intended to separate hand and thumb appears on both left and right hands and it is likely that both originally grasped attributes; the right hand could have held a cornucopia (horn of plenty), but the angle to the body would be a little odd so possibly he grasped a scroll; he almost certainly had a patera in his left hand if, as suggested, the subject is a Genius (see Henig in Leech 1986, 277 no. 7 and fig. 16, a scroll and not a cornucopia as stated). Although the bronze will stand well by itself it was probably affixed to a base like that upon which a Genius-Bonus Eventus figurine from Richborough stands (see Bushe-Fox 1949, 133-5, no. 158, pl. xli). The figurine is best paralleled by one from Earith in Cambridgeshire (Green and Henig 1988), which is, however, twice the size at 147mm. ‘There the subject has a Gallic coat below the mantle rather than a tunic, but the hairstyle is similar even if without the topknot, and the arms are held in a similar manner. By virtue of a circular object in his right hand he was interpreted as an offering figure perhaps a Genius. The likely original context of the Badbury figure, a Roman villa, makes it tempting to suggest that it too was a Genius and came from the house’s Lararium. Both Earith and Badbury figures can be seen as Romano-British versions of the well-known Roman Genius type (Alcock 1986) represented in stone, bronze and engraved gems often togate, but sometimes as in the case of the stone statuette from Annetwell Street, Carlisle, wearing a tunic; here the transverse folds are not unlike those of the Badbury bronze (Alcock 1986, 121 fig. 1). Stylistically attention should be drawn to several bronzes from Wiltshire. Closest is a bronze figurine of Vulcan from North Bradley (Henig 1991) with transverse grooved drapery and pleated skirt. At 106mm it is again larger than the Badbury bronze. Six of the figurines from the Southbroom (Devizes) cache likewise had pleated tunics and four had transverse folds across the torsos. Their subjects are varied, but none can be identified as a Genius, and the only Genius from the assemblage was of Classical type and togate (Kaufmann-Heinimann 1982, 232, Abb. 182). 210 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE While the rather schematic nature of the modelling of the Southbroom figures suggest an early date when native smiths were absorbing the lessons of Roman bronze craftsmanship, the North Bradley and Badbury figurines are perhaps later, probably 2nd century. One quite sophisticated feature derived from Graeco-Roman art is the topknot, which is paralleled on a tripod mount depicting a Bacchic head from London (Henig 1976). The cascading locks of this head and others like it suggests an origin for the Badbury Genius. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Joe Rossi for permitting the find to be published and for Chris Silvanus for illustrating the find. References ALCOCK, J.P., 1986, “The Concept of Genius in Roman Britain’, in M. Henig and A. King (eds), Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire, 113-33. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology BUSHE-FOX, J.P., 1949, Fourth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent. London: Society of Antiquaries of London, Research Report 16 FOWLER, P.J., and WALTERS, B., 1981, Archaeology and the M4 Motorway, 1969-71, WANHM 74/5, 69-132 GREEN, H.J.M., and HENIG, M, 1988, A Roman Bronze Figurine from Earith, Cambridgeshire, Journal of the British Archaeological Association 141, 159-61 HENIG, M., 1976, A Roman tripod-mount from the G.P.O. site, London, Antiquaries Journal 56, 248-9 HENIG, M., 1991, A Bronze Vulcan from North Bradley, WANHM 84, 120-122 KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN, A, 1998, Gotter and Lararien aus Augusta Raurica Herstellung, Fundzusammenhange und Sakrala Funktion Figurlicher Bronzen in einer Romischen Stadt. Augst: Forschungen in Augst 26 LEECH, R, 1986, The excavation of a Romano-Celtic temple and a later cemetery on Lamyatt Beacon, Somerset, Britannia 17, 259-328 RAVETZ, A., 1958, A Romano-British site at Badbury, Wilts., WANHM 57, 24-9 Thomas Twining’s Roman Avebury by Rick Peterson In 1723 Thomas Twining (1668-1739), vicar of Wilsford and Charlton in the Vale of Pewsey, published the first detailed account of the Avebury stone circles and avenues. It appeared in a pamphlet dedicated to Lord Winchelsea entitled Avebury in Wiltshire, the remains of a Roman work, erected by Vespatian and Julius Agricola, during their several commands in Britanny (Twining 1723). Twining’s work does not appear to have had a large impact on early 18th century understandings of Avebury. William Stukeley, for example, briefly refuted a circumstantial detail of Twining’s thesis in his field notes of 1724 (Bodl MS Gough Maps 231 f47 v), dismissed the work in letters to Roger Gale (Ucko et al. 1991, 38), and by the time Abury (Stukeley 1743) was published nineteen years later did not feel that Twining’s arguments merited a response. Later commentators have been equally dismissive: Lukis (1881, 154-5); Burl (1979, 51); and Ucko et al. (1991, 37-9) all focus on two of Twining’s perceived shortcomings. Firstly, Twining was heavily criticised for over-imagination in his description and plan of the monument. His frontispiece (Figure 1) shows how he believed the completed monument complex to have looked. He not only included Stukeley’s Beckhampton Avenue, but added two more avenues to the west and south, to complete a polygonal arrangement supposed to be symbolic of the Roman understanding of the shape of Britain. Secondly, his Roman date for the complex was regarded as misguided, even in the light of early 18th century knowledge of the past. SCARAB Research Centre, UWCN, Caerleon Campus, PO Box 179, Newport, NP18 3YG NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS CUNETIUM , Romano-Britamicum Infule totus Secundum y Aveburienfis dd Oniterem primaiun ti dies periliwun Revecitits 9 Fig. 1. The frontispiece to Twining’s pamphlet, showing his reconstruction of the Avebury complex Twining was clearly wrong in giving a Roman date for Avebury. His error probably arose from a simple lack of experience in interpreting field monuments. His argument was heavily based on textual evidence, particularly the Agricola, and he tended to equate many classes of field monument directly and simplistically to the deeds of historical Roman personages. Barrow clusters were held to mark the sites of battles on the Roman advance, with the (Roman) round barrows showing the position of Vespasian’s lines and the (British) long barrows those of his opponents (Twining 1723, 17). Similarly, he thought of the Wansdyke as an entrenchment built by Legio IT Augusta during the campaign (Twining 1723, 17) and Silbury Hill as a memorial to Titus constructed by Agricola (Twining 1723, 10). Given this background it is perhaps not surprising that he ascribed a Roman date to Avebury on the following rather nebulous evidence: the Coins there found, and the Genius of a People, who spar’d no Labour or Expence in lasting Monuments of themselves, and their Conquests. (Twining 1723, 4) And the absence of any conception that field monuments might predate the Roman conquest: A Saxon Work belike it was not, not having a Place in their Annals with their Military Actions near it. British it could not be, the Britains being too much under the Romans to raise it; consequently, ‘tis of Roman Original; and, not without probable bo Appearances, had Agricola for its Author. (Twining 1723, 13) Despite his inexperience, it is less clear that ‘Twining was an unreliable observer of the complex as it existed in his day. His descriptions (Twining 1723, 6-8, 15) of the surviving parts of the West Kennet and Beckhampton Avenues and the Sanctuary are close to Stukeley’s more detailed notes. As Burl (2000, 325-6) has noted, even before its recent rediscovery (Gillings et al. 2000), Twining might have provided a second contemporary voice to support Stukeley’s (1743, 35: Bodl MS Gough Maps 231 £223) description of the Beckhampton Avenue: To the oblong Part of the Circus this Village [Beckhampton] joins.. ...the large Stones to the West, the Remains of the Discus now standing, are still call’d the Devil’s Coits (Gale’s Iter. p. 135) a term owing to the early Zeal of Christianity, both the discoun- tenance all Resort to the Circus, (a Practice loudly decried by Tertullian, de spectaculis) and prevent the Damage such a Concourse of People must do in the Fields. Not that these two Stones were ever British THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Deities, as some Learned Men, without any Ground, have fancied; but a part of the Discus, as other Stones lying in the same field do shew, to justifie the Figure I have assigned the Whole. (Twining 1723, 15) ‘Twining’s recording of the name ‘Devil’s Coits’ for the Beckhampton Cove resolves the ambiguity caused by John Aubrey’s recording of a monument under the same name as lying to the south of Avebury (Fowles and Legg 1980, 823). Stukeley and Twining were clearly recording the same monument, and both place it correctly in Longstones Field. However, Twining’s account also claims two other avenues in the complex, to complete his map of Britannia, for which there has never been any evidence. It is largely these extraneous avenues which have led to his reputation as an unreliable field observer (Burl 1979, 51: Ucko et al. 1991, 37-8). However, it is important to note that Twining never claimed to have seen stones surviving on all of his avenues: As to the Figure I suppose the Stones to at first have form’d, I appeal to the Remains whether real or not, when compar’d with those of late Years taken away, Harepit Lane Oa 4 Roman Road 2km SJ tne 7 Silbury =. ey Hy yf SS Roman Road. \ West Kennet Fig. 2. Elements of the Avebury landscape used by Twining to construct his map NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS so much to the Injury, and defacing the Order. (Twining 1723, 3) It seems likely that what he did see in the case of both his western and southern avenues were earthwork remains, envisaged as connected with the complex, from which he made up the form illustrated. Figure 2 shows linear earthworks and megalithic settings in this part of the Avebury region. It seems clear that Twining assembled his map of the Avebury complex (symbolizing Roman Britain) from the following components of varying date: Avebury; the West Kennet avenue; the Sanctuary; the surviving portions of the Roman road between Overton Hill and Fox Covert; Harepit Lane; and the Beckhampton avenue. As we have seen, Twining’s inexperience would have led him to disregard the varying date of these monuments: to him all field monuments were of Roman or later date. In essence both Twining and Stukeley were seeing the monument in a similar way. Rather than seeing single monuments and unconnected sites, they saw the remains as a single complex purposely built to symbolize a particular form. Stukeley’s serpent and Twining’s map are examples of the same 18th century vision of monuments and their relationship to the landscape. In summary, while Twining’s inexperience and the changes in archaeological understanding since the 1720s mean that his interpretations are now discredited, there is no reason to doubt his field 213 observations. In particular, Twining gives us an independent description of the state of the Beckhampton Avenue in the Longstones Field which matches Stukeley’s observations of around the same date. Bibliography BURL, A., 1979, Prehistoric Avebury. New Haven & London: Yale University Press BURL, A., 2000, The stone circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany. New Haven & London: Yale University Press FOWLES, J. and LEGG, R., (eds) 1980, John Aubrey’s Monumenta Britannica, parts 1-2. Sherbourne: Dorset Pub. Co GILLINGS, M., POLLARD, J. and WHEATLEY, D., 2000, The Beckhampton Avenue and a ‘new’ Neolithic enclosure near Avebury: an interim report on the 1999 excavations. WANHM 93, 1-8 LUKIS, W.C., 1881, Report on the prehistoric monuments of Stonehenge and Avebury. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London (2 series) 9, 141-57 STUKELEY, W., 1743, Abury, a temple of the British druids, with some others described. London TWINING, T., 1723, Avebury in Wiltshire, the remains of a Roman work, erected by Vespatian and Julius Agricola, during their several commands in Britanny. London: J. Downing UCKO, P.J., HUNTER, M., CLARK,.A.J. and DAVID, A., 1991, Avebury reconsidered: from the 1660s to the 1990s. London: Unwin Hyman Early Dog Collars in Wiltshire Museums by Kenneth Rogers! and Paul Robinson? The practice of providing collars for dogs can be traced from ancient times, being shown, for instance, on wall-paintings at Pompeii. The finest collection in this country is at Leeds Castle, Kent, which includes examples, mainly from the continent, dating from the 15th century onwards. English and American examples are illustrated in books on antique metalware. Four metal collars are held in Wiltshire museums: Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum (accession number 26/1961) A bronze collar inscribed This is John Falkner of Kingslear his doge 1675. Approximately 80mm open but about 65mm closed, and 25mm deep, so for a small dog. It is fitted with a simple hasp set horizontally and one corresponding rectangular hole. There is no other attachment for a lead or chain. ' Silverthorne House, East Town, West Ashton, Trowbridge BA14 6BE ? Wiltshire Heritage Museum, 41 Long Street, Devizes SN10 1NS 214 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE The mis-spelt place is Kingsclere, Hampshire, where the Fauconer family had held land since the 15th century. Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum (accession number 1906/1971) A copper alloy collar inscribed F G. HAMLEY in a simple cartouche. Approximately 105mm open and 30mm deep. It is fitted with a ring hasp set vertically and has six corresponding vertical slots and a small retaining collar. Opposite, fixed by a rivet, is an iron ring, with a link running loosely through it to attach a chain. Probably 19th century. Trowbridge Museum (accession number 2000.293) A brass collar inscribed Nicholas Cross Trowbridge 1786. Approximately 165mm open and 55mm deep. The edges have been decorated by cutting them in a fine zig-zag and then turning the points outwards. The original method of fastening was apparently by using a series of small swivelling catches and a horizontal slot; only one catch remains, attached by a rivet, but there are holes for four more. This method has been replaced by a series of three horizontal slots, rather crudely cut, one of which cuts into the letter N of the inscription. These were used by fitting one of them over the heavy ring, set horizontally, originally provided to hold a chain. Considerable force is needed to do this even for the loosest fitting. Deposited on loan by Mrs Patricia Snell. Two Nicholas Crosses lived in the town in 1786. The father was minister of the Silver Street Presbyterian Church 1758-81, and continued to live in Trowbridge until his death in 1803.The son (1759-1811) was a clothier who built c.1793 one of the large houses at the top of Castle Street now occupied by Sylvester and Mackett. Wiltshire Heritage Museum, Devizes. (accession number DM578) An iron collar inscribed Samuel Jones at the Manor of Ramsbury 1685. This collar is hinged in three places: at its fullest opening it is approximately 175mm across, and is approximately 34mm deep. It is fitted with a hasp set vertically and has four corresponding vertical slots. There is no other fixing for a chain. Deposited on loan by Mr R. Hale of Coulston. This collar is described in WANHM 51, 1945, 232-4 as an example of “The jougs’, an old form of punishment mainly associated with Scotland. Samuel Jones succeeded to the Ramsbury estate in 1685 and died in 1686. Information on other local collars would be welcome. : NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS A Newly Discovered Round Barrow and Proposed Dispersed Linear Cemetery at Boscombe Down West by Bob Clarke and Colin Kirby The airfield at DERA Boscombe Down has been the subject of much recent archaeological work, with a number of features being recognised ranging from the Bronze Age through to the post-medieval period. A new barrow was discovered during fieldwork in 1996 on the northern sector of the site by the then Boscombe Down archaeologist, Colin Kirby. This paper describes the monument’s present condition and suggests that the new discovery may form part of a dispersed linear cemetery centred on Boscombe Down West. This may in turn form one element of a large area cemetery possibly using Stonehenge, to the east, as a central focus. INTRODUCTION Over the last ten years land between the Defence Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA) airfield at Boscombe Down and the town of Amesbury has been the subject of intensive archaeological investigation (Rawlings and Fitzpatrick 1996; Seager Smith and Fitzpatrick forthcoming). The airfield itself has recently been the subject of a number of watching briefs, surveys and excavations carried out by Archaeologists from DERA, Wessex Archaeology and AC archaeology. The results have proved beyond doubt that a rich archaeological landscape still survives within the airfield boundary. These discoveries have serious implications for development on such sites and have been commented on elsewhere (Clarke 2000). One discovery, however does warrant expansion at this point, a previously unrecorded burial mound surviving as an earthwork. BARROWS SITED ON BOSCOMBE DOWN A number of burial mounds survive on the airfield at Boscombe Down, all of which are under scheduled protection. These include three bowl barrows and one disc barrow. The Sites and Monuments Record also indicates nine barrows now removed; unfortunately only one was excavated, by Newall (1931, 432), before destruction in 1930.To this list must now be added one probable bowl barrow (Figure 1), surviving as an earthwork (situated at NGR SU 1773 4105). 18 | | 8 | N | ae Lat New Barn Down . chee “el! ae e 28 ° eo Earl's Farm Down ee \ } ‘s >| / Kae elt 40 / : / 40-4 ; 5 1 fos | | s Boscombe Down West | | oN | Lie | a ® \ NS \ A j \ \ ° i“ y \ | \ \ ee a | X d & : \7 A i Ke \ | , | | ¢ on I | Fig. 1. Location of new monument in relation to existing cemeteries. Area shaded Boscombe Down Airfield Engineering Training Centre, Bldg. 814, DERA, Boscombe Down, Salisbury SP4 OJF 216 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fig. 2. The newly discovered monument (light feature to centre of picture) DERA Boscombe Down © Crown Copyright Nature of discovery of the barrow The airfield at Boscombe Down has been the subject of much recent work, with a number of features being recognised, ranging from the Bronze Age through to the post-medieval period (Anon. 1999, 132; 2000, 225; 2001, 243). The new barrow was discovered during fieldwork in 1996 on the northern sector of the site by the then Boscombe Down archaeologist, Colin Kirby. It was noted that the feature was partially overlain by the embankment of the now disused Amesbury to Newton Tony railway (Figure 2). The old security fence for the airfield runs parallel to the southern edge of this embankment, effectively sandwiching the barrow between it and the bank. In the 1970s, after track removal the security fence was moved up on to the top of the embankment placing the barrow another 25m into the site. This situation is probably the reason why the feature has never been recorded. Monument condition The barrow stands 0.65m high and has a maximum visible diameter of 25m. It is partially obscured by the railway embankment immediately north of the site and had until recently a small amount of security traffic driving over it. This threat to the monument has now been removed with the positioning of ‘no digging’ and vehicular access signs to stop all traffic. It is difficult to say whether the site has attracted antiquarian attention but it would have been likely considering the presence of other monuments in the area. A small depression located during the earthwork survey (Figure 3) may also point to this. The old perimeter fence respects the southern edge of the central mound but almost certainly impinges on any, now buried, features such as a ditch surrounding the monument. The area within the fence line was not surveyed as it appeared to be flat and featureless. It is still possible that archaeology does survive in a buried state within this area and all matters regarding this area should take this into account. The barrow and its environs DERA Boscombe Down lies in a rich archaeological landscape. A series of extensive field systems and linear ditches exist on and around the airfield which have been the subject of a number of surveys NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS (Wessex 1991; Bradley et al. 1994; Kirby et al. 1998; Clarke 1999). A large Iron Age settlement was located during construction of a second runway for the airfield (Richardson 1951), and to the west of the airfield evidence of later Neolithic and Bronze Age activity as well as a large undefended Roman settlement has recently been discovered (Rawlings and Fitzpatrick 1996; Seager Smith and Fitzpatrick forthcoming). Railway Enbankment ¢ NG } We 6 > --~7 —_—- — d f --- “SaUL2 eee SC) aS > Se ae ON See IS Ee \ N= "—— Fence Line oO 5m eae Sue ke Fig. 3. Earthwork survey of new monument A number of barrows, both on and off the airfield, have been investigated (Newall 1931; Christie 1964; Thomas 1956; Ashbee 1984), demonstrating internal structural differences in the construction of monuments within these cemeteries. Recent work on one monument within the airfield perimeter has suggested, using palaeo- environmental evidence, that a Neolithic rather than Bronze Age date may be possible for some structures (Wessex 2000). To the north of the airfield are situated the Earl’s Farm and New Barn Down barrows, a group of three dispersed linear cemeteries within a large area cemetery of the type suggested by Fleming (1971). These include many of the well known ‘Wessex’ forms, from the large bow] and bell types down to the more subtle saucer and disc barrows. The lower cemetery of the three runs north-east to south-west from SU 20 - 43 to SU 16 — 38 encompassing all the known tumuli on the airfield, including the new discovery. The evidence suggests that this lowest linear element follows the crest of the ridge which runs through Boscombe Down West. Taking this positioning into consideration, it is therefore proposed that Boscombe Down West contains the remnants of a dispersed linear cemetery. It is possible that these series of dispersed linear cemeteries form part of a third circuit focussing on Stonehenge, the first two having been suggested PAT by Woodward and Woodward (1996, 284, fig. 6). Although this suggested third circuit would not be visible from Stonehenge it has to be remembered that the Winterbourne Stoke Cross Roads Group, a fundamental element of the second proposed circuit, is also not intervisible from that monument. THE FUTURE The results from investigations over the last 60 years indicates the diversity of information which can still be recovered from such monuments. This has led to the ‘new’ barrow receiving protection, having been placed on the Scheduled Monuments Register (SM 31188) and the DERA Archaeological Management Plan. This monument should now be viewed as an addition to the proposed Boscombe Down West dispersed linear cemetery which is in turn one element of a large area cemetery to the east of Stonehenge. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Julian Richards, Peter Addison, Helena Cave-Penney and Andrew Fitzpatrick for their comments and suggestions during the identification process of this site. Special thanks go to Rachael Seager Smith of Wessex Archaeology for her much valued support and encouragement with this and other projects. The earthwork survey was carried out by first year mechanical apprentices with Tony van Crump from the Engineering Training Centre, DERA Boscombe Down whilst undertaking Key Skills qualifications. All unpublished reports are lodged with English Heritage and Wiltshire County Council. This report was created by DERA Archaeologists Bob Clarke and Colin Kirby. Any errors are naturally theirs. References ANON. 1999, Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire, WANHM 92, 133-143 ANON. 2000, Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire, WANHM 93, 255-264 ANON. 2001, Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire, WANHM 94, 243-255 ASHBEE, P. 1984,The Excavation of Amesbury Barrows 58, 61a, 61, 72, Amesbury. WANHM 79, 39-92 BRADLEY, R., ENTWISTLE, R. and RAYMOND, F. 1994, Prehistoric Land Divisions on Salisbury Plain: the work of the Wessex Linear Ditch Project. London: 218 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE English Heritage CHRISTIE, P. 1964, A Bronze Age Round Barrow on Earl’s Farm Down, Amesbury. WANHM 59, 30-46 CLARKE, B. 1999, Watching Brief and Excavation of a Romano-British Field Boundary at NGR SU18573956, Amesbury. Boscombe Down Conservation Group. Unpublished client report 4 CLARKE, B. 2000, Peace Dividend Brings Archaeological Rewards. Antiquity 74, 277-278 FLEMING, A. 1971, Territorial Patterns in Bronze Age Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 138-167 KIRBY, C. and CLARKE, B. 1998, The Introduction of a New Gas Distribution Meter at the East End of the Establishment of Boscombe Down. Boscombe Down Conservation Group. Unpublished client report 1 NEWALL, R. 1931, Barrow 85 Amesbury. WANHM 45, 432-458 RAWLINGS, M.N. and FITZPATRICK, A.P. 1996, Prehistoric sites and a Romano-British Settlement at Butterfield Down. WANHM 89, 1-43 THOMAS, N. 1956, Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire 1956. WANHM 56, 231-252 WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY 2000, Remedial works to Bowl Barrow SM28939, DERA Boscombe Down. Unpublished client report 47200.1 WOODWARD, A.B. and WOODWARD, P.J. 1996, The Topography of some Barrow Cemeteries in Bronze Age Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 275-292 A mid Saxon Disc-Brooch from Upavon by David A. Hinton The Society’s Museum acquired a small lead-alloy disc-brooch from Upavon in 1987, which was presented by the finder, Peter Humphreys (acc. No. 1987.128.3). On the face of the brooch in relief is a crudely rendered bird with a cross below its beak, contained within a ladder-like border; the bird appears to have two legs ending in three claws, and two lines below its body may represent a wing; the body ends in a flourish, with a raised, barred tail. On the back of the brooch are the remains of lugs for the fitting of a pin. The brooch would be very difficult to date but for its similarity. to one from Hamwic, Saxon Southampton, where the finds can be dated within a general bracket of c.700 to c.900, except for those from recently excavated 7th-century graves in the north-eastern part of the settlement. The Southampton metalwork collection included only two disc-brooches when it was published (Hinton 1996, 3-5). Both have bird designs; on one, the bird faces left, but the other faces right and has a cross below its beak, like the Upavon design. It is contained within concentric border circles, but does not have the ladder-like infill. It is, however, also made of lead, and similarity in both design and metal make it a parallel, certainly for date, tentatively for maker. Birds also feature on some of the Anglo-Saxon 8th-century silver sceatta coinage, notably on one series attributed to a mint in Southampton because Lead-alloy disc-brooch from Upavon, Wiltshire, Wiltshire Heritage Museum accession number 1987.128.3. Drawn by Nick Griffiths. Scale 2:1 of its distribution. On that basis, and in ignorance of the Upavon brooch, it was speculated that ‘some sense of a Southampton idiom was being expressed’ (Hinton 1996, 103). By bringing the Upavon brooch to my attention, Dr Paul Robinson has certainly dented that suggestion, but a nail had Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS already been driven into its coffin by the publication of an interim note from one of the London sites contemporary with Hamwic, which included not another brooch, but a bone mould from which such brooches were cast (Blackmore et al. 1998, 63). The London bird is a little fatter in body and has a ring- and-dot, not a cross, below its beak, and is encircled by a ring-and-dot border. So it is not the mould from which either the Southampton or the Upavon brooches were made, but it was certainly intended for producing very similar ones, and shows that such designs were not peculiar to Southampton, or even to Wessex. The Upavon brooch and the London mould seem to be the only additions to this very limited corpus. I have not noticed any other published examples, and there were none on the Portable Antiquities Scheme national database among the 255 early medieval brooches recorded on its web- pages in October 2001. It remains uncertain whether such small dress items were made only in Clack Mount by Steven Hobbs 219 the ‘new’ towns like Southampton and London, and some found their way into the countryside to places like Upavon through exchanges of various sorts, or whether they were supplied by itinerant smiths, as the discovery of a die for making ring-and-dot ornament at Aldbourne suggests (Robinson 1994). This is one facet of the question of the extent to which the new centres were affecting the nature of mid Saxon society by introducing an element of urbanisation and commerce, and whether the Aldbournes and the Upavons of Wessex were acquiring manufactured items from them. References BLACKMORE, L., BOWSHER, D., COWIE, R., and MALCOLM, G., 1998, Royal Opera House. Current Archaeology 158, 60-3 HINTON, D.A., 1996, The Gold, Silver and Other Non- Ferrous Alloy Objects from Hamwic. Stroud: Sutton ROBINSON, P.H., 1994, Devizes Museum. Council for British Archaeology Newsletter (April 1994), 24-5 In a recent paper on Wiltshire castles (Creighton 2000, 116) the author expresses scepticism of the accepted view, as propounded in the VCH Wilts. gazetteer (Grinsell 1957, 181), that Clack Mount at Bradenstoke (Lyneham) was a Norman motte. He suggests that it is more likely to be the remains of a much later garden feature. However a civil war document, which passed through Dominic Winter’s saleroom in Swindon on 11 April 2002, and a copy of which is in the Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office (WSRO X3/42), offers another possible explanation of this feature. It is an order from Nicholas Devereux, parliamentary governor of the garrison at Malmesbury, to Captain William More, dated 21 May 1645, instructing him to fortify and strengthen his garrison at Bradenstoke Priory. A transcript of it follows: Capt. William More you are to Com[m]Jaund the officers and soulldiers belonging to yo[u]r Garison at Brodstock Abey and the said Garison for the use of King and Parliement & to fortifie and streinthen yo[u]r said Garison w[i]th fortifications & workes to w[i]ch purpose you are to sum[m]on In the contrie to worke as alsoe to bring in beding and p[ro]visions for the Maintenance & support of yo[u]r said Garison & what ellce may seme nessesarie for the keeping & saftie of yo[u]r said garison & the ease & benefit of the Contrie considered you are w[i]th what sped you may to see p[er]formed till you shall Reseve further orders from me given under my hand at Malmesbury this 21st of Maii 1645. Nich Devereux The document alone is not evidence of action, rather of the intention to act. Although the Wiltshire & Swindon Record Office, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge BA14 8BS 220 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE published accounts of the garrisons at Chalfield and Malmesbury (Pafford 1940, 98) mention men stationed at Clack as well as More himself, this is only in relation to a garrison at Lechlade, and they are silent on the matter of work there. However the order should not be ignored and should be added to the slim body of information about the site. References CREIGHTON, O., 2000, Early castles in the medieval - landscape of Wiltshire, WANHM 93, 105-19 GRINSELL, L.V. (ed.), 1957, Archaeological gazetteer, VCH Wilts vol.1 (1), 21-279 PAFFORD, J.H.P. (ed.), 1940, Accounts of the Parliamentary garrisons of Great Chalfield and Malmesbury, 1645-1646 (WANHS Records Branch, vol. 2) A Curious Roof Modification at no. 47 The Close, Salisbury by Michael Heaton This note presents details of a roof-truss revealed during a watching brief maintained by the author at no. 47 The Close during the summer of 1998.A detailed report of the work has been deposited with the Wiltshire County Sites and Monuments Record, also available at www.archaeology.demon.co.uk/ 3121.htm, while the archive (including an extensive photographic record) has been deposited with the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum. The building displays a very complex history of use and structural modification, reflected, in part, by the DoE’s Listing entry of 1972 (DoE 1980), which alludes to a 14th-century origin, and the RCHMBP’s detailed description and chronological analysis (RCHME 1995).The latter places the bulk of the building’s structural development in the 17th century, beginning as a stable. DESCRIPTION Though the building has been described in detail by the RCHME (1995), it is pertinent to summarise the structure here. It is composed of two conjoined rectangular cells in the proportions two-thirds: one- third, reflected in variations in wall fabric and in the use of the attic space. The western third is entirely of brick and dated by the RCHME to the late-17th century, partly from documentary references to construction of a stable at this site. Though many additional features were observed during the watching brief, including evidence of an open-sided piered phase, internal water cisterns, a well and so forth, there is no reason to doubt the RCHMP’s basic chronology for this phase. The eastern, and earlier, cell is formed around three undecorated oak cross-frames resting on first floor rails above ground floor elevations of brick that appear to have underpinned the woodwork. ‘Though the timber work appears uniform from the outside, many of the timbers have been re-faced externally, and each of the cross frames differs slightly. Frame 1, in the east gable and illustrated by the RCHME, has straight braces and two tiers of straight raking struts supported by a tie-beam and collar. Frame 3, formerly the western gable until the late-17th century, has two tiers of curved raking struts above the tie-beam and collar, of which one has been removed to form a door opening into the dormer attic over the western cell. Frame 2, alone, comprises blackened and axe- trimmed timbers and lacks horizontal tension members, though there are sockets in the principals. Instead, short ‘hammer’ beams rest on arch-braces which are tenoned into (later?) pit-sawn storey posts that intrude into the interior less than one metre from the outside walls, and extend upwards to half- lap against the principals. There are no hammer posts, and the ‘hammer’ beams appear ASI, Radley House, 1 East Street, Warminster, BA12 9BY NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS bo bo — No. 47 The Close, sketch plan and side elevation showing roof structure foreshortened. Unfortunately, neither the jointing detail nor the manner of truncation are accessible, though the end of the ‘hammer’ beam appears neatly cut. The ridge-height open space created by this arrangement has then been closed off again by the reconstruction of a first floor ceiling, using joists resting on the wall plates and housed into a massive axial beam, itself scarfed over an internal stud partition and supporting raking struts to the side purlins. INTERPRETATION This is a curious arrangement, for which there are many interpretations; two are entertained here. One is that Frame 2 was constructed as a hammer-beam truss or queen-post variant. These are relatively common in Salisbury, and this example is similar to the truss recorded by the RCHME in 1965 over the hall of Balle’s Place (RCHME 1980, no. 351), particularly in the foreshortening of its hammer beam to allow the upper arch brace to bear directly on the lower. If this assumption is correct, and the frame is original to this structure, no. 47 The Close is potentially 200 years older than the early-17th century date ascribed by the RCHME. However, why it should be necessary to replace the hammer/ queen posts with full height and inconvenient storey posts evades explanation. The other, by no means mutually exclusive, but more intriguing possibility is that Frame 2 was a simple tie-beam and collar truss, similar to the 16th-century examples at no. 93 Castle Street (ibid., no. 443) from which the horizontal members have been removed to create a ridge- height open interior supported, perhaps later, by the storey posts. Though the purpose of this modification is not readily apparent, it would not lend itself to use as a dwelling or a stable. An industrial or craft use seems unlikely, one that required two clear storeys of headroom, but the author is at a loss with regard to specifics. That this modification affects only Frame 2 suggests that it preceded extension of the building in the late 17th century. Re-closure of the attic space, necessitating insertion of the massive beam to support joists that could no longer be tensioned, probably accompanied dormer conversion of the west end, which the RCHME places in the 18th century. The inference to be drawn is that no. 47 The Close was, prior to its extension in the late- 17th century, modified to accommodate a specific non-domestic use of a form not hitherto addressed by published building histories. 222 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE References DoE 1980, List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historical Interest: Salisbury. Dept of the Environment RCHME 1980, City of Salisbury: volume 1, Ancient and Historical Monuments. London: HMSO RCHME 1995, Salisbury: the buildings of The Close. London: HMSO Fir Clump Stone Circle — a correction by Aubrey Burl’ In The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany (Yale U.P., 2000, 413) the diameters of the concentric circle at Fir Clump, Burderop Wood (SU 161814), destroyed during the construction of the M4, were cited as 115 x 94m. The measurements were calculated from a photocopy of the plan kindly sent to the author by the National Monuments Record. The ring’s surveyor, Mr R.H. Reiss, informs me that the exact dimensions were 107 x 86.5m. The outer ring was fragmentary, but enough remained of the inner ring to see that it was flattened to the north and measured 86.5 x 73.7m. About 125m to the west of the circle was a single row of stones aligned NNW-SSE. It was 102m long. The Glow-worm (Lampyris noctiluca, (Linnaeus, 1758)) in Wiltshire: an Update by Michael Darby’ Following the appearance of my note in WANHM, 94, 2001, I have received more than thirty new records which help to answer some of the questions raised earlier. Both old and new records have been incorporated on the attached distribution map, which also shows major geological features. It will be apparent, immediately, that the glow-worm is much more widely established in the county than the initial set of records suggested. Furthermore, it is also clear that its occurrence does not appear to be concentrated either on areas of woodland or on areas of calcareous grassland, but on a much wider range of habitats including gardens and cultivated land. Suggestions that the beetle may live in association with water also seem to be refuted. Given that glow- worms are known to feed on at least 22 different species of snails and slugs living in widely dispersed and differing habitats, perhaps this explains the spread. (Although, because snails require calcium for their shells they are found more frequently in calcareous areas.) Several observers have reported that on the sites where glow-worms occur they are confined to a small area, or areas, completely ignoring others which appear identical, thus suggesting that local factors may also apply. The most surprising revelation is the absence of records from the Salisbury Plain Training Area, and to a lesser extent, from the north of the county. The ' 2 Woodland Road, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2HS * The Old Malthouse, Sutton Mandeville, Salisbury SP3 5ND NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 223 4 Pre 1987 s Post 1987 = Limestone Te. | z . "" * : s | 2 ze a | iS Chalk Chalk | g EI a @ F | @ & @ | oS Es Chaik Glow-worm records in Wiltshire (copyright Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre) Number of sightings of glow-worms arranged by months of the year* Mar Apr May Ay 2 8 Jun 8 Jul Aug 20 2 224 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE latter is probably accounted for by the lack of recorders, but can that also be true for the SPTA? More work is clearly needed here. I should add that a field trip I led on what seemed to be a perfect evening for seeing glow-worms (21 June 2001) to the Weather Hill Firs area of the SPTA failed to produce a single record. Another important factor confirmed by the new records is that in Wiltshire the insect seems to be present on the sites where it has been found in small numbers only (compared with the several hundred on sites nearer London). Almost all the records are of singletons or of concentrations of less than six. The highest numbers reported have been those of D.Russell, 43 at Bentley Wood; K.French, ‘Lots’ at Great Bedwyn; R.Scagell 20 at Seend; and S.Palmer 15 at Grovely Wood. Interestingly, the Bentley Wood population was surveyed for two consecutive years and formed the subject of two articles in Nature Notes (1996, by Jim Roquette, who initiated the study, and 1997, by Debbie Russell) where it is noted that numbers varied considerably from one year to the next. Changes in weather conditions were suggested as a possible cause. Finally, the bulk of the new records, as the diagram below shows, occurred in July thus confirming this as the most popular month for observing the beetle. In repeating my earlier plea for more records could Istress the need for more precise information about both localities (a six figure map reference is adequate) and dates of observation, together, of course, with the numbers seen at any one time. These may be sent either to my home address or to the Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre, Elm Tree Court, Long Street, Devizes, SN10 1NH. For those interested to know more about these fascinating insects I would recommend John Tyler’s booklet: Glow-worms, 1994, (available from the author at Tadorna, Bradbourne Vale Road, SEVENOAKS, Kent TN13 3DH.) * Total number of records appears low because many of those received have included the year but not the month of observation. Steam Cultivation in Wiltshire during the First World War Peter Donovan This note has been written in response to Ivor Slocombe’s paper on ‘Agriculture in Wiltshire in the First World War’ (WANHM 95, 2001, 69-88). It is the writer’s submission that, in referring to steam ploughing, the paper may have underestimated the numbers and capability of ploughing engines. Mr Slocombe asserts that: ‘some steam ploughing took place, mainly through a few large contractors’.! That there were contractors is true, but a substantial number of sets were owned by farmers where there is no indication that they also undertook contract work. In total there may have been as many as 46 owners of steam ploughing/ cultivation tackle sets in Wiltshire during the First World War.’ The figure for tackle available for use is almost certainly lower, as some of the equipment was from the very early days. The number of ploughing engines owned by these 46 owners was 112, of which 99 had been manufactured by John Fowler & Co., at the Steam Plough Works, Leeds. The other engines came from Aveling & Porter at Rochester, Burrell at Thetford, and Kitson of Leeds.’ Reference is made by Mr Slocombe to Arthur Stratton of Alton Priors owning five sets of ploughing engines.*? This is quite correct, but he almost certainly had a sixth set. During 1915 the Steam Cultivation Development Association was formed. Arthur Stratton joined on the 29 March 1915. At the time of joining Mr. Stratton listed six 57 Hallsfield, Cricklade SN6 6LR NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS sets, one of which is shown as ‘Government’.? The Government sets were sent by the Ministry of Munitions to selected farms. They were purchased on special terms of c.£3,000, appreciably less than a private purchase. Some care is needed with the SCDA returns, as although the subscription was £1 per two-engine set, some owners such as S. W. Farmer & Co., of Little Bedwyn, registered no sets,° although up to six sets were in their ownership during the First World War.’ The known owners of ploughing engines in Wiltshire are not well represented in the SCDA list. Probably the formation of the Association was just too late, a reaction to the arrival of the tractor. Mr Slocombe makes the point that in April 1918 there were 93 tractors working in Wiltshire, and during that month they ploughed 5,442 acres.® Caution is required when researching Samuel William Farmer of Little Bedwyn, Arthur Stratton and William Bowle Gauntlett. For many years they were in partnership. They worked not only their own farms, but substantial acreages in the Vale of Pewsey, the upper Avon valley, and in the Wylye valley around Norton Bavant. Wiltshire at the start of the First World War had 16,501 horses being used for agricultural purposes.° By the end of the war, the tractor was seriously indicating the end for steam cultivation and ploughing. Steam threshing would also be affected, but that is another subject. When considering the value of steam ploughing and cultivation, it is clear that real benefit applies to the large arable farms, where the c.500 yard steel rope capacity of the drum would be utilised on large fields. A horse might plough 4 acres in a day; the relatively new tractors with a three-furrow plough 225 10 acres; the double-engine steam plough tackle 16 acres. A steam plough set could also drag or harrow 40 acres in-a day.'° In the soft soil of East Anglia, 60 acres could be dragged or harrowed in a day. Steam plough and cultivating tackle at work, operated by a skilled team was not cumbersome, but a highly efficient operation. In comparing horse with steam a test by the Royal Agricultural Society, using Messrs. Fowler and Co’s apparatus, is of interest. This showed that on light land, the turnover of soil was 2.5% to 25% more efficient with the Fowler machine, while on heavy land the machine was 25-30% more efficient.'! In April 1918, while the 93 tractors ploughed 5,442 acres, there were at least 35 sets of steam ploughing tackle available in Wiltshire, with the theoretical potential to plough c.17,360 acres. Notes Slocombe 2001, 70. The detailed referencing of Mr Slocombe’s paper is noted with pleasure and approval. 2 Road Locomotive Society: Engine owner’s list for Wiltshire. 3 Ibid. Slocombe 2001, 79; WSRO 853/41. Rural History Centre, Reading: Steam Cultivation Development Association registers. 6 Ibid. 7 RLS lists. 8 Slocombe 2001, 81. 9 1 _ an & Ibid., 70. 0 Information from Mr. W. Smith, late information officer for the Steam Plough Club. 11 Information from Royal Agricultural Society catalogues cited on www.steamploughclub.org.uk A Romano-British figurine of Mercury from near Durnford by Martin Henig A figurine depicting the god Mercury was brought to Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum for recording and has recently been acquired. The figurine, which stands some 7.8cm in height, is cast Institute of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont St., Oxford OX1 2PG 226 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Romano-British figure of Mercury from near Durnford. Scale 1:1 (Drawn by Nick Griffiths) in a leaded bronze. It is in good condition apart from some surface wear, which has, for example, rendered the face a little indistinct, perhaps as a result of handling. His body is largely nude, though his paenula (cloak) covers his left arm and hangs down his side to the lower calf. The body is well modeled, even on the back where the spine and buttocks are clearly delineated. Mercury has prominent wings, which seem to sprout directly from his head rather than from a petasos (cap). In his left hand, which is hidden by the paenula, he holds his serpent-headed herald’s staff (caduceus). The upper part of the handle appears to have a twisted ‘corkscrew’ stem, and the usual double- curved terminal of the object is here ornamentally embellished with a series of depressions. The very stylised heads of the snakes have crests. The god’s right arm hangs down near his side and his hand clutches a moneybag. Mercury is most frequently portrayed with a paenula hung over one arm or else totally nude, as in the case of the example from Brixton Deverill (Henig 1997), but he is sometimes shown totally enveloped in a paenula as though travelling on a journey, as is the case with two figurines from Lamyatt Beacon, Somerset (Henig 1986, 277-9, nos.2 and 3). The version represented by the Durnford bronze displaying an ample paenula which, nevertheless, does not cover the god’s nudity, is rather more unusual in Britain and the Western provinces, although there is a good example from the temple of Mercury at Uley, Gloucestershire (Henig 1993, 99, fig. 85 no.4). Stephanie Boucher (1976, 83 and 101) ascribed the origins of this type to the mid-5th-century BC sculptor Polycleitos and sees them as being on the whole Italian imports. However, the fact that this bronze, unlike the various comparanda assembled by Boucher, lacks the petasos and the patterned treatment of the caduceus points to a more local origin. It is by no means unlikely that this bronze was cast in Britain, a province that certainly seems to have had a distinguished tradition of casting bronzes (Henig 1995,126-9). As for the caduceus, comparison may be made with two examples from Uley, which are probably votive and of copper-alloy and silver respectively (Henig 1993, 102-3, figs 89 and 90). These likewise have corkscrew stems and terminate in clearly delineated serpent heads. There is nothing to indicate the date of the bronze, but most scholars would be happy to ascribe it to the 2nd or 3rd century AD. It is hard to say where a casual find such as this may have come from. Although a temple is a possibility, Mercury as guardian of flocks and herds and guardian of . trading and travelling ventures would have been a popular inhabitant of house shrines (Jararia). The NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS signs of wear suggest that it was an image much handled and venerated by its owner, perhaps indicating such a domestic context. References BOUCHER, S., 1976, Recherches sur les bronzes figures de Gaule pre-romaine et romaine. Rome: Ecole Francaise HENIG, M., 1986, ‘The statuary and figurines’, in R. 22th Leech, The Excavation of a Romano-Celtic Temple on Lamyatt Beacon, 274-81. Britannia 17, 259- 328 HENIG, M., 1993, ‘Votive objects’, in A. Woodward and P. Leach, The Uley Shrines, 88-112. London: English Heritage, Archaeological Report 17 HENIG, M., 1995, The Art of Roman Britain. London: Batsford HENIG, M., 1997, A figurine of Mercury from Brixton Deverill. WAHNM 90, 143-5 Breton Melchi, ‘Prince-Hound’, and Melksham by Andrew Breeze Melksham (ST 9063) in west Wiltshire has been a problem for place-name scholars. It figures in Domesday and elsewhere as Melchesham, explained as containing Old English meoluc (‘milk’), and thus perhaps meaning ‘homestead (or enclosure) of milk’. Like Melchbourne (‘milk bourne, stream by pastures yielding good milk’) in Bedfordshire, or Mulbarton (‘milk barton, outlying milk- or dairy-farm’) in Norfolk, Melksham was supposedly known for its milk (Mills 1991, 227, 236). Yet this explanation has never quite convinced commentators. First, the genitive in —es of Melchesham is hard to account for, since it does not occur in other toponyms with meoluc, ‘milk’. Second, this area was once thickly wooded, Melksham Forest being one of the ancient royal forests of Wiltshire (Grant 1959, 407-14). There are no woods by Melksham now, but the names within a few miles of it, such as Shaw, Forest Farm, Melksham Forest, Blackmore Forest and Holt, still betray this aspect of its past. Royal forests produced venison and wild boar, not milk. Hence the difficulty. Another approach appears better. Melksham seems rather to parallel Brianis Pedele, ‘Brian’s estate on the River Piddle’ (Briantspuddle, Dorset), Cyngresburi, ‘Congar’s stronghold’ (Congresbury, North Somerset), or Deusberia, ‘Dewi’s stronghold’ (Dewsbury, West Yorkshire) in possessing a Celtic personal name that qualifies a landscape feature (Mills 1991, 50, 89, 105). Ifso Melchesham could be related to Old Welsh Meilic (= Middie Welsh Meilyg) and — better — its Old Breton cognate Melchi, ‘prince-hound, princely-hound’ (Padel 1988, 209). Celticists are familiar with Welsh Meilyg and its variant Maelgwn from Maelgwn (died 547), the Gwynedd tyrant denounced in the De Excidio Britanniae of Gildas; and Sir Ifor Williams lucidly showed that Meilyg derives from the British nominative form *Maglocu, ‘prince-hound’, with Maelgwn simply being from *Maglocunos, the same name in the genitive (Williams 1972, 10). The old nominative Meilic figures in early documents in the 12th-century Book of Llandaff, as also in the 11th-century Mabinogion tale of Culhwch and Olwen (Davies 1979, 179; Bromwich and Evans 1992, 8, 77). Yet it hardly appears in Melchesham. Here is surely its Old or Middle Breton equivalent Melchi, which appears with this (then somewhat innovative) spelling in a 9th- century document in the 11th-century Cartulary of Redon (Jackson 1953, 461, n2). So Melksham’s name seems to refer to a Breton whose homestead (or enclosure) it was. Many Bretons came to England with the Conqueror, and some even before, like Ralf ‘the Staller’, to whom Edward the Confessor granted estates in East Anglia. In Yorkshire and other areas they mingled Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, Universidad de Navarra, 31080 Pamplona, Spain 228 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE with Normans and Flemings in almost equal numbers (Stenton 1971, 425-6; Le Patourel 1976, 23, 74, 216, nl; Barrow 1980, 106). Bretons left their mark with such English toponyms as: Bryanston, Dorset (Brian is a Breton name); Buckland Dinham, Somerset (cf Dinan, Brittany); Helion Bumpstead, Essex (cf Helléan near Ploermel in central Brittany); and Jolby (“homestead of Johel’ < Breton Judhael) near Croft, North Yorkshire (Ekwall 1960, 71, 72, 74, 268). It is true that Breton Melchi occurs as early as the 9th century. Yet Domesday’s Melchesham indicates a recently coined toponym. Its Breton features would not otherwise be so well preserved. Melksham thus does not provide evidence for Celtic survival in England, unlike most Celtic place-names (Coates and Breeze 2000). It points in contrast to possession of a settlement (recorded soon after the event) by an immigrant to 11th-century England, where its closest analogy is Helion Bumpstead in north-west Essex, held according to Domesday Book by Tihel de Helléan and still bearing his name (Ekwall 1960, 268; Le Patourel 1976, 216, n1). It should be noted, however, that Melksham was a substantial royal possession in 1066 and gave its name to a hundred. This would suggest that, like such other Wiltshire hundredal centres as Bradford, Chippenham, Malmesbury, and Warminster, it was a significant place before the 11th century (John Chandler, pers, comm.). Although the early history of Melksham is obscure, it is possible that any Breton (or Cornishman?) called Melchi lived there long before 1066, though hardly before the 9th century, for philological reasons. Melchesham, then, can be explained as the settlement or enclosure of Melchi, whose Middle Breton name derives from British *Maglocu, “prince-hound’. That this foreign form here survives undistorted suggests Melksham in 1086 may have been a recent settlement. The presence of a Breton there at that time would in any case indicate a man loyal to the new regime. However, it remains possible that Melchi lived at Melksham before the Conquest, perhaps in the early 11th century or even the 10th century, when Athelstan of Wessex forged strong links with Brittany. Philology thus provides evidence for the early history of the Forest of Melksham (Melchi perhaps being its forester or one of its foresters). It also means an association with milk, implying Melksham began as a dairy-farm, can be dismissed. References BARROW, G.W.S., 1980, The Anglo-Norman era in Scottish history (Oxford) BROMWICH, R., and EVANS, D.S. (eds.), 1992, Culhwch and Olwen (Cardiff) COATES, R., and BREEZE, A., 2000, Celtic voices, English places (Stamford) DAVIES, W., 1979, The Llandaff charters (Aberystwyth) ERKWALL, E., 1960, The concise Oxford dictionary of English place-names; 4th ed. (Oxford) GRANT, R., 1959, ‘Forests’, in VCH Wilts, vol. 4, 391- 457 JACKSON, K.H., 1953, Language and history in early Britain (Edinburgh) LE PATOUREL, J., 1976, The Norman empire (Oxford) MILLS, A.D., 1991, A dictionary of English place-names (Oxford UP) PADEL, O.J., 1988, A popular dictionary of Cornish place-names (Penzance) STENTON, F.M., 1971, Anglo-Saxon England; 3rd. ed. (Oxford) WILLIAMS, I., 1972, The beginnings of Welsh poetry (Cardiff) Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 229-237 Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire 2001 Amesbury Boscombe Down FSTA (SU 1700 4000); Bronze Age, Iron Age and Modern An archaeological field evaluation of 12 proposed redevelopment areas was carried out by AC archaeology. The investigated areas were situated in various locations throughout the airbase, positioned on generally grassed open space between existing facilities. The evaluation revealed substantial areas of modern ‘cut and fill’, particularly adjacent to runways and taxiways. In many trenches there was frequent modern disturbance, principally by cables, drains and so forth. Extensive archaeological activity was identified in the eastern portion of the site, which is clearly an extension of the early Iron Age settlement evidence recorded during excavations on the airbase in 1949 (Richardson 1951). In contrast to the earlier work, where large storage pits and working areas were recorded, smaller features such as postholes and pits were identified during this evaluation, many containing quantities of pottery, flint and animal bone. In the western portion of the site linear ditches were identified. These are part of a network of similar features, some of which are associated with field systems extending across the surrounding landscape, identified as representing major prehistoric land divisions of late Bronze Age and early Iron Age date. RICHARDSON, K., 1951, The excavation of Iron Age villages on Boscombe Down West. WANHM 54, 123-68 Ansty The Guest House of The Knights of St John, Ansty Manor (ST 9558 2632); Medieval An archaeological watching brief was undertaken by AC archaeology during construction work. The work involved the removal and replacement of the existing roof and gable walls, reopening of a blocked doorway and windows, and groundworks to improve drainage and relieve damp. Re-used medieval architectural fragments were recovered from the fabric of the structure. Close to the north- east corner of the guest house a stone pedestal base for a hand-drawn water pump was revealed. Avebury Avebury Chapel (SU 1027 6950); Prehistoric and Post-Medieval During the summer of 2001 and March 2002, Oxford Archaeology (OA — formerly Oxford Archaeological Unit, OAU) undertook work at the United Reformed Church. OA were commissioned by Donovan Construction (SW Ltd) on behalf of the United Reformed Church and Kennet District Council to undertake the archaeological work. The excavations were carried out in advance of the construction of a lean-to extension and associated services, that forms part of plans to convert this 17th-century chapel into a tourist information centre. A building survey was also carried out as part of the requirement for archaeological monitoring by English Heritage. Footings for a former boiler-house were revealed on the site of the foundation trenches for the lean- to extension. The service trench around the south and west sides of the chapel was excavated through previously disturbed ground; the only feature of note was a cat burial of Victorian or later date. The excavation and watching brief following the service trench from the north-west side of the chapel to the mains sewer revealed an undated posthole beneath a cobbled surface of probable post- medieval date. A possible property or boundary wall had been truncated for the construction of the surface, which was itself cut by a later rubbish pit. One large pit (some 5.35m wide) was of particular significance in that it may once have held one of the standing stones within the henge, many of which were remeved in order to construct the village. A 230 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE number of ancillary brick structures were also revealed, all of Victorian date. High Street (SU 1009 6988); Modern Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Southern Electric to carry out archaeological observations on a trench that had been dug in the course of emergency work to the electricity supply at High Street, Avebury. The observations identified that the trench was within pre-existing service trenches and that no archaeological deposits had been disturbed. Silbury Hill (SU 100 685); Neolithic Fieldwork was carried out by and for English Heritage as part of a programme of investigation initiated after the collapse of part of a central vertical shaft dug in 1776. The principal components were: a seismic survey and the extraction of five cores through the hill by Cementation Skanska; a detailed topographic and analytical survey of Silbury and its local setting; and small-scale archaeological investigation and recording on the summit, carried out with the assistance of AC archaeology. Fig. 1. Silbury Hill: chalk walling on summit Complementary information from the coring and topographic survey has demonstrated that the true height of the built mound is between 31-34m depending upon the fall of the underlying natural ground surface. The work on the summit revealed part of a substantial chalk wall 2.3m wide (Figure 1), quite unlike the ‘walls’ proposed by Professor Atkinson after his work in 1968-70. Two antler fragments found during this work have provided four radiocarbon dates calibrated to 2490-2310 BC. Also recovered was a single Beaker sherd, a Roman coin and ceramics, and metalwork dating from the mid-12th century AD. Bishopstone (north) Hinton Parva: City Corner (SU 2295 8344); Saxon Two sherds of grass-tempered pottery were found during fieldwalking by Bernard Phillips and others. Lammy Down (SU 243 814); Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman Fieldwork by Bernard Phillips and others located a concentrated scatter of 2nd- to 4th-century pottery and single Bronze Age and Iron Age sherds in a field system revealed on aerial photographs. Blunsdon St Andrew Between Blunsdon Hill Reservoir and Farmoor Reservoir (Oxon.) (SU 147 902 to SP 452 065); Iron Age, Saxon and Undated A programme of archaeological recording was carried out by Cotswold Archaeological Trust prior to, and during, pipeline construction by Thames Water. An evaluation and subsequent excavation near Broad Blunsdon (at SU 164 909) revealed an Iron Age ditch and Anglo-Saxon pottery and structural remains, which together suggest the presence of a sunken-floored building. A series of small, undated stone quarries was also found. A subsequent watching-brief revealed no significant archaeological features within the Wiltshire section of the pipeline route. Abbeymeads Business Park (SU 1440 8970); ?Prehistoric, 7Roman, Medieval Following earlier field evaluation (see Excavation and Fieldwork 2000: WANHM 95, 289), Cotswold Archaeological Trust carried out the excavation of ac.1.5ha area. A number of archaeological features . were identified across the site, including stakeholes, postholes, gullies, ditches and pits. The majority of EXCAVATION AND FIELDWORK IN WILTSHIRE 2001 the features appeared to relate to medieval agricultural activity. The line of an undated (possibly Roman) metalled trackway previously identified in the evaluation was also defined. Artefactual material from the excavation was very scarce: the small assemblage that was recovered included medieval pottery and pieces of struck flint. Bradford on Avon Barton Bridge (ST 8225 6054); Medieval and Modern Collation of publicly available cartographic and documentary sources pertaining to the history of construction and maintenance of Barton Bridge, a Scheduled Monument assigned a 14th-century date, suggests that the cutwaters are a later medieval addition whilst the entirety of the paved footway and as much as 70% of the facework of the bridge has been replaced since 1881. The results also suggests that the Small Footbridge, now joined to the south-east end of the main bridge by a long causeway/glacis, is a mid 1 9th-century addition, and that the original paved approach to the east end of the main bridge might survive beneath the existing footway. The work was undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. Bromham St Nicholas’s Church (ST 9630 6518); Post- Medieval Observations during groundworks associated with the construction of a toilet annex to the south porch of St Nicholas’s church during July and August of 2002, revealed deep deposits of undifferentiated sandy subsoil containing post-medieval artefacts and disarticulated bone. The work was undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. Calne Quemerford Mill (SU 008 696); Medieval and Post- Medieval An archaeological evaluation by Cotswold Archaeological Trust prior to the redevelopment of the site for housing revealed archaeological deposits in two trenches. Undated cultivation furrows were uncovered in one trench, possibly associated with a medieval field system previously identifed to the north of the site, and adjacent to the mill itself, the line of the former mill pond was identified. Recent development of large parts of the site had severely 251 truncated the former ground surfaces, thus no other archaeologically significant deposits were observed in the remaining trenches. Charlton (north) Between Easton Grey and Minety (ST 8960 8790 to SU 0360 8960); Roman A programme of fieldwalking and geophysical survey by Network Archaeology, in advance of a ‘Transco Gas pipeline, identified extensive anomalies interpreted as a previously unrecorded villa complex, and a concentration of 2nd- to 4th- century finds. The pipeline was re-routed to avoid the main part of the complex and pre-emptive excavations were undertaken by Cotswold Archaeological Trust where the pipeline impinged upon outlying areas. Two ditched trackways, several isolated pits and postholes, a four-post structure, two small enclosures up to 7m in diameter, and ditches belonging to at least two phases of field system were identified. Excavation of these features, the majority of which did not show on the geophysical survey, produced finds including tesserae and 2nd- to 4th-century pottery. No other features of archaeological interest were recorded from the route. Chippenham Rear of 21-23 High Street (SU 92120 73340); Medieval/Post-Medieval Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Kings Oak South West to carry out an archaeological evaluation of an area of land to the rear of 21-23 High Street. The evaluation consisted of two machine-excavated trial trenches. Twenty features were found, of which 12 were a product of modern disturbance. Two of these modern features and all but one of the remainder were excavated. Archaeological features and deposits included a medieval (12th/13th century) ditch terminal (possibly part of a burgage boundary), three post- medieval cess/rubbish pits and another pit of uncertain date. A post-medieval limestone wall and floor and another wall and drain were also recorded as well as modern disturbance in both trenches. The possible line of the Saxon defences, which are postulated to run through or near the development area, was not present within the two evaluation trenches. The current consensus is that the burh ditch ran along the 50m contour and the site is just below this level, so, if there is a ditch 232 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE around the Saxon core of Chippenham, then it is most likely to be a short distance to the south of the development area. The possibility of an earlier burial ground/church on the site of the present Baptist (and 17th-century Quaker) chapel was not confirmed by this evaluation. Chiseldon East of Badbury (SU 1994 8055); Roman, Medieval and Post-Medieval Fieldwalking by Bernard Phillips and others located a scatter of Romano-British, medieval and post- medieval pottery. Codford East Codford Farm, Codford St Mary (SU 975 398); Post-Medieval In accordance with Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission for demolition and re- placement of the kitchen wing to East Codford Farmhouse at Codford St Mary, during February 2002, observations and photographic recording of the affected fabric were made. Observations suggest that part of the kitchen wing and the stack it enclosed represented an earlier phase of the farmhouse that had been largely destroyed by fire during the mid-20th century. The work was undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. Compton Bassett St. Swithin’s Church (SU 0310 7160); Medieval An archaeological evaluation was carried out by AC archaeology, which comprised the excavation of a single trench within the angle formed by the west tower and the south aisle of the church. Excavations uncovered a stone culvert, that was found to be an integral part of the 13th-century aisle wall. This overlay three inhumations, aligned east-west and likely to date between the foundation of the church in the 11th century and the construction of the aisle in the 13th century. Cricklade North-west of St. Mary’s, North Wall (SU 1005 9390); Undated In September 2001, Oxford Archaeology undertook a watching brief at land north-west of St Mary’s. The site is north-west of an earlier development, which was also the subject of a watching brief by OA in November 2000 (WANHM 95, 283). During the earlier watching brief, evidence for Roman activity and a potential Roman structure was revealed. During this present development, a number of large features of uncertain date were recorded, three of which were tentatively interpreted as quarry pits. Devizes 24 & 25 The Brittox (SU 0055 6145); Post- Medieval An archaeological evaluation by Cotswold Archaeological Trust prior to the construction of a new extension at the rear of the commercial premises revealed a pit and wall footings of a building, both of mid to late 17th-century date. No medieval or earlier deposits or structures were revealed. Downton Downton Tannery (SU 1800 2150); Early 20th Century A programme of building recording and industrial archaeology was undertaken by Oxford Archaeology at Downton Tannery prior to its partial demolition and partial conversion to retirement flats. The main tannery complex is believed to have been constructed in two initial phases (1910 and 1919) and, although it underwent some modernisation in its early decades, particularly the adoption of electric power, it then appears to have undergone relatively little significant investment in the second half of the 20th century. When it closed in 1998, therefore, it remained as a very well preserved early 20th-century tannery, retaining many of its original features. The most prominent building was a four-storey, brick-built block which formed the main entrance to the tannery and which housed, among other things, the company offices on the ground floor and drying rooms above this. To the north of this block was a large shed with Belfast trusses which housed the main tanning processes. Among the features which survived within this area were a water wheel, line-shafting, cast iron columns with line-shafting brackets, tanning and liming pits, vats and rotating drums. Downton Tannery (SU 1800 2150); Early 20th Century In January 2001 Oxford Archaeology undertook a watching brief at Downton Tannery. The site has EXCAVATION AND FIELDWORK IN WILTSHIRE 2001 already been the subject of a comprehensive building survey by OA (see above), but provision for a watching brief during the groundworks was attached to the planning permission due to the potential disturbance of below-ground archaeological deposits, and in order to monitor the demolition of the existing structures. All deposits observed during the watching brief appeared to be associated with the early 20th-century tannery. Durrington Horne and Roberts Barracks, Larkhill (SU 12550 44550); Modern Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by the Defence Estates to undertake an archaeological evaluation prior to the construction of temporary accommodation on land to the west of Watson Road at Horne and Roberts Barracks, the Royal School of Artillery, Larkhill. The site lies within 100m of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site northern boundary. The evaluation of the site comprised 12 machine-excavated trenches and five hand- excavated test-pits. Twelve postholes of modern date were identified, as well as redeposited chalk rubble surfaces. All features identified are likely to relate to the relatively recent military occupation of the site. No obviously pre-modern features or finds were recovered. The absence of archaeological remains reflects the results of previous evaluations in the immediate vicinity of the site. This is notable given the relative density of prehistoric monuments, features and finds in the vicinity, and may reflect the location of the site on the periphery of ancient field systems and settlement, possibly within an area of long term pasture. Enford (SU 1431 5125 to 1475 5062); Prehistoric and Roman Observations during pipeline works by Wessex Water revealed a small quantity of undiagnostic worked flint and one sherd of 4th-century AD New Forest Ware. No archaeological features were observed. The work was undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. Idmiston Buller Park, Porton (SU 193 364); Roman Observations during the excavation of an evaluation trench revealed part of the rammed chalk agger of 233 “The Portway’ Roman road. Where observed, the agger was up to 0.6m thick with large flint nodules on the surface. No artefacts were recovered. The work was undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. Latton and Blunsdon St Andrew Between Cricklade and Broad Blunsdon (SU 117 936 to SU 162 896); ?>Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Between August and October 2001, Cotswold Archaeological Trust carried out a programme of archaeological fieldwork comprising evaluations, excavations and a continuous watching brief along the route of the Cricklade to Broad Blunsdon ‘Transco Gas pipeline. The watching brief identified three archaeological sites which were subsequently subject to excavation. These comprised a series of 11th- to 15th-century ditches and a 13th- to 15th- century agricultural building, with stone wall footings and a cobbled floor surface (centred on SU 1230 9326); a probable Roman trackway, known as ‘Great Rose Lane’ (at SU 1375 9268); and a further metalled trackway of unknown date (at SU 1268 9268). In addition, three areas of extant ridge-and-furrow were identified along the course of the pipeline and a number of hedge banks were also recorded during the watching brief. The evaluation trenching identified two ditches, one of which was undated and the other modern in date. A late 5th- to 6th-century AD iron spearhead was also recovered from the ploughsoil, probably disturbed from a burial. Liddington East of Badbury (SU 1994 8055); Bronze Age Bernard Phillips and others found a concentration of Bronze Age sherds during fieldwork. East of Badbury (SU 1991 8059); Saxon During fieldwork by Bernard Phillips and others two grass-tempered sherds were recovered. North-east of Liddington Castle (SU 2018 8013); Neolithic R. Boon found half a polished Neolithic axe head. Reported by Bernard Phillips. North-east of Liddington Farm (SU 2050 7978); Neolithic A badger set dug into a long barrow produced many fist-sized chalk blocks from the barrow core 234 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Northernmost frame, from the south Southernmost frame, from the north Figure . Roof structure of Cell Fig. 2. Melksham: Gifford’s Surgery construction. At the centre of the barrow a large sarsen stone, perhaps part of a chamber, is exposed. Reported by Bernard Phillips. Longbridge Deverill Sand Hill Tank Outlet Main (ST 8850 4195); Undated Observations during groundworks adjacent to the Sand Hill henge monument, associated with construction of a new water supply main from the Sand Hill reservoir, revealed enhanced natural soil horizons over one metre deep beneath road make- up deposits. No interpretable archaeological deposits or artefacts were identified. The work was undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. Marlborough St. Martin’s Mews; Medieval and Post-Medieval Foundation trenching for a QPC Construction development sectioned four deep graves containing extended and formerly coffined burials: two elderly males, a young adult female and an unsexed adult. Two further burials in shallower graves are of a one year-old infant and a female aged 15-21.The graves cut the mortar floor and chalk and flint floor packing of a building. Associated finds include fragments of medieval terracotta roofing and decorated floor tiles. A thin humus layer, sealed by the floor packing, produced animal bones and several 1 2th/13th century sherds. Below this silt and gravel filled a shallow flat-bottomed hollow. Later features include a pit and an 18th-century brick- lined well. Bernard Phillips carried out retrieval of finds and recording. Melksham Gittord’s Surgery, Lowbourne (SU 9062 6386); Post-Medieval Archaeological observations during demolition of the former Gifford’s Surgery in Lowbourne, in accordance with a condition of Planning Permission, identified extensive components of at least one early 18th- or late 17th-century building . of non-domestic function within the amalgam of otherwise 19th- and 20th-century elements. EXCAVATION AND FIELDWORK IN WILTSHIRE 2001 The building, originating as an agricultural building or perhaps a woolstore, and identifiable on surveys of 1734 as the property of the radical Quaker Isaac Self, re-used late medieval roof structure from an unknown building. It was converted by the addition of a lateral stack and then window openings during the mid 18th century, before becoming subsumed within 19th-century extensions. In its final, detached state, it displayed some architectural decoration in the form of window cornices and interior panelling and may have stood as a well- appointed and distinct house (Figure 2). The work was undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. Salisbury Bishop Wordsworth’s School (SU 1427 2929); Post- Medieval and Modern An archaeological evaluation by means of three machine-excavated trenches was undertaken by AC archaeology in connection with proposals for the construction of a new classroom block at Bishop Wordsworth’s School, Salisbury. The site is located on the east side of the Cathedral Close to the rear of medieval properties fronting Bishop’s Walk. Within the areas excavated there was a consistent depositional sequence comprising modern topsoil above a subsoil containing post-medieval pottery, in turn overlying natural clays and gravels. A smali area of demolition rubble, derived from a building of unknown date and function, was recorded in one of the trenches, but this too contained only post- medieval finds. The Anchor Brewery Site, Gigant Street, (SU 1469 2985); Medieval/Post-Medieval Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Gleeson Homes to undertake an archaeological evaluation of a c.0.47ha area at the site of the former Anchor Brewery in Gigant Street, Salisbury. The work was required as part of the planning condition for the residential and commercial redevelopment of the site (see WANHM 95, 287-8). Stage 4 of this evaluation comprised a single machine-excavated trench in the north-eastern part of the site. A complex sequence of urban deposits and features, including wall lines, floor surfaces, mortar deposits and hearths was recorded. The build-up of urban deposits could be seen to be at least 0.6m in depth. The layers and features represent medieval and post-medieval development within burgage plots, including the likely presence of structures fronting on to Gigant Street. 235 82 St Ann Street (SU 14866 29665); Modern Wessex Archaeology was commissioned to undertake an archaeological evaluation of land at 82 St. Ann Street for Damen Associates on behalf of Dr. Collier and Partners. The site consisted of a lawned garden to the rear of the existing surgery. No archaeology was previously known on the site, but the putative course of the city rampart was thought to run through the property. The evaluation entailed the excavation of one machine-dug trench. Early modern brick, stone and cut features associated with post-medieval and early modern drains or soakaways were recorded. Only a few post- medieval and early modern artefacts were found, along with two residual prehistoric flints. Quidhampton Quarry (SU 11150 31550); Undated Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Imerys Minerals Limited to undertake an archaeological watching brief during the construction of an access road, settlement lagoons and an adjacent bund at Quidhampton Quarry, Salisbury. Observation revealed no archaeological features or deposits, however the presence of burnt and struck flint from residual topsoil may indicate prehistoric activity in the surrounding area. Salisbury Plain Training Area ‘C’ Crossing (SU 1468 4635); Prehistoric Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Defence Estates to undertake an archaeological evaluation of land west of ‘C’ crossing on Salisbury Plain Training Area, prior to its proposed planting as woodland. The area was irregular in shape and c.17 ha in area. It was located on undulating ground one kilometre south-west of the village of Figheldean and was being used as pasture, although one block of woodland was present within the area. The evaluation comprised 41 machine-excavated trenches each measuring 50 x 2m. Recorded features included two possible postholes, four undated ditches and two pits, both of which were located on high points of the land and probably of ritual significance. Pit 404 lay centrally between two parallel ditches and contained placed antlers as well as a large amount of debitage and flint tools probably dating to the Neolithic period. It also contained Iron Age pottery. The second pit (3204) contained a large amount of Iron Age pottery and animal bones. Undated negative lynchets were found running parallel to the contours of the land. Treethrows were also present. 236 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Robin Hood’s Ball and Silver Barrow, SPTA (Tilshead) (SU 1050 4593); Prehistoric Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by the Defence Estates to record the extent of disturbances caused by badgers at two Scheduled Monuments on the Salisbury Plain Training Area using geophysical and earthwork survey. The work was also required to recover any datable artefacts and to reinstate the spoil into the setts. The two monuments comprised a small oval, previously undated enclosure, of unknown extent (centred on SU 1050 4593) east of the Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Robin Hood’s Ball, and Silver Barrow, a large bowl barrow (centred on SU 0455 4723), which lies south-east of Westdown Camp, Tilshead. The results of the survey at Robin Hood’s Ball defined the extent of the enclosure and suggested that it is of Late Bronze Age date or earlier. The work at Silver Barrow indicated that the setts had severely disturbed a large spread of flint knapping waste, which lay on the old ground surface beneath the mound. Swindon 9-11 High Street, Old Town (SU 158 838); Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval An archaeological excavation by Cotswold Archaeological Trust prior to the construction of a block of flats produced a quantity of Roman, Anglo-Saxon, medieval and later pottery. However, this was all recovered from accumulated mixed garden soils, and no discrete archaeological features were identified. Great Western Hospital (SU 1905 8225); Roman and Undated Archaeological watching by Bernard Phillips of machine topsoil removal and downgrading of land for construction of an Intermediate Care Unit resulted in the discovery of a Romano-British pottery spread and two undated features: a stone- filled pit and a stone-lined drain. Urchfont Oakfrith Wood (SU 02805651); Neolithic to Medieval The planting of trees adjacent to Oakfrith Wood, to mark the millennium, was preceded by gridded fieldwalking by The Friends of Oakfrith Wood, led by Patricia Howell, in order to test the archaeological potential of the site. Very little was recovered. A very thin scatter of Neolithic flintwork and a single abraded sherd of Bronze Age pottery represents the prehistoric background activity that one might expect on the Upper Greensand, with an almost imperceptible increase towards the east of the investigated area. It hints perhaps that clusters of material might exist somewhere close by. A thin scatter of medieval pottery might come from manuring, which would indicate that the ground was under cultivation at that time. One piece is chaff tempered and could hint at an early medieval presence not too far distant. One potsherd and a single piece of clay pipe stem indicates a lack of activity here after the medieval period and it may be that the land was put down to pasture or woodland at that time. The site records and material have been deposited with Wiltshire Heritage Museum. Wanborough West of the Calley Arms (SU 210 826); Roman and Medieval A few Romano-British and numerous medieval sherds were found in small cutting made by the house owner into the rear garden. Reported by Bernard Phillips. Half Moon Plantation (SU 2338 7931); Bronze Age Fieldwork by Bernard Phillips revealed a concentration of Bronze Age sherds and worked flints in association with a dense scatter of burnt, fragmented sarsen stone. West Ashton Manor Farm (ST 8800 5522); Medieval and Post- Medieval In June 2001 Cotswold Archaeological Trust carried out an evaluation on a set of earthworks, possibly part of a medieval village. One trench revealed a levelled bank and a 1.5m deep ditch and another the same, though waterlogged, ditch at least 1.35m deep, with a medieval track or yard surface to the south-west. Further evidence of medieval activity was represented by a 0.53m deep ditch, possibly part of an enclosure. This was followed by a further evaluation in October 2001 just to the west at Manor Farm (ST 8815 5526) where a post- medieval stone surface and a stone-lined drain were found. EXCAVATION AND FIELDWORK IN WILTSHIRE 2001 Westbury Northacre Business Park (ST 8540 5208); Medieval Archaeological monitoring during the excavation of new drainage trenches on land adjacent to the new United Milk Dairy site was undertaken by AC archaeology. The trenches were located in a field where previous evaluation had identified evidence for medieval settlement on a raised natural gravel terrace above Biss Brook. No archaeological features or deposits were disturbed during excavation of the drainage trenches, but quantities of unstratified late 12th- or 13th-century pottery were recovered. Wilton 35 West Street (SU 0942 3132); Undated Archaeological monitoring of three geotechnical trial pits and two bore holes was undertaken by AC archaeology. Waterborne sediments were recorded within the machine dug trial pits from a depth of c.0.6m. These contained occasional preserved plant remains and animal bone, along with one piece of preserved leather at a depth greater than 2.5m. No in situ archaeological deposits were recorded. The church of St. Mary and St. Nicholas (SU 0970 3120); Medieval to Modern Archaeological investigations associated with the installation of new floodlighting on the site were undertaken by AC archaeology. The work was 237 carried out under the terms of Scheduled Ancient Monument consent and involved the hand- excavation of six pits up to 0.5 x 0.5m and of a cable trench 0.15m wide, 0.2m deep and 64m long. This trench ran around the standing walls of the church and out to two floodlight points to the north- east and south-west. The trenching exposed buried wall footings from a number of separate structures, several of which appeared to pre-date the church and may have medieval or possibly Saxon origins. Other structures were formed of red brick walls and are likely to be of mid-19th century date. Wootton Bassett Red Lodge (SU 0658 8321); Mesolithic, Neolithic/ Bronze Age, Roman, Medieval and Post-Medieval Observation and artefact retrieval by Bernard Phillips, and Derek and Alexander Shaw during the construction of school playing fields yielded Mesolithic and Neolithic/Bronze Age flintwork adjacent to a spring. Close to a second spring a sealed peat layer contained oak and hazel branches, along with plant remains. The surviving part of the deposit, associated with a few Romano-British sherds and worked flints, could potentially provide early environmental evidence relating to Braydon Forest. Worn Romano-British and medieval sherds were also recovered, and demonstrate cultivation, whilst post-medieval pottery and a 19th-century stone track indicate later activity. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2002), pp. 238-239 Reviews John Bowen. The Story of Malmesbury: part one 500 BC — 1600 AD. Malmesbury 2000, 136 pages, £15.99, hardback, ISBN 0 9539715 0 3. As the title suggests ‘The Story of Malmesbury, part one’ tells the story, rather than the history, of life in Malmesbury from its earliest known inhabitants to the year 1600. It is an ambitious project to cover more than 2000 years of the life of the town in 136 pages. The author acknowledges the difficulty in answering the myriad questions of how and why Malmesbury and its abbey are situated where they are, and while he offers various facts and suggestions he inevitably raises more questions as his story progresses. Work by archaeologists in uncovering the remnants of a huge Iron Age defensive wall in 1998 has tempted him to ask if they have uncovered evidence of ancient Caer Bladon, and is Caer Bladon Malmesbury? The book itself is a large, sumptuously produced hardback, beautifully illustrated with good quality colour photographs. The main focus of the work is centred on the religious settlement, from Aldhelm’s 7th century Benedictine monastery to the establishment of the Norman abbey, which has dominated the town since the 12th century. The interaction between the abbey and town is traced, down to William Stumpe’s use of the abbey premises for cloth production after the Dissolution. The use of a period timeline at the start of each chapter is a helpful addition to contextualise the period under discussion, although social events do not often tie in neatly with royal reigns. The work contains many little gems to delight the reader, such as the identification of street names on pp.79-80, and the woodland imagery of church architecture on p.59. There are informative biographical snippets about some of the town’s leading religious and secular figures. Extensive quotes from John Leland, Thomas Hobbes and John Aubrey are provided, although there has been no real attempt to analyse or put into context these contemporary and 17th century commentaries. In his discussion of the 16th century the author refers tantalisingly to the ‘sleaze’ reports of the official visitations to the abbey. Although he reports that the visitation of 1527 uncovered enough minor scandals for the locals to be very unhappy no examples are provided, leaving the reader as unhappy as the locals! Other quibbles with the work stem from the general lack of organisation of the material. Each chapter seems to have been written to stand alone, and when read together there is some irritating duplication of basic information, such as the constant repetition of William of Malmesbury’s credentials. Much valuable and relevant information has been hidden away in the endnotes to each chapter when it could have been successfully incorporated into the main text. The worst instances of this appear in Chapter 6, note 4, and Chapter 7, note 21, each of which takes up more than a page of this A4 size book. While this work is a lively story of Malmesbury, peppered with speculation and anecdote, anyone wanting a more academic history of the town would be better off with the Wiltshire County Council’s 1999 History of Malmesbury compiled from articles from the Victoria County History. Despite its minor academic shortcomings this is an attractive book in the tradition and style of the antiquarians of old. The author’s love of, and enthusiasm for, the town and abbey shines through on every page. KAY S. TAYLOR The Picture Book of Malmesbury. Malmesbury Town Council 2001, limited edition of 500 copies, ISBN 0 9539715 1 1. This enchanting picture book of Malmesbury is a lovely companion volume to John Bowen’s Story of Malmesbury, and he has been deeply involved in its production. The exquisite collection of fifty plates provides a breath-taking array of views of the town and the abbey, from all directions and in all seasons. The layout of the book is simple and uncluttered. There are no captions, as each plate is only identified by a number, with information given at the end. This is an aid to the aesthetic enjoyment of each view, and it is entertaining trying to identify the less well-known parts of the town. The down side is the need constantly to flip backwards and forwards in order to tie up the information with the picture. REVIEWS The postscript to the work notes that ‘as Malmesbury’s houses date from the 9th to 21st century, 1300 years have given us a very special cocktail, but it would appear that the most recent additions to this cocktail were not considered worthy of inclusion. Neither were any examples of modern industry, despite the claim that ‘Malmesbury is a special place, sacred and full of history yet vibrant and at the cutting-edge of new technology.’ This book is a charming introduction to the visual delights of historic Malmesbury and whets the appetite to visit for a personal look at the scenes depicted. KAY S. TAYLOR Plenderleath’s Memoranda of Cherhill, Edited by John Reis. Fulmar Publishing, Compton Bassett, 2001; xxxviii, 134 pages, illustrated, hardback, ISBN 1 903979 05 6. For most of us the name William Plenderleath brings to mind an article on ‘White Horses of Wiltshire’, which appeared in volume 14 of WANHM in 1874, and a small booklet called White Horses of the West of England — a subject suitable for one who was rector of Cherhill from 1860 to 1892 and thus overlooked by the bottle glass eye of one such resident of the Wiltshire downs. Plenderleath also wrote two volumes, in manuscript, about Cherhill and his time there and fortunately these were acquired by John Reis a few years ago. The first volume is dated 1887, but signed in August 1888, while the second is dated 1892 and was written to record the village celebrations at the time of Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee. John Reis believes that these have been compiled from diaries or a rough text. Plenderleath predicted that ‘the clergy as the resident pastors, helpers and friends of their people, are doomed to extinction’ and that his book would show what an English country village was like in the 19th century ‘as portrayed by one who had the best opportunities of knowing’. This well edited book tells us much about Plenderleath, who was scholarly and charitable and a devout and conscientious churchman. His writings show a sense of humour and, although he often seems anxious to please, he is always secure in his place in the social order of the day. His interest in history and archaeology is obvious and he was a member of this Society. Another area of concern was the local dialect and he quotes several of his parishioners in their own speech. He was a contemporary of Francis Kilvert and the men knew one another while their families met at social events. The Memoranda largely comprise descriptions of events with anecdotes and we can gather useful 239 information, such as the fact that butter and cheese were made in the parish in 1860 although Cherhill is at the edge of the chalk country. When Plenderleath came to the village there were still church gallery musicians, playing clarionet, flute, violin and violoncello, and two members of the notorious Cherhill Gang still lived. These with ‘venerable white heads bowed over their big prayer books’ included the man who went naked to rob people in summertime as they would not be looking at his face and would not recognise him when dressed. John Reis has done an excellent job in editing and introducing these writings. He has brought us a picture of both the village and an enlightened 19th-century clergyman, who was quite prepared to take on a local landowner if necessary. An instance of this is his interest in rights of way when he conducted a minor campaign against Lord Lansdowne’s agent over a blocked footpath. MICHAEL MARSHMAN Tim Couzens. Hand of Fate. The History of the Longs, Wellesleys and the Draycot Estate in Wiltshire. ELSP, 2001, 199 pages, photographs, map. Price £7.99, paperback, ISBN 1 903341 72 6. Tim Couzens has deep family roots in and around Draycot Cerne, so that this is to some extent a work of family piety. It is also a well-researched account of one of Wiltshire’s lesser known houses and estates. For its early history, under the Cernes, the writer was able to rely largely on the VCH, and after the advent of the Longs in the mid-15th century he had valuable help from the pedigrees of the various branches compiled by C. E. Long. From this base he has worked hard and successfully to locate sources in several other record offices and libraries, and has brought the family to life. Most people interested in Wiltshire history are aware of the disastrous marriage of the great heiress Catherine Long and the arch-bounder William Wellesley Pole. Here they have the story in full detail. For the last period of the estate there is much excellent social history, well illustrated from the writer’s family photographs, and also a full description of the vanished mansion. One error, gathered from a source which was incorrect, should be pointed out. There is no evidence that the first Long, Robert, had any connection with the cloth industry, nor is it true that he paid for the tower of Steeple Ashton church. The Robert Long who paid for one of the aisles there may have been related to the Longs who later lived at Rood Ashton, but how is not known. KEN ROGERS Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 240-250 Index by Philip Aslett NOTE: Wiltshire places are indexed or referenced under civil parish Abercromby, Lord, 163 Aberdeen (Scotland), 170 Abingdon Abbey (Oxon), 84 AC archaeology, 215, 237; evaluations, 232; excavations, 229; watching briefs, 229 accident victims, 15 Aceraceae (maples), 46 Achimota College, 1 adzes, serpentine, 181 Aegean, 175, 180, 182, 183, 187 Felfric, Abbot, 82, 85 elfric of Cerne, 86 7elfstan, 84 aerial photography, 55, 60; applications, 151; Lammy Down, Bishopstone, 230; Mildenhall, 28; surveys, 148-60; Winterbourne Bassett, 203, 204 Aeshna cyanea (Southern Hawker dragonfly), 64, 65 Aeshna juncea (Common Hawker dragonfly), 67 Aesthetic Movement, 52 A&thelmer, Ealdorman, 81—2 7Sthelred, King, 77 ABthelwold, 85 7Sthelwulf, King, 83 Agricola, 211 agricultural buildings, 235 agriculture: ?medieval, 231; improvements, 22; steam ploughing, 224—5 airfields, 159, 215-18, 229 Aitchison, George, school architecture, 47— 53 Akenedola, Justus, 3 Aldbourne, 39, 219 Alderbury, 22; Earbidgers of, 22 Aldhelm, Abbot, 77 Alexander, Keith, paper on saproxylic status of Savernake Forest, 137-42 Alfred, King, 80 Algiers (Algeria), 50, 52 All Cannings: church, 77, 80-1; Tan Hill, 202 All Party Conservation Committee, 94 Allva, Duke of (1508-82), 145 Almesforth (Somerset?), 104 Alpes-de-Haute-Provence (France), 178 Alton, Alton Priors, 224 Alwine, 84 amber, sources, 187-8 amber objects, 162, 171, 174, 178, 181; beads, 172; pendants, 180, 183 Amesbury, 60, 100, 101, 102, 104, 109; Amesbury Down, 154—5 Fig. 7, 154-5 Fig. 9, 157, 158; barrows, 172, 182, 183— 5, 186, 215-18; Boscombe Down, 186, 229; Boscombe Down Airfield, 159, 215— 18; Boscombe Down West, 215-18; Butterfield Down, 170; Coneybury, 60; Earl’s Farm, 217; Fargo/Cursus Group, 186; King Barrow Ridge, 60; knives, 179; manor, 99; New Barn Down, 217; New King Barrow, 186; Old King Barrow, 186; Ratfyn, 60, see also Stonehenge Amity {Emity] Oak, 41 AML (Ancient Monuments Laboratory), 197,199 Ampedus spp. (beetles), 141 Ampthill (Bedfordshire), Houghton House, 103, 110 Ancient Monuments Acts, 4 Ancient Monuments Laboratory (AML), 197, 199 Andover (Hants), Portway, 12 Andrefsky, W., 58 Andrews and Dury, map (1773), 196 Anglesey (Wales), 125 Angus, 170, 188 animal bone see bone, animal Anisoptera (dragonflies), 64, 65 Annable, Frederick Kenneth (1922-2002): bibliography, 5—6; obituary, 1-5 Annable, Myra, 1, 2, 4,5 Anobiidae (beetles), 139 Ansty, 21, 22; Ansty Manor House, 229 antiquarianism: archaeological, 111—28; perceptions, 119-20 Antiquarian Repertory, 121 antlers, 230 Appleby, Claire, 92 apple trees, 43 appliques rectangulaires, 172 Aquifoliaceae (holly), 45 Araneae (spiders), 129-36 Araneidae (spiders), 129 Araneus diadematus (spider), 129 archaeological objects, false findspots, 38— 9 Archaeological Site Investigations (ASI) see ASI Heritage Consultants archaeology: Hoare’s contribution, 111-28; prehistoric, 1 Archbishop’s Court of Audience, 72 architecture, Near Eastern influences, 47— 53 Area Museums Council, 4, 91 armlets, gold, 172 Army Bird Watching Society, 90 Arnold, Henry R., 208 arrowheads, 178; flint, 176, 178, 180, 181, 183 art: Graeco-Roman, 210; Romano-Celtic, 208 artefacts: post-medieval, 231; false findspots, 38—9 arthropod remains, 59 Arundell, Lady, 21 Arundell, Lord, 21 Arundell family, 19, 20; lands, 22 Ashbee, P., 182 Ashe, Sir James, 20, 24 Ashe, Sir Joseph, 20, 21, 22-3, 24, 25 Ashe, Lady Mary, 20, 21, 24 Ashe family, 20 Ashley (Gloucestershire), Tothill, 83 ash trees, 41 ASI Heritage Consultants, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235; evaluations, 55 Askins, Martin, paper on spiders in Wiltshire, 129-36 Athelstan, King, 228 Atkinson, Richard John Copland, 2, 230 Atworth, Great Chalfield, 220 Aubrey, John, 72, 80, 212, 238 Austria, 182 Avebury, 125, 170, 196; Alexander Keiller Museum, 152, 197; beakers, 170; Beckhampton, 79, 170; Beckhampton Avenue, 210, 212, 213; Beckhampton Cove, 212; Circus, 212; cropmarks, 149; Devil’s Quoits, 212; Discus, 212; Falkner’s Circle, 195; figurines, 33-9; Fox Covert, 213; Gunsite Lane, 151, 154, 155; Harepit Lane, 213; High Street, 230; Longstones Field, 213; Overton Hill, 213; Rogers Meadow, 35; St James’s Church, 202; Sanctuary, 155, 204, 212, 213; Silbury Hill, 37, 151, 202, 211, 230; stone circles, 195, 210; surveys, 123; Twining on, 210-13; United Reform Church, 229-30; West Kennet, 149-51; West Kennet Avenue, 123, 155, 212, 213; West Kennet Farm, 151—5;Windmill Hill, 170, 177, 196 Avebury Archaeological and Historical Research Group, 201 Avebury World Heritage Site, Mapping Project, 150 Aveling & Porter, 224 Avon, River (North), 66-7 Avon, River (South), 7, 9, 13, 101, 156, 158; Avon Valley, 55, 60, 61, 149, 225; communications, 14; dragonflies, 67; territorial significance, 16; water meadows, 22-3 axe moulds, 187 axes, 176, 178, 180, 187; Palaeolithic, 7; Neolithic, 233; Bronze Age, 39; Arreton style, 187; Balleyvalley type, 180, 181, 182, 183; bronze, 180, 181-5; carvings, 187; Irish, 187; Roe’s Intermediate Form, 177; Scottish Bb type, 181 Bacchus, 210 Bacon, Francis, Baron Verulam of Verulam, Viscount St. Albans (1561-1626), 120 Baconian inductive reasoning, 111, 120, 215 122 badgers, 236 Badminton (South Gloucestershire), 99, 100, 102, 109 Balfe, Lesley, 90, 93, 94 Balsdon [Balston] (West Berkshire), 70 banks, hedge, 233 Baptist chapels, 232 Barber, Martyn, paper on photography, 148-60 Barker, C. T., 204 Barnack (Cambridgeshire), 174 Barnard (curio dealer), 37-8 Barnhill, Angus, 188 Barron, Ron, 93 Barrow Hills (Oxon), 172, 174 barrows, 117, 120-1, 124, 126, 156, 204; Neolithic, 217, 233-4; Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age, 55; Beaker, 161—94; Bronze Age, 7, 13, 14; Early Bronze Age, 170-2; bell, 161, 177, 183-5, 217; bowl, naa Se 2 lens G1SGon UStinmeliSiuaailens distribution, 169; early theories, 121; excavations, 124—5; long, 124, 233-4; protection, 217; ring, 177, 186; round, 215-18; saucer, 217; surveys, 123; Twining’s interpretation, 211; Wessex Series, 170-2, 177; Wilsford 1, 186; Wilsford 2b, 186; Wilsford 5, 161, 170-1, 177, 181-3, 185, aerial INDEX 187 (midrib knife, 179-80); Wilsford 7, 161-94; Wilsford 8, 161, 170, 171, 173, 187 (halberd-pendants, 181-2, 183; ornaments, 174—5; perforated-wall cups, 177); Wilsford 9, 173; Wilsford 16, 184; Wilsford 18, 184, 187;Wilsford 23, 173, 184, 187; Wilsford 52, 186; Wilsford 54, 186; Wilsford 58, 177 Basires JS: 116,117,121, 123, 124 Bath, Marquess of, 143 Bath and Wells, Bishop of, 85 battleaxes, stone, 177, 181 Bavarian State Department of Historical Monuments (Germany), 199 BDS (British Dragonfly Society), 63, 65 beads, 162-3, 174, 180, 183; amber, 172; fusiform, 174, 183; jet, 171, 172, 177 beakers, 57, 164-70 Beaufort, Ist Duchess of (1630-1715), 98— 110 Beaumont, Bishop of Salisbury, 73 Bedford, Duke of, 110 Bedford, George, 22 Bedfordshire, 103, 110, see also Ampthill; Burbage; Luton; Malden; Melchbourne Beech, William, 74 beeches, 41, 42, 43 Beecroft Bequest, 208 beetles: saproxylic, 137-42; in saproxylic status evaluation, 137—42; trapping, 141 Belfast trusses, 232 Belgium see Brussels Bellamy, Peter, note on flaked stone from Beehive Junction, Salisbury, 58 Belmonte-Picenza (Italy), 37 belt-hooks: bone, 184, 187; gold, 171 Bennett, Anthony, 21 Bennett, Barren, 21 Bennett, John, 19, 20, 21, 22 Bennett, Patience, 21 Bennett, Repentance, 21 Berkshire, 69, 102, 104; artefacts, 33, 39, see also Balsdon; Eton College; Hungerford; Lambourn; Lambourn Downs; Newbury; Reading University Berwick St James, Druid’s Lodge, 154—5 Fig. 11, 158 Bettey, J. H., paper on manorial stewards, 19-25 Betulaceae (birches), 45 Biddestone, 79; Slaughterford, 79 Big Belly Oak, 41 Big Rings (Oxon), 2 Bindon, Chris, 92 Biological Records Centre (BRC), 89, 91, 224; computerization, 96; establishment, 90, 92 Biphyllidae (beetles), 139 bird-cherry, 42 birds, in brooch designs, 218, 219 Bishops Cannings, 175; church, 77, 80-1; figurine, 33, 34—5; Horton, 80; St Mary’s church, 5; Shepherds Shore, 35 Bishopstone (near Swindon): Hinton Parva, 230; Lammy Down, 230 Biss, River, 67 Blackmore, H. P., 136 blacksmiths, 35, 37 blades, 183; Neolithic, 57, 5& Blagdon Hill (Dorset), 21 Blair, John, 86 Blewbury Soil Association, 197 Blunsdon St Andrew: Abbeymeads Business Park, 230-1; Blunsdon Hill Reservoir, 230; Broad Blunsdon, 230, 233; Great Rose Lane, 233 bog bodies: Neolithic, 13-14; Bronze Age, 14; Iron Age, 14; Romano-British, 14; 5th/6th century, 7-18; 7th century, 14; post-medieval, 14; distribution, 13-14; posture, 14; significance, 14-15 Bohemia, King and Queen of, 144 Bond, Leslie, 93 bone: animal, 237 (Neolithic, 56, 58-9, 230; Late Neolithic, 152; Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age, 229; Iron Age, 235; Roman, 28; Late Roman, 30); disarticulated, 231; human, 162-3 (Early Roman, 30; Late Roman, 30-1; 5th/6th century, 9-12, 13; undated, 31) bone objects, 184, 187; moulds, 219 Boon, R., 233 Bosgrove, Thomas, 74 botanical recording, 94—5 Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI), 95 Botfield, Beriah, 49 Boucher, Stephanie, 226 boundaries: linear, 157—8; ranch, 157, 158 Bourne, River, 54, 154—5 Fig. 9, 156, 158 Boveridge (Dorset), 23 Bowen, John, work reviewed, 238 bowls, Irish funerary, 165 Box, 79, 80; Hazelbury, 80 boxes, 174, 183; wooden, 180 Brabant, Robert, 74 bracelets, 172; gold, 178 Brachytron pratense (Hairy dragonfly), 66 Bradenham, Sir Henry de, 71, 72-3 Bradenstoke, 85; Abbey, 219; Clack Mount, 219-20 Bradford-on-Avon, 228; Barton Bridge, 231; church, 77; dragonflies, 65, 66; St Laurence’s Chapel, 206-7; Small Footbridge, 231 brass objects, dog collars, 214 Bratton, Bratton Camp, 151 Braydon: Braydon Forest, 237; Braydon Pond, 66 Braydon Oak, 41 BRC see Biological Records Centre (BRC) Brean, Mr, 145 Brecknockshire, 102 Breeze, Andrew, note on Melksham place- names, 227-8 Bremhill, 82, 85; Avon, 82; Charlcutt, 82; Foxham, 82; Spirthill, 82; Tytherton, 79 Breton Barrow Graves (France), 177-9, 180-1, 182, 185 Bretons, 227-8 Briantspuddle (Dorset), 227 Briard, J., 178 Bridgeman, Sir Orlando (c.1607-—74), 99 bridges, medieval, 231 Brighton Pavilion (East Sussex), 50 Brinkworth: church, 79; Grittenham, 83 Bristol, 21; University, 94 Britford: church, 77; water meadows, 65, 67 British Association of Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology, 15 British Deer Society, 90 British Dragonfly Society (BDS), 63, 65 British Lichen Society, 96 Brittany (France), 210, 227-8; and Wessex, 228, see also Breton Barrow Graves; Dinan; E! Mar; Helléan; Kernonen; Pl6ermel; Plouvorn; Tanwedou Brixton Deverill, 84, 226 Broad Chalke, church, 77 Broad Hinton, 196, 202 broadleaf trees, 42 Brokenborough, 78, 79, 83 Bromham: Chittoe Heath, 67; St Nicholas’s Church, 231; Spye Park, 67 bronze objects, 33-9, 172, 174, 175, 178, 181; Roman, 35; dog collars, 213-14; figurines, 208-10, 225-7 brooches see disc-brooches; fibulae Brooke, Frances, Lady Cobham, 143, 144 Brooke, Henry, 143 Brooke, Joshua, 33-9 Brooke, Margaret, 143 Brooke, Maximilian, 143 Brooke, William, 10th Baron Cobham (1527-1597), 143-7 Brooke, William, 143 Brooke family, 143-7 Brooks, Chris, 50 Broome Heath (Norfolk), 60, 61 Broughton Gifford, 79 241 Browne, John, 24 Browne, Marion, 93 Brown, William, 72 Bruce, Charles, 3rd Earl of Ailesbury (d. 1747), 110 Bruce, Elizabeth, Countess of Ailesbury, 98— 110 Bruce, Robert, 2nd Earl of Elgin and Ist Earl of Ailesbury (d. 1685), 102 Bruce, Thomas, 3rd Earl of Elgin and 2nd Earl of Ailesbury (1656-1741), 98-110 Brudenell family, 110 Brudenell-Bruce, Thomas, 110 Brussels (Belgium), 110, 143 Bryanston (Dorset), 228 Bryn Celli Ddu (Anglesey), 125 i BSBI (Botanical Society of the British Isles), 95 Buckland Dinham (Somerset), 228 buckthorns, 41 Buddha, 37-8 building materials: medieval, 229; 17th century, 229; 19th century, 229-30; modern, 28, 235; timber framing, 220— 1, see also tiles Building News, The, 47 buildings, 230; ?Late Iron Age, 154-5 Fig. 8; Roman, 27-8, 232; Romano-British, 208; ?Saxon, 237; ?medieval, 237; medieval, 233; post-medieval, 232, 234— 5; 17th century, 220, 232; 20th century, 232-3, see also villas; walls Buprestids (beetles), 141 Burbage, 100; Wolfhall Park, 100, 101, 104 Burbage (Bedfordshire), 105 Burchard, A. M., 4 burgages, 231, 235 Burgess, C., 165 burials see cremation burials; inhumations Burke, Edmund (1729-97), 113-14 Burl, Aubrey, 210, 212; note on Fir Clump stone circle, 222 Burma, 1 Burrell (steam ploughs), 224 busts, Roman, 35 butresses, 206—7 Buttermere (Cumbria), 112 button covers, 183 buttons, 174 Caen (France), 80 Caen stone, 50 Caer Bladon, 238 cairns, 204 Calne, 82; chantry, 69; church, 77; hospital, 71, 72; Quemerford, 72; Quemerford Mill, 231; St Edmund’s altar, 72 Calne Without: Calstone, 72 Cambridge, University, 156 Cambridgeshire see Barnack; Earith; Monks Wood Camely (Somerset), 100 Campania (Italy), 37 Cariada Rosal, Sevilla (Spain), 179 canals, 22 Canham, Roy, 204 Cannings Hundred, 80 Cantharidae (beetles), 139 Cantley Estate (Doncaster), 2 Capel, Arthur, Earl of Essex (1631-83), 101-2, 104 Capel, Lady Elizabeth, 99 Capel, Sir Henry, Lord Capel of fewkesbury (d. 1696), 102, 106, 109 Capo di Monte (Italy), 118 Caprifoliaceae (elders), 46 Cardiff University, 151 Cardigan, Earl of, 41 Carlisle (Cumbria), Annetwell Street, 209 Carn Madryn (Wales), 125 carriers, 20 Cary, J., 113 Case, Humphrey, paper on Beaker presence at Wilsford 7, 161-94 Castle Cary (Somerset), 100, 104 Castlerigg (Cumbria), 125 242 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE castles, 219 CAT see Cotswold Archaeological Trust (CAT) Catacombs (Italy), 118 Cathedral Oak, 41 cats, burials, 229 cattle, bones, 58 Cecil, Elizabeth (née Brooke), 143, 145 Cecil, Robert, 1st Earl of Salisbury and Ist Viscount Cranborne (c.1563—1612), 145 Cecil family, 20 Ceciloides acicula (snail), 60 cedars of Lebanon, 43 Celastraceae (spindle trees), 46 Celts: human sacrifices, 15; ritual significance of water, 14 Cementation Skanska, 230 cemeteries, 232; Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, 55; Late Iron Age/Early Romano-British, 28; Roman, 27, 31-2; Romano-British, 13; Anglo-Saxon, 13; Saxon, 14; undated, 31; dispersed linear, 215-18; surveys, 123, see also inhumations Central Europe: axes, 181—2; halberd- pendants, 183; hoards, 185 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 208 Cerambycidae (beetles), 139 ceramics see pottery cereals, 60 Ceriagrion tenellum (Small Red damselfly), 67 Cerne family, 239 Cerylonidae (beetles), 139 cesspits, post-medieval, 231 Chaloner, Roger, 73-4 Chandler, John, 228 chantries, 69-76 chapels, 229, 232 charcoal, 28, 60, 178 charcoal burners, 22 Charles I, King, 100 Charles II, King, 20, 21, 99 Charlton, 210 Charlton (North), 78, 231 Chedglow Hundred, 78, 83 cheekpieces, copper alloy, 37 cheese markets, 20 Chenopodiaceae (goosefoots), seeds, 60 Chenopodium spp. (goosefoot), seeds, 60 Cherhill: Plenderleath on, 239; Yatesbury, 196, 202 cherry trees, 41 Chester, 34 chestnut trees, 42, 43 Childe, Gordon, 2 Chillington (Somerset), 100 Chippenham, 66, 79, 82, 228; church, 77; dragonflies, 68; Hardenhuish, 79; High Street, 231-2 Chippenham Hundred, 79-80, 82 Chirton, 81 . Chiseldon: Badbury, 208-10, 232, 233; Burderop Wood, 222; Fir Clump stone circle, 222 Chock family, 75 Christchurch (Dorset), 13 Christian Malford, 83, 84—5 churches, 232; Anglo-Saxon, 77-88; Late Saxon, 77-88; medieval, 232 Church Faculty, 15 Cicementone Hundred, 79, 83 Cinque Ports, 143 Cirencester (Gloucestershire), Bath Gate, 13 Cisidae (beetles), 139 civil wars (1642-51), 99, 219 Clare, Earl of, 23 Clarendon Park, Petersfinger, 12 Clark, Chris, 96 Clarke, Bob, note on round barrow and cemetery at Boscombe Down West, 215— 18 Clark, Tony, 4 clay, burnt, 60 clay pipes, 236 Cleal, Rosamund M. J., 197; note on pottery from Beehive Junction, Salisbury, 57-8 Cleridae (beetles), 139 Clifford, Lady Jane, 100-1, 102, 104 Clifford, Lord, 100 Clontarf (County Dublin), 176, 181 clothiers, 214 Clyffe Pypard, 195, 196, 201, 202, 204; Stanmore, 201 Cobham, 10th Baron, 143-7 Cobham Hall (Kent), 143, 144 Cocker, River (Cumbria), 112 Codford, East Codford Farm, 232 Coenagrion pulchellum (Variable damselfly), 65, 66 coffins, 234; wooden, 13, 14 coins, 33, 38, 39; Roman, 7, 211, 230; Early Roman, 28; Late Roman, 30; Anglo- Saxon, 218 Cole, Albert, 2, 3 Cole, Frances, 2, 3 Coleoptera (beetles), saproxylic, 137 Colerain, Lord, 101 Colerne, 79; Euridge, 82 Collier and Partners, Dr., 235 Collingbourne Ducis, 100; Collingbourne Wood, 100, 104 Collingbourne Kingston, 100, 104 Colydiidae (beetles), 139 Colydium elongatum (beetle), 141 commoners, 22 common land, settlement, 24 Community Council for Wiltshire, 89, 91, 92,94 Community First, 94 Compton Bassett: ?, 79; St Swithin’s Church, 232 Congresbury (North Somerset), 227 conifers, 42, 44 conservation: collared urn, 189-90; legislation, 93-4 Constantine I, 30 Cooke, Edward, 103 Cooke, G., 123 Cooke, Nicholas, report on excavations near Cunetio, 26-32 copper alloy objects, 177; Roman, 36; Late Roman, 30; Chinese, 37-8; dog collars, 214; Magna Graecian, 37 copper objects, 174, 175, 176, 178, 181; dog collars, 214 coppicing, 42 copyhold leases, 23 Cordulegaster boltonii (Golden-ringed dragonfly), 67 Cordulia aenea dragonfly), 66 cores: flint, 9, see also flintwork Corney, Mark, 4; note on pottery from Beehive Junction, Salisbury, 57-8 Cornwall, Duchy of, 19, 23 Cornwall, Ian, 2 Corsham, 80 Corsican pine, 42 Corsley, Cley Hill, 112 Cory, Harold, 90 Corylophidae (beetles), 139 Cotes-d’Armor (Brittany), 178, 179, 180 Cotswold Archaeological Trust (CAT), 233; evaluations, 231, 232, 236; excavations, 230-1, 236 Cotswolds, 99 Cotswold Water Park (CWP), 65, 66, 93; spiders, 133 Coulston, 214 Council of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, 94 Council of Europe, 93 Council for the Protection of Rural England, 93 Countryside Liaison Officer, 89 Court of Wards, 99 Couzens, Tim, work reviewed, 239 covers, 174 Covey, Steve, paper on dragonflies in Wiltshire, 63-8 (Downy Emerald Cowell, M., 35, 39 Coxe, William, 118-19, 121 crab-apple trees, 41, 42 Cranborne Chase, 19, 20, 21-2, 23; Hoare on, 113 Cratford, Christopher, 104, 108 Crawford, O. G. S.; 33, 152 Creighton, Oliver H., 219 cremation burials, 171, 187; Roman, 27; Late Roman, 30-1, 32; mother and child, 31 Cricklade, 79, 81, 233; St Mary’s Church, 232; St Sampson’s Church, 81-2; spiders, 131 Cricklade Hundred, 81 Crocker, Abraham, 122 Crocker, Edmund, 122 Crocker, Phillip, 121, 122, 126, 163; drawings, 116, 117, 123, 124 Croft (North Yorkshire), 228 crop circles, 149 cropmarks, 28, 149-59 crops, innovations, 22 Cross, Nicholas, 214 Cross, S. A., 4 Cross, Susan, 91, 92, 94 Crudwell, 79, 83, 85; All Saints Church, 82; Chelworth, 82, 83; Eastcourt, 82, 83; Murcott, 83 Crummock Lake (Cumbria), 112 Cucujidae (beetles), 139 Culduthel Mains (Highland), 172, 174 Culhwch, 227 Culling, Ted, 93, 95 cultivation furrows, 231 cultural contacts: Breton, 161; central European, 161; Irish, 161 culverts, stone, 232 Cumbria see Buttermere; Carlisle; Castlerigg; Cocker, River; Crummock Lake; Long Meg; Lorton, Vale of; Mayburgh Henge Cunetio, 4, 36; artefacts, 39; excavations, 26-32; extent, 27-8 Cunnington, Elizabeth, 162 Cunnington, Maud Edith, 33 Cunnington, William, 117, 118-19, 120-2, 123, 124—5, 126; excavations, 161-3, 167, 185; restoration work, 163-4, 189 Cupid (god), 36-7 Cupressaceae (cypresses), 44 cups: Aldbourne type, 181, 183; conical, 173, 177; drinking, 185; grape cups, 162, 171, 173, 177; incense, 163; Perforated- Wall, 171, 173, 177 Curculionidae (weevils), 139 curios, 38-9 Curteys, William, 75 Cuthbert, Abbot, 81 CWP see Cotswold Water Park (CWP) Cybele (goddess), 36 Cyrenaica (Libya), 38 daggers, 177, 179, 187; bronze, 184; Camerton type, 183; flint, 39; Snowshill type, 183-5 Damen Associates, 235 Damerham (Hants), 19, 23; church, 77 damselflies, 64-8 Darby, Elisabeth, paper on East Knoyle national school, 47-53 Darby, Michael, 63; note on glow-worms in Wiltshire, 222-4; paper on saproxylic status of Savernake Forest, 137-42; paper on the Wiltshire Natural History Forum, 89-97 Darby and Joan, seed picture, 207-8 d’Argenteau, Charlotte Jacqueline (d. 1710), 110 Darvill, T., 61 Dauntsey, Smithcot, 79 Dauntsey’s School Natural History Society, 133; publications, 63 David, Andrew, paper on stone circle at Winterbourne Bassett, 195-205 Davies, Joan, 46, 141 INDEX Davy, Sir Humphry (1778-1829), 120 De Antiquitate, 84 deer, 20 Defence Estates Organisation (DEO), 236 Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), 215; Archaeological Management Plan, 217 defences, 235; Roman, 27; Saxon, 231-2 dendrochronology, 12 dental calculus, 12 DEO (Defence Estates Organisation), 236 Department of the Environment (DoE), 220 DERA see Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) Derby, 1 Derby County Football Club, 1 Dermestidae (beetles), 139 d’Esneux, Comte, 110 Development Commission, 89 Devereux, Nicholas, 219 Devizes, 80, 89; Bath Road, 91; Braeside Residential Centre, 90; The Brittox, 232; dragonflies, 63; St Joseph’s Place, 91; Southbroom, 209-10;Wyndhams, 91, 92 Devizes Museum see Wiltshire Heritage Museum (WHM) Devizes Waterworks, 35 Devon: manors, 20, see also Hammeldon Dewsbury (Kirklees), 227 dies, 219 Dieskau (Germany), 180, 181 Dillon, Patrick, 93 Dinan (Brittany), 228 disc-brooches: Middle Saxon, 218-19; bone moulds, 219; designs, 218, 219 discs, amber, 174 ditches, 150, 154-5 Fig. 7, 9, 11, 159, 205, 230; prehistoric, 235; Neolithic, 56; Late Neolithic, 152, 154; Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age, 229; Iron Age, 230; Roman, 27; Early Roman, 28-30; Saxon, 231-2; medieval, 31, 231, 233, 236; modern, 233; undated, 31; ring, 149, 203, 204, see also gullies; pits Doddington and Farthing, 49 DoE (Department of the Environment), 220 dog collars, early, 213-14 Domesday Book, 82, 83, 84; hundreds, 77, 81, 85; manors, 80; Melchesham, 228 Domesday Survey, 7 Doncaster, 2 Donhead St Andrew, Hooke, 22 Donovan, Peter, note on steam cultivation during World War I, 224 Donovan Construction (SW) Ltd, 229 Don Petro, 145 Doore, John, 20 Dorchester (Dorset), Mount Pleasant, 181, 182 Dorchester-on-Thames (Oxon), 2 Dorset, 60, 171, 177; barrows, 161, 179, 183, 185; dragonflies, 63, 67; manors, 19, 20, 23, see also Blagdon Hill; Boveridge; Briantspuddle; Bryanston; Christchurch; Gillingham; Hengistbury Head; Lulworth Castle; Martin; Motcombe; Pentridge; Portland; Shaftesbury; Sherborne; Stalbridge; Swanage; Symondsbury; Tolpuddle Ball; Ulwell; Weymouth; Wimbourne St Giles; Winterbourne St Martin Douglas firs, 42 Douglas, James, 123; Nenia Britannica (1793), 120 Dowman, Edward, 112 Downton: Barford Park Farm, 22; Charlton Plantation, 12; church, 77; Downton Tannery, 232-3; illegal dwellings, 24; manorial stewards, 19-25; New Court Farm, 22; Standlynch, 22; voters, 24; Witherington Farm, 20, 22 dragonflies: larvae, 64; in Wiltshire, 63-8 drainage, 22 drains, 9, 235; stone-lined, 236 Drake, Sir Francis (c.1540—96), 145 Driffield (East Riding of Yorkshire), 172, 174 driftwood, Roman, 28 drownings, ritual, 15 Droxford (Hants), 12 Druids, 125-6, 196 Duke, John, 8 Duke’s Vaunt [Font] Oak, 41 Dunlow Hundred, 80, 85 Dun, River, 69 Dunstan, 85 Durmast oak (sessile oak), 41 Durnford: figurine, 225-7; High Post, 159; Netton, 159; Ogbury Camp, 7, 154—5 Fig. 7, 156, 157, 158; Salisbury Clumps, 154-5 Fig. 7, 157 Durrington, 20; Durrington Walls, 155; Horne and Roberts Barracks, 233; Larkhill, 60, 233; Royal School of Artillery, 233; Watson Road, 233 Dutch Elm disease, 41 Earith (Cambridgeshire), 209 earthworks: Late Iron Age, 27; medieval, 236; surveys, 7, 123, 236, see also ditches; hillforts; mottes; mounds East Anglia, 171, 227; amber sources, 187; barrows, 169, 183; beakers, 170; urns, 167 East Kennett, Langdean, 195 East Knoyle: Clouds Estate, 48; Knoyle House, 47, 48; national school, 47-53 Eastleigh (Hants), 159 Eastman, John, 24 Easton, 104, 105, 109; chantry, 69; manor, 99 Easton Grey, 80, 231 East Sussex, 50 East Yorkshire, 170 Ecgfrith, King, 81 Edes, Henry, 75 Edgar, King, 85 Edridge, H., 121 Education Act (1870), 47 Edward I, King, 70 Edward IV, King, 75 Edward VI, King, 73, 74 Edward the Confessor, 227 Edward the Martyr, 206 Egypt, 1, 50 Egyptian antiquities, 38 Elateridae (beetles), 139 elder trees, 41 elections, 25 Elizabeth I, Queen, 143 Elliott, Edward, 91, 96 El Mar (Brittany), 177 Elswy, Abbot, 84 Emperor dragonfly, 63 enclosures, 154—5 Figs. 1, 7-9, 11, 157, 158- 9, 231; Neolithic, 158; Late Neolithic, 149-55; ?Bronze Age, 158; ?>Late Bronze Age, 236; Late Iron Age, 27-8; Roman, 157, 158; 159; medieval, 236; encroachments, 24; palisaded, 149-55, see also hillforts; settlements Endomychidae (beetles), 139 Enford, 100, 233; Chisenbury, 100 England, 125 English Channel, 170, 177 English elms, 41 English Heritage, i51, 154, 229; Aerial Survey section, 149; Designed Landscapes team, 151; Field Monument Warden, 197; fieldwork, 230 English Nature, 89, 137, 138, 141 Ericaceae (rhododendrons), 45 Erotylidae (beetles), 139 Erythromma viridulum (Small Red-eyed damselfly), 68 Essex, George, 76 Essex: chantries, 73, see also Great Chesterford; Helion Bumstead Ethelred, King, 206 ethyl methacrylate adhesive, 190 Eton College (Windsor and Maidenhead), 47 Etruria, 34, 37 243 Etruria (Staffordshire), 163 Etruscan antiquities, 38 Etruscan inscriptions, 34 Eugenius III, Pope, 80, 82, 83 European Conservation Year (1970), 93 European Wetlands Year (1976), 93 Evans, Ian, 92 Everleigh, 126 Evison, Vera, 2 executions, 13, 14, 15 Fabaceae (beans and acacias), 46 Fabergé, 171 Fagaceae (trees and shrubs), 45 fairs, 20, 24 Falkner, John, 213 Farman, Peter, 72 farmers, yeomen, 19-20 Farmer, Samuel William, 225 farming, improvements, 22 Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG), 89, 94 Farmoor Reservoir (Oxon), 230 farms, Romano-British, 208 Farrow, Diana, 94 Fassbinder, Joerg, paper on stone circle at Winterbourne Bassett, 195-205 Fauconer, John, 213 Fauconer family, 214 Faversham (Kent), 180 Fenwick, Sir John, 109, 110 Feuersbrunn (Austria), 182 fibulae, Italian, 39 Field, David, paper on stone circle at Winterbourne Bassett, 195-205 field maples, 41, 42 fields, Celtic, 156 field surveys, Wilsford cum Lake, 9 field systems, 55, 154—5 Figs. 7—9, 11, 230, 231; prehistoric, 7, 149-50, 156-7, 233; ?Bronze Age, 157; Roman, 156; medieval, 157,231 Figheldean, 235; Robin Hood’s Ball, 236 figurines: >Roman, 33, 34, 35-7; Roman, 208-10; Romano-British, 225-7; Chinese, 33; Etruscan, 33, 34-5; from Avebury, 33-9 Finch, Sir Heneage, 102, 104 Firsdown, Winterbourne Down, 32 First World War, steam ploughing, 224—5 fir trees, 42 Fittleton, Weather Hill Firs, 224 Fitzpatrick, Andrew, 186 flakes, flint, 7, 57, 58, see also flintwork Flanders, 103 Flaxman, R. L., 113 Fleming, A., 217 Flemings, 228 flints: burnt, 9, 12, 235; crushed, 57; knapped, 236; struck, 231, 235 flint tools, ?Neolithic, 235 flintwork, 12, 178, 233; prehistoric, 235; Palaeolithic, 7; Mesolithic, 39, 237; Neolithic, 56, 57, 236; Late Neolithic, 152; Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, 9, 237; Bronze Age, 236; Early Bronze Age, 39; Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, 229; Romano-British, 237, see also adzes; arrowheads; axes; blades; cores; flakes, flint; knives; scrapers; tools floors: medieval, 233, 235; post-medieval, 231 Flora of Wiltshire, The, 89, 95, 96 Florence (Italy), 35 Fode, Richard le, 73 foil, gold, 172 food vessels, 165, 177, 186 footpads, 20 Forcalquier-La Fare (France), 178 Forest Enterprises, 138 Forestry Authority, 41 Forestry Commission, 90 forests, Royal, 227 forts, Roman, 27 Fortuna (goddess), 37 fossils, 163 244 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Fowles, A. P., 138 France, 103, 109, 110; dragonflies, 68, see also Brittany; Caen; Forcalquier-La Fare; Paris; St Fiacre; St Wandrille Frankford (County Offaly), 180 Franks, A. W., 38 French, K., 224 Fresia, 15 Friends of Oakfrith Wood, The, 236 Fuller, Michael, The Lepidoptera of Wiltshire (1995), 96 funerary monuments, 154—5 Fig. 7; Bronze Age, 156 funerary urns, 165 fungi, arboreal, effects on archaeological remains, 58 Furstengraber (Princely Graves), 181, 182, 185 FWAG (Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group), 89, 94 Fyfield, Fyfield Down, 187 Gale, Roger, 210 Gane, Michael, 93 gardens, ornamental, 114 garrisons, 219-20 Garsdon, church, 79 Garton Slack (East Riding of Yorkshire), 166 Gaul, 12 Gauntlett, William Bowle, 225 geans, 42 Gedye, Ionye, 2 Genius figurines, 208-10 geophysics: Charlton, 231; Salisbury Plain Training Area, 236;Winterbourne Bassett stone circle, 197-201, 205 Geoscan FM36 (magnetometer), 198 Geoscan RM 15 (resistivity meter), 198 Gerard, Thomas, 208 Gerloff, Sabine, 177, 179, 180, 186 Germany, 1, 12; tribes, 14, see also Dieskau; Helmsdorf; Leubingen; Mecklenburg; Neuenheilingen; Saxo-Thuringia; Singen Ghana, 1 Gibbs, V., 206 Gifford, John, 73 Gildas, De Excidio Britanniae, 227 Gillam, Beatrice, 90, 93, 94-5, 96 Gilles, John, 20 Gillingham (Dorset), 20, 22, 23 Gingell, Chris, 197 Ginkgoaceae (ginkgo trees), 44 glass vessels, Late Roman, 30 Glastonbury Abbey (Somerset), 77, 78, 83— 4,85 Gleeson Homes, 235 global warming, 68 Gloucestershire, 69, 143; dragonflies, 66, see also Ashley; Cirencester; Kemble; Long Newnton; Sezincote; Tormarton; Uley glow-worms, 222—4 Goddard, Edward Hesketh, 163 Godney (Somerset), 100 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1749-1832), 124 gold, sources, 187 gold objects, 162, 171, 172, 181, 183, 188; Beaker, 172, 174-7, 178; Wessex Linear Style, 171, 178, 179, 183 Goole, Mr, 21 Gordon, Alexander, 120 Gough, Richard, 119, 120 Gough Maps, 201 gradiometers, 197 gradiometer surveys, 197-201 Grady, Damian, paper on photography, 148-60. Grafton, Sudden [Sutton] Park, 104 grand fir, 42 Grant, Thomas, 74 grasses, 22 grave covers, timber, 9-12, 13, 15 Great Bedwyn, 38, 100, 104; dragonflies, 66; glow-worms, 224 Great Bircham (Norfolk), 171, 183, 185, 187 Great Chesterford (Essex), 2, 4 aerial Greater London see Twickenham Great Somerford, Startley, 78 Great War, steam ploughing, 224—5 Great Wishford: Ebsbury Hill, 156, 158; Grovely Wood, 224 Greece, 50 Greek antiquities, 38 Green, Dave, 95 Greene, Thomas, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24-5 Greig, M. K., 170 Grimmesden, John, 73 Grimmesden, Margaret, 73 Grimmesden, Walter, 73 Grinsell, Leslie V., 33, 39, 161, 204 Grittleton, 84; Littleton Drew, 85 Grose, Donald, The Flora of Wiltshire (1957), 95 Grose, Francis, 119 Grosvenor, Richard de Aquila, 48 Guildford Museum (Surrey), 2 gullies, 230, see also ditches Gunter, Anne, 75 Gunter, Brian, 75 Gwynedd, 227 Haitter, Henry, 20 halberd-pendants, 171, 181-2, 183 halberds, 174, 178, 179, 181, 182; Irish, 180, 183 Hale, R., 214 Halifax, Lord, 108 Ham Hill stone, 47, 49 Hamilton-Dyer, Sheila, 61; note on animal bone from Beehive Junction, Salisbury, 58-9 Hamley, F. G., 214 Hammeldon (Devon), 171, 183, 185 hammer beams, 220-1 Ham (Middlesex), 20 Hampshire, 92, 102, 112, 171, 177; dragonflies, 67; spiders, 132, see also Andover; Damerham; Droxford; Eastleigh; Kingsclere; New Forest; Owlesbury; Portchester; Ringwood; Southampton; Weyhill; Winchester Hamwic, 218, 219 Hankerton, 83 Hanley, Ralph, 75 Harcourt, Godfrey, 108 Harding, P., 137 hares, 21 Harris, Kate, paper on the Cobham family portrait at Longleat, 143—7 Hatch Beauchamp (Somerset), 100 Hatcher, Thomas, 24 Hatfield (Herts), 20 Hatfield House (Herts), 23 Hawkes, C. F. C., 39 Hawkes, Christopher, 4 hawthorns, 41 Haycock, D., 114 Haycock, Lorna, 1 hazelnuts, remains, 60 hazel trees, 41, 42, 237 hearths, medieval, 235 Heath, Beverley, 90 Heaton, Michael: note on roof modification at 47 The Close, Salisbury, 220-2; report on excavations at Beehive Junction, 54— 62 Hedache, Thomas, 74 Helion Bumstead (Essex), 228 Helléan (Brittany), 228 Helmsdorf (Germany), 181—2 henge monuments, 2, 186, 195 Hengistbury Head (Bournemouth), 177, 181, 1833, 185, 187;, barrows,, 17:0; cremation burials, 171 Henig, Martin: note on figurine from Badbury, 208-10; note on Romano- British figurine from near Durnford, 225-7 Henry VIII, King, 47, 73, 75 Henry, Duke of Lancaster, 73 Herculaneum (Italy), 118 Hereford and Worcester see Moccas Park; Pirton Pools; Worcester Hermes (god), 35 Hertfordshire: chantries, 73, see also Hatfield; Hatfield House; Verulamium Heytesbury: chantry, 69, 72; Moss House, 163 Heytesbury Hundred, 84 Heywood: Clanger Wood, 66; Fulling Bridge Farm, 66 Hidden, Norman, paper on the chantry of Holy Trinity at Hungerford, 69-76 Higgins, Peter, note on plant, mollusc and insect remains from Beehive Junction, Salisbury, 60 highwaymen, 20 Highworth, 36 hillforts, 150, 151; Iron Age, 7, see also enclosures; specific sites Hilmarton, Highway, 82 Hilperton, Hilperton Marsh, 67 Hindon, 145 Hinton, David A.: note on disc-brooch from Upavon, 218-19; note on excavations at St Laurence’s Chapel, Bradford-on- Avon, 206-7 hippocamps, 37 Hippocastanaceae (chestnuts), 46 Histeridae (beetles), 138 Hoare, Henry (1705-85), 114, 117 Hoare, Hester, 117-18, 163 Hoare, Sir Richard Colt (1758-1838): The Ancient History of South and North Wiltshire (1812; 1821), 112, 115, 117, 120, 122-6, 196; archaeological antiquarianism, 111—28; bibliomania, 124-5; criticisms, 111-12, 126; excavations, 161-3, 182, 187; surveys, 122-4, 126 Hoare’s Bank, 20 Hobbes, Thomas, 238 Hobbs, Steven, note on Clack Mount, Bradenstoke, 219-20 Hodder, Ian, 1, 4 Holland, dragonflies, 68 Holles, Denzil, 23 holly trees, 41 Holt, 227 - Home Office, excavation licences, 15-16 Hooper, Thomas, 23 Hopgrass, Robert, 73, 74 Hopper-Bishop, Alison, note on conservation of collared urn from Wilsford 7, 189-90 hornbeams, 41, 42, 43 Horningsham: Centre Parcs, 67; Longleat, 19, 23-4, 41, 46; Longleat Forest, 67; Longleat House, 143-7 horse chestnut trees, 43 horses, in agriculture, 225 Horton, Philip, 90, 91, 93 hospitals, 71, 72 Household Cavalry, 1 houses, on common land, 24 Howell, Patricia, 236 Huish, Gopher Wood, 66 Hull, M. R., 39 Humberside see Driffield; Garton Slack; ‘Towthorpe Humphreys, Peter, 218 Hungerford, Geva, 70, 71 Hungerford, Sir Robert de, 69, 70-1, 72, 73, 74, 76 Hungerford, Walter, Lord Hungerford, 72 Hungerford (West Berkshire): Bell Inn, 75; Chantry Field, 74; Charlton, 70, 71, 73, 74; Charnham Street, 74, 75; Culver House, 74; Hidden tithing, 72; Holy Trinity chantry, 69-76; Hopgrass, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76; North Standen, 71; St John’s priory, 71—2; St Lawrence’s Church, 71; St Mary’s chantry, 70, 71-2, 73, 74, 75, 76; Sandon, 70, 71, 73, 74; South Standen, 71; Standen Hussey, 71 Hutchison, Ann, 90, 95 Hyde, Henry, 2nd Earl of Clarendon (1638-— 1709), 104, 105, 106, 108, 109 INDEX Hyde, Laurence, Earl of Rochester (1641— 1711), 105, 108 Hyman, P., 138 Idmiston, Porton, Buller Park, 233 IEC (Index of Ecological Continuity), 137, 138, 140, 141 Ilminster (Somerset), 100, 104 Imerys Minerals Limited, 235 Ina, King, 118 Index of Ecological Continuity (IEC), 137, 138, 140, 141 inductive reasoning, Baconian, 111, 120, 121, 122 inhumations, 117, 118; Beaker, 185-8; Bronze Age, 4; Iron Age, 13; Late Iron Age/Early Romano-British, 28; Roman, 31-2; Late Romano-British, 12; Anglo- Saxon, 12-13; 5th/6th century, 7-18; Saxon, 2, 4; medieval, 234; burial postures, 12, 13, 14, 31, 162; early theories, 121; excavation legislation, 15; prone, 13; reburial, 15-16; in watery contexts, 13-14, 16; Wessex Series burials, 170-2 Inizan, M.-L., 58 Innocent II, Pope, 80 inscriptions (memorials), Norman French, 70 insect remains, 59, 60 Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, 92 Inventaria Archaeologica, 4 inventories, 146—7 Invertebrate Site Register (ISR), 137, 138, 139 Ireland, 112, 117, 118, 125, 161; axes, 181; Beaker pottery, 165, 170; halberds, 180, 183, see also Clontarf; Frankford; Killaha East; Knockadoon; Knowth; Largantea; Meath; Monknewton; Munster; Newgrange; Whitespots iron objects: Anglo-Saxon, 233; dog collars, 214 Irthlingborough (Northamptonshire), 175 Irvine, J. T., 206 Ischnomera caerulea (beetle), 137, 141 Ischnura elegans (Blue-tailed damselfly), 65, 66 Ischnura pumilio (Scarce Blue-tailed damselfly), 65-6 Islamic styles, in school architecture, 47-53 ISR (Invertebrate Site Register), 137, 138, 139 Italian antiquities, 38 Italy, 38, 48, 118, see also Belmonte-Picenza; Campania; Capo di Monte; Catacombs; Florence; Herculaneum; Magna Graecia; Monserrato; Nemi; Orvieto; Pompeii; Todi; Verona; Vesuvius jade objects, 178 James I, King, 19 James II, King, 105, 106, 109 Jenkins, Leoline, 102 jennets, 145 Jersey, 177 jet objects, 162, 171, 172, 177, 178 jewellery see beads; disc-brooches Job Creation Programme, 92 Jocelin, Bishop, 80 John, Abbot, 81 John Fowler & Co., 224, 225 Johnson, George, 100, 101 Jolby (North Yorkshire), 228 Jones, Samuel, 214 Juglandaceae (walnuts), 45 Julius Agricola, 210 Juno (god), 35, 36 Jupiter Capitolinus, 35 Keabog (Aberdeenshire), 172 Kemble (Gloucestershire), 79, 83 Kemish, Mary, 103 Kempton Park (Surrey), 20 Kennet and Avon Canal, Dundas Aqueduct, 66 Kennet District Council, 229 Kennet, River, 27, 28, 31, 151-2; tributaries, 195-6; winterbournes, 196 Kent see Cobham Hall; Faversham; Leeds Castle; Richborough; Rochester Kenyon, Kathleen, 2 Kerney, M. P., 60 Kernonen (Brittany), 180, 183, 187 Killaha East (County Kerry), 182 kilns, Romano-British, 2, 4 Kilvert, Francis, 239 King of Limbs Oak, 41 Kingsbridge Hundred, 79, 85 Kingsclere (Hants), 213-14 Kings Oak South West, 231 Kingston Deverill, 84; Monkton Deverill, 84 Kington Langley, 84 Kington St Michael, 84 Kirby, Colin, note on round barrow and cemetery at Boscombe Down West, 215— 18 Kitson (steam ploughs), 224 Knights of St John, 229 Knipton (Leicestershire), 172 knives: Beaker, 176, 177-8; Armorico- British type, 179-80, 181, 183; Breton, 178-9, 183; bronze, 180, 181-5; Ciempozuelos Beaker type, 179; copper, 176, 177-8, 182; metal-hilted, 180; midrib, 179-80, 183, 184; Quimperlé type, 178, 179, 180; riveted, 180; Rumeédon style, 178, 179, 183; Trévérec type, 179, 180, see also blades Knockadoon (Ireland), 170 Knook: Knook Manor, 207-8; spiders, 131, 133 Knowth (Ireland), 170 Krause, R., 179 Labruzzi, Carlo, 118, 119, 122 Lackham College of Agriculture, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96 lakes, construction, 7 Lake Zurich (Switzerland), 174, 180, 182, 187 Lamacraft, G. P., 4 Lambourn (West Berkshire), 177, 186 Lambourn Downs (West Berkshire), 156, 196 Lambourne (stream), 195-6, 202, 204 La Motta (Portugal), 179 Lampyris noctiluca (glow-worm), 222—4 Lamyatt Beacon (Somerset), 226 Lanark Moor (South Lanarkshire), 166 Lancaster, Jubilee Tower, 14 Lancaster, Duchy of, 71, 73, 76 Landford: Landford Bog, 67; Landford Heath SSSI, 66, 67 landscapes, Hoare’s approach, 112-15 Lane, Stewart, 92, 95 Langley Burrell Without, 84 Langley Fitzurze see Kington Langley Langsloo, Thomas, 75 Lansdowne, Lord, 239 lararia, 3 is 226 larch trees, 42 Largantea (Ireland), 170 larvae, dipterous, 60 Lathridiidae (beetles), 139 Latin inscriptions, 34 Latium, 34 Latton, 233 Lauraceae (laurels), 45 Laverstock, Beehive Park and Ride facility, 54-62 Law Hill (Angus), 170 Lawrence, A. W., 1 Lawrence, T. E., 1 Lawson’s cypress, 42, 43 Lea and Cleverton, Garsdon, 79 lead alloy objects, 218-19 leather, 237 Lechlade (Swindon), 177, 220 Leeds, Steam Plough Works, 224 Leeds Castle (Kent), 213 Legio I Augusta, 211 245 Leguminosae (legumes), 46 Leicestershire see Knipton; Lockington Leicester University, Museums Course, 90 Leigh, Upper Waterhay Meadows, 131 Leighton, Sir Baldwyn, 49 Leighton, Frederic, 48-9, 50 Leiodidae (beetles), 138 Leki Male (Poland), 181-2 Leland, John, 238 Leman, Thomas, 121-2 Leptura sexguttata (beetle), 137, 141 Lesmurdie (Moray), 166 Leubingen (Germany), 181-2 Libellula depressa (Broad-bodied chaser dragonfly), 65 Libellula fulva (Scarce Chaser dragonfly), 66-7 Libya, 38 lichens, 137 ‘ Liddington, 37, 233; Liddington Castle, 150, 151, 233; Liddington Farm, 233-4; Liddington Hill, 208 lime trees, 42 linears, 9; prehistoric, 157—8; Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age, 55, see also ditches Linford, Neil, paper on stone circle at Winterbourne Bassett, 195-205 Listed Building Consent, 232 Little Bedwyn, 224; Chisbury, 104 Little Cressingham (Norfolk), 170, 171, 179, 183, 185, 187 livestock, 20, 21, 22 Llanbleddian (Vale of Glamorgan), Breach Farm, 181, 183, 185 Llandaff, Book of, 227 Locke, John (1632-1704), 113 Lockington (Leicestershire), 176, 177, 178— 9, 182 London, 73, 100, 102, 103, 104, 145; Ailesbury House, 109; Belgrave Square, 48; bone moulds, 219; British Museum, 37; cemeteries, 13; Chelsea House, 110; Eaton Square, 48; figurines, 34, 210; Holland Park Road, 48, 49; House of Commons, 94, 106, 108, 109; Houses of Parliament, 98; inhumations, 13; Leighton House, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52; Melbury Road, 49; National Gallery, 190; Regent’s Park, 1-2; Roman, 38; St John’s Lodge, 1; South Kensington Museum, 52; Tower of London, 99, 109; tradesmen, 20; University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1-2; Westminster Abbey, 81-2; Zoo, 2 Long, Catherine, 239 Long, C. E., 239 Long, Robert, 239 Long family, 239 Longbridge Deverill, 84; Sand Hill Reservoir, 234 Longford, M., 74 Long Meg (Cumbria), 125 Long Newnton (Gloucestershire), 79 Longworth, I. H., 163, 165 Lorton, Vale of (Cumbria), 112 Lovelake, William, 74 Low Countries, 22 Loyn, H. R., 86 Lucanidae (beetles), 138-9 Luckington, Alderton, 80 Ludlow (Shropshire), 101 Lukis, William Collings, 196-7, 201, 204, 210 Lulworth Castle (Dorset), 21, 22 lunulae, Irish, 187-8 Luton, 66 Lycidae (beetles), 139 lynchets, 235 Lyneham, 79, 219 Lysanders (aircraft), 159 Mabinogion, 227 McCarter, Nigel, 95 McClain, Molly, paper on the Seymour Estate, 98-110 macehead mountings, gold, 174 246 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE maceheads, 181 McKinley, Jacqueline I., report on excavations at Lake, 7-18 madder, 22 Maddock, Alison, 90, 92 Maelgwn (d. 547), 227 Maglocu, 227, 228 Maglocunos, 227 Magna Graecia (Italy), 37 magnetometers, 198; caesium, 197, 198 magnetometer surveys, 197-201, 205 Magnoliaceae (magnolias), 45 Makgill-Crichton-Maitland, Margaret (Marjorie), 207-8 Makgill-Crichton-Maitland, Mary Esther, 207-8 malaise and intercept traps, 141 Malden [Maldon] (Bedfordshire), 105 Mallowan, Max, 2 Malmesbury, William of, 238 Malmesbury, 228; Cowfold, 83; garrisons, 219, 220; works on, 238-9; Pinkney, 80; St Mary Westport Church, 78, 79 Malmesbury Abbey, 238; late Saxon parochial development, 77-88 Maltravers, John, 73, 74 mammals, 59 Manby, Terry, 165 manorial stewards: 17th century, 19-25; law suits, 21; political activities, 24—5; roles, 19, 23-4; salaries, 20 manors, 19 maple trees, 41, 42, 43 maps, 122-3 marble tablets, 70 Marden, 125 Marishe, Alexander de, 74 Market Lavington, 89 markets, 20 Marlborough, 20, 33, 104; St Martin’s Mews, 234 Marlborough College, College Field, 65 Marlborough College Natural History Society, Report, 63, 65 Marlborough Downs, 156, 208 Marsden, B. M., 117 Mars (god), 37, 38; figurine, 35 Marshall, Nicholas, 74 Marshman, Michael, review by, 239 Martin (Dorset), 21 Martin—Clark proton magnetometer, 4 Martock (Somerset), 145 Mary I, Queen, 143 Mary II, Queen, 105, 106 Mayburgh Henge (Cumbria), 125 Meare (Somerset), 100 Meath (Ireland), 125 Mecklenburg (Germany), 182 megaliths, 125 Meilic, 227 Meilyg, 227 Melandryidae (beetles), 139 Melchbourne (Bedfordshire), 227 Melchesham, 227, 228 Melchi, 227-8 Melksham, 66; Blackmore Forest, 227; church, 77; Forest Farm, 227; Gifford’s Surgery, 234-5; Lowbourne, 234-5; Melksham Forest, 227, 228; place- names, 227-8 Melksham Without, Shaw, 227 Melyridae (beetles), 139 Melz II hoard, 182 memorials, 19 Mercia, 81 Mercury, figurine, 225—7 Mere, 19, 49 Meta spp. (spiders), 134, 136 Meta bourneti (spider), 136 Meta menardi (spider), 136 metal, Munster type, 180 metal detectors, 55, 208 metalwork, 152; 12th century, 230; dog collars, 213-14, see also arrowheads; blades; copper alloy objects; gold objects; iron objects; knives; lead alloy objects; nails; scrapers; tools Metellina spp. (spiders), 129, 134-6 Metellina mengei (spider), 134-5 Metellina merianae (spider), 135, 136 Metellina segmentata (spider), 134, 135, 136 Meyer, H., 121 MGC/V&A Purchase Grant Fund, 208 middens: Late Roman, 31, 32; post- medieval, 231 Middle East, 1 Middlesex, 102, see also Ham midland hawthorn, 41 Midlands, 60, 169 Migdale (Highland), 174, 179 Mildenhall, 26—32; Forest Hill, 27, see also Cunetio Milford, R. N., 47, 49 military remains, 20th century, 159 millipedes, remains, 60 mill ponds, 231 mills, 231 Minety, 66, 231; church, 79 Ministry of Defence (MOD), 93, 96 Ministry of Munitions, 225 Ministry of Public Buildings and Works, 2, 4 mints, 218 Mitchell (née Lamacraft), G. P., 4 Moccas Park (Hereford and Worcester), 141 modius, 35 MOD (Ministry of Defence), 93, 96 mollusc remains, 59, 60 Monarch Oak see Cathedral Oak Money, Walter, 70 Monknewton (County Meath), 177 Monks Wood (Cambridgeshire), 63, 92 Monkton Farleigh, 79 Monmouth Rebellion (1685), 105 Monserrato (Italy), 114 Montague, Becky, 197 Monterey pine, 43 Mont Ubé (Jersey), 177 monuments, British, 125 Moore, J., 61 Moore, John, 24 Moore, Nicholas, 20 Morbihan (France), 178, 180 Mordellidae (beetles), 139 More, William, 219, 220 Morrison, Charles, 94 Morrows, 7 Motcombe (Dorset), 19 mottes, Norman, 219 Mottram, S. M., 4 mounds, 204 Mulbarton (Norfolk), 227 Mulgrave, Lord, 108 Munster (Ireland), 180 murder victims, 14, 15 Museums Association, 5 mycellia, fungal, 56, 61 Mycetophagidae (beetles), 139 nails, 13; Late Roman, 30; hobnails, 30 Napper, Robert, 72 National Biological Records Centre, 63, 92 National Council of Social Services, 89 National Council for Voluntary Organisations, 89 National Mapping Programme, 149, 159 National Monuments Record (NMR), 156, 195, 204, 222 National Rivers Authority, Wessex Regional Advisory Committee, 93 National Schools, 47-53 natural history, in Wiltshire, 89-97 Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), 89, 90, 91, 92, 93; Invertebrate Site Register, 137 Nature Notes, 224 necklaces, amber, 174 Needham, S. P., 179, 180 Nemi (Italy), 34 Netherlands, The, 143 Nettleton, 84; Sevington, 84; West Kington, 84 Neuenheilingen (Germany), 182 Newall, Robert, 215 Newbery, Peter, 92, 93, 95 Newbury (West Berkshire), 89 Newcastle, Marquess of, 19 Newell, Peter, 89-90, 91, 92-3, 94 New Forest (Hants), 67; beetles, 141; pottery, 9 Newgrange (Ireland), 125, 170 Newmarket (Suffolk), 99 New Sarum see Salisbury Newton, Johanna, 143, 144 Newton, Sir John, 143 Newton, Joy, 95-6 Newton, W., 125 Newton Tony, 216 Nicholas, Edward, 25 Nicholas, Sir John, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24-5 Nicholson, F., 115 Nitidulidae (beetles), 139 NMR (National Monuments Record), 156, 195, 204, 222 Norfolk see Broome Heath; Great Bircham; Little Cressingham; Mulbarton; Thetford Norman Conquest, 82 Normans, 228 Northamptonshire, 175 North Bradley, 209, 210 Northern England, 112, 167 Northover, Peter, 181 Northumberland, Duke of, 151 Norton, 79; Bremilham, 83 Norton Bavant, 179, 183, 185, 187, 225 Norton Beauchamp (Somerset), 100, 104 Norway maple, 43 Norway spruce, 42 Nunnaminster (Winchester, Hants), 80, 81 OA (Oxford Archaeology), 229, 232 Oak Apple Day, 21 oaks, 41, 42, 43, 237 OAU (Oxford Archaeological Unit), 229 Odonata (dragonflies), 63-8 Oedemeridae (beetles), 139 Ogbourne, prior of, 71 Oldfield, Eleanor, 101 Old Minster (Winchester, Hants), 85 Old Sarum, 24, 61 Oleaceae (trees), 46 Oliver, Jack, 141; paper on trees of Savernake Forest, 40-6 Olwen, 227 orb webs, 129, 133, 134 Orcheston, Orcheston Down, 157 Ordnance Survey, 196; Archaeological Division, 195, 197; creation, 122 Orkney, 171, 177 ornaments, ring-and-dot, 219 Orthetrum coerulescens (Keeled Skimmer dragonfly), 67 Orvieto (Italy), 34 Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury, 80 osteophytes, 12 Oswald, 85 Owlesbury (Hants), 32 Oxenwood Field Studies Centre, 93, 94 Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 35, 37, 181; Bodleian Library, 201; Christ Church, 47 Oxford Archaeological Unit (OAU), 229 Oxford Archaeology (OA), 229, 232-3 Oxford Magazine, 119 Oxfordshire see Abingdon; Barrow Hills; Big Rings; Dorchester-on-Thames; Farmoor Reservoir; Radley; Rollright Stones; Uffington; Yarnton oyster shells, 57 Pachygnatha spp. (spiders), 133-4 Pachygnatha clercki (spider), 133-4 Pachygnatha degeeri (spider), 134 Pachygnatha listeri (spider), 134 palaeoenvironmental materials, Neolithic, 59 Palermo (Sicily), La Zisa palace, 51 Palmer, S., 224 INDEX Palmer, Stephen, The Microlepidoptera of Wiltshire (2001), 96 Paradise, C. H., 35, 36, 37-8 Paris (France), 35 Parker, John, 121 Parker, Stephen, 121 Parks and Gardens Register, 151 parochial development, late Saxon, 77-88 paupers, illegal dwellings, 24 Payne, Andrew, paper on stone circle at Winterbourne Bassett, 195—205 Pediacus depressus (beetle), 141 Pedunculate Oak see Quercus robur (English oak) Pemberton, Sir Francis, 105, 108 Pembrokeshire, 102, see also St David’s Head pendants, 162-3, 171, 173, 174; amber, 180, 183; gold-embellished, 175; jet, 177 Pentridge (Dorset), 21 periodontal disease, 12 Perring, Frank, 92 pestle-beads, 171-2 Peterson, Rick, note on Thomas Twining, 210-13 Pewelle, Sir John de, 70, 71, 72, 73 Pewsey: Blacknall Field, 4; Black Patch, 4; Jones’s Mill, 65 Pewsey, Vale of, 210, 225 Philip I, King of Spain, 143 Phillips, Bernard, 230, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237; note on figurine from Badbury, 208— 10 Philodromids (spiders), 130 picturesque, 115-16, 126; aesthetics, 113— 14 Piggott, S., 111, 120 pigs, bones, 58 pillboxes, 159 Pilton (Somerset), 100, 109 Pinaceae (pines), 44—5 pins: Early Roman, 28-30; bronze, 183, 184; European Tumulus Culture, 180; wooden, 28-30 Pipe Office, 73 Pirton Pools (Hereford and Worcester), 67 pits, 230, 231; prehistoric, 235; Mesolithic, 60; Neolithic, 54—62; Late Neolithic, 154; Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, 229; Tron Age, 61; 7Roman, 231; Roman, 27, 32; Early Roman, 30; Late Roman, 30; medieval, 31; post-medieval, 229; undated, 31; stone-filled, 236, see also cesspits; ditches; postholes Pitt, Jonathan, paper on Malmesbury Abbey, Pitton and Farley, Blackmoor Copse, 66 Pitt-Rivers, Augustus Henry Lane Fox (1827-1900), 112 Pitts, Mike, 188 place-names, 227-8; Celtic, 228 Planning Permission, 232, 234 plant remains, 9, 59, 60, 237; charred, 28 plaques: Belleville type, 172; gold, 172 plaster of Paris, 190 Platanaceae (plane trees), 45 plates, gold, 171 Platypodidae (beetles), 139 Plenderleath, William, 239 Pleydell-Bouverie, Constance Jane (née Nelson), 207 Pleydell-Bouverie, Katherine, 207 Pleydell-Bouverie, Nancy, 208 Pl6ermel (Brittany), 228 Plouvorn (Brittany), 180, 187 poachers, 23-4 Poland see Leki Male; Pommern pollarding, 41 pollution, atmospheric, 137 Polycleitos (sculptor), 226 pommels, 179, 183; gold cap, 181; wooden, 176 Pommern (Poland), 182 Pompeii (Italy), 118, 213 Ponzardesland, 72 poplars, 42 porphyry, Egyptian, 36 Portable Antiquities Scheme, 219 Portchester (Hants), 79 Portland (Dorset), 145 portraits, 143-7 Portugal, 179 Portugal laurels, 43 Portway, 55, 233 positivism, 111 postholes, 155, 201, 230, 231; prehistoric, 235; Late Neolithic, 152, 154; Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, 229; Roman, 27; post-medieval, 229; modern, 233; undated, 31, see also pits; stakeholes post-screens, 155 pottery, 12; Neolithic, 56, 57-8; Late Neolithic, 152, 164; Beaker, 60, 161-94, 230; Bronze Age, 230, 233, 236; Middle Bronze Age, 187; Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, 229; Iron Age, 230, 235: Roman, 7, 28, 230, 231, 236; Early Roman, 28, 30; Late Roman, 30, 31; Romano-British, 9, 208, 232, 236, 237; Anglo-Saxon, 230, 236; Saxon, 230, 233; medieval, 31, 231, 232, 236, 237; post- medieval, 232, 235, 236, 237; modern, 28; Black Burnished ware, 30; coarsewares, 9, 208; Corded Ware, 164, 170, 172; Deverel-Rimbury type, 187; Grooved Ware, 60, 61, 152, 164; Near Eastern, 50; New Forest ware, 9, 233; Peterborough ware, 57, 58, 60, 61, 152, 165; Samian, 9; symbolism, 187, see also beakers; bowls; clay pipes; cups; kilns; tiles; urns Poulshot, 80 Powel, J., 114 Premnay (Aberdeenshire), 166, 167 Preshute: Clatford, 195; Manton, 39; Manton Barrow, 170, 171, 185-6, 187, 188 (beads, 174, 175; cups, 173, 177; halberd-pendants, 183) Price, John, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 Primrose Trust, 208 Princely Graves (Furstengraber), 181, 182, 185 Procraerus tibialis (beetle), 141 Proudfoot, Edwina, 186 Ptenidium turgidum (beetle), 141 Ptiliidae (beetles), 138 Ptinidae (beetles), 139 punishments, 15 Purton, 81, 85; church, 79 pussy willows, 41 putty, in restoration work, 163-4, 189-90 Pyrochroidae (beetles), 139 Pyrrhosoma nymphula (Large Red damselfly), 65 QPC Construction, 234 Quakers, 235; chapels, 232 quarries: pits, 232; stone, 230 Quarterly Review, 122-3 Queen Oak, 41 Quercus cerris (Turkey oak), 43 Quercus coccinea (American scarlet oak), 42 Quercus petraea (sessile oak), 41 Quercus robur (English oak), 41 Quercus robur var. cristata (Savernake cluster oak), 41 Quinta da Agua Branca, Viana de Castello (Portugal), 179 radiocarbon dating, 152, 178, 185; Beaker artifacts, 172; Silbury Hill, 230; timber, 12; Wessex Series, 172 Radley (Oxon), 174, 180, 182, 187; Barrow Hills, 186 RAF (Royal Air Force), 159 railways, disused, 215 Raleigh, Sir Carew, 19, 23 Raleigh, Sir Walter, 19 Ralf ‘the Staller’, 227 Ramsbury, Manor, 214 rape seed, 22 247 Rattlebone, 80 Rawlings, Antoinnette, note on Darby and Joan seed picture, 207-8 Rayment, Jeanne, 92 Rayner, John, 96 RCAF (Royal Canadian Air Force), 159 RCHME (Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England), 55, 60, 220, 221 Reading University, 1 Rebecca, Marchioness of Worcester, 110 Recording Wiltshire’s Biodiversity (1997—), 96 Redlynch, Loosehanger, 20, 21, 22 Redon, Cartulary of, 227 Reis, John (ed.), work reviewed, 239 Reiss, R. H., 222 rents, collection, 20 Report of the Marlborough College Natural History Society, 139 resistivity surveys, 197-201, 205 Rhamnaceae, 46 Rhizophagidae (beetles), 139 Rhone, River, 113 Richardson, E. A., 34, 35 Richborough (Kent), 209 ridge and furrow, 233 Rigby, V., 35, 39 Ringwood (Hants), 20 Ripon (North Yorkshire), 2 rivers, importance of, 14, 16 rivet-caps, 174 rivet-pins, 179, 180 roads, 55, 57; Roman, 28, 233, see also trackways Robinson, David, paper on Sir Richard Colt Hoare, 111-28 , Robinson, John, 20 Robinson, Paul, 1, 4, 218; note on Beaker presence at Wilsford 7, 161—3; note on early dog collars, 213-14; paper on figurines from Avebury, 33-9 Rochester (Kent), 224 Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, 80 Rogers, Edward, 146 Rogers, Kenneth: note on early dog collars, 213-14; review by, 239 Rollright Stones (Oxon), 125 Roman Conquest, 211 roof-trusses, modified, 220-2 Roquette, Jim, 224 Rosaceae (roses and fruit trees), 45—6 Rose, F., 137 Rossi, Joe, 208 Roundway, 176, 178 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1712-78), 113 rowan trees, 41 Rowlritch [Rollright] (Oxon), 125 Royal Academy of Arts, 48 Royal Agricultural Society, 225 Royal Air Force (RAF), 159 Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), 159 Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME), 55, 60, 220, 221 Royal Corps of Signals, 1 Royal Institute of British Architects, 47 Royal School of Artillery, 233 Royal Scots Greys, 1 Royal Society, 100 rubbish pits see middens Rumex spp. (dock), seeds, 60 Russell, D., 224 Russell, Debbie, 224 Russell, Gabriel (d. 1663), 19 Russell, William, 103 Russell family, 19 sacrifices, 13, 15 St Albans (Herts), Verulamium, 2 St David’s Head (Pembrokeshire), 125 St Fiacre, Morbihan (France), 178, 180 St Joseph, J. K., 151, 152 St Martin, 82 St Paul Malmesbury Without: Corston, 78, 79, 83; Rodbourne, 78, 83; St Peter and 248 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE St Paul’s Church, 78-9 St Wandrille (France), 80 Salicaceae (poplars and willows), 45 Salisbury, bishops of, 72, 74 Salisbury, earls of, 7, 19, 20, 21, 23 Salisbury, 20, 21, 101; Anchor Brewery Site (former), 235; Balle’s Place, 221; Bishop’s Walk, 235; Bishop Wordsworth’s School, 235; Castle Street, 221; The Close, 220- 2, 235; diocese of, 71; Gigant Street, 235; inhumations, 12—13; manorial stewards, 19; market, 23; Members of Parliament, 47; Neolithic pits, 54-62; Philips Lane, 55, 56; Quidhampton Quarry, 235; St Ann Street, 235; water meadows, 65, see also Old Sarum Salisbury Assizes, 21 Salisbury Cathedral, chantry, 69 Salisbury Collections, 91 Salisbury District Council, 7; Director of Housing and Health, 16 Salisbury Journal, 49-50 Salisbury Museum, 2, 4, 55 Salisbury Natural History Society, 93 Salisbury Plain, 96, 156, 159; boundaries, 158; field systems, 156-7 Salisbury Plain Training Area (SPTA), 157, 222-4; ‘C’ Crossing, 235; Robin Hood’s Ball, 236; Silver Barrow, 236 Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum, 90, 92, 220; dog collars, 213-14; figurine, 225 Salpingidae (beetles), 139 sandals, Abyssinian, 38 Sandell, Richard E., 4—5, 90, 92 Sandell Trust, 91 Saproxylic Quality Index (SQD, 137, 138, 140, 141 saproxylic status, of Savernake Forest, 137— 42 sarsen stones, 187, 196, 199, 201, 204, 234; burnt, 236 Savernake, 110; Tottenham, 100, 109; Tottenham Park, 43-6, 104, 110; variant names, 41 Savernake cluster oak (Quercus robur var. cristata), 41 Savernake Forest, 100; Arboretum, 41, 43, 46; Charcoal Burners Road, 42; forestry plantations, 42; kilns, 4; saproxylic status, 137-42; spiders, 132; as SSSI, 41; trees, 40-6 Sawser, Alice, 72 Saxo-Thuringia (Germany), 180 scabbards, 178, 180, 183 Scagell, R., 224 Scaphidiidae (beetles), 138 SCDA (Steam Cultivation Development Association), 224-5 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, 237 Scheduled Monuments Register, 217, 231, 236 Schmorl’s nodes, 12 Schnapp, A., 111 schools: architecture, 47—53; gothic style, 50; Wiltshire, 151 Scintrex CS2 (sensors), 198-9 Scolytidae (beetles), 139 Scotland: axes, 187; beakers, 166; bog bodies, 14; dog collars, 214; military campaigns, 122—3; spiders, 131, 134, see also Aberdeen; Barnhill; Culduthel Mains; Keabog; Lanark Moor; Law Hill; Lesmurdie; Migdale; Premnay Scots pine, 42 Scott, James, Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch (1649-85), 105 Scott-White, Sally, 92, 96 scrapers, Neolithic, 57, 58 Scraptiidae (beetles), 139 sculpture, Romano-British, 226 Second World War, airfields, 159 seed pictures, 207-8 seeds, 60 Seend, glow-worms, 224 Selden, John, 100 Self, Isaac, 235 Serapis (god), 35, 36 sessile oak, 41 settlements: Late Neolithic, 217; Bronze Age, 217; Iron Age, 217; Early Iron Age, 229; Roman, 31—2, 217; Romano-British, 159; medieval, 156, 236; post-medieval, 156, see also castles; enclosures; towns; villages Sevilla (Spain), 170 Seymour, Alfred, 47, 48-50, 52 Seymour, Charles, 2nd Baron Seymour of Trowbridge (d. 1665), 100 Seymour, Sir Edward, 108 Seymour, Frances, Countess of Southampton, 100-1, 102, 104 Seymour, Frances, Marchioness of Hertford, 99, 100 Seymour, Francis, 5th Duke of Somerset (1657-1678), 100, 101, 102 Seymour, Henry, 47 Seymour, Henry, Lord Beauchamp (d. 1654), 99 Seymour, Isabella, 49 Seymour, Jane, Queen, 47, 100 Seymour, John, 4th Duke of Somerset (d. 1675), 100-1, 102 Seymour, Lord, of Sudeley, 144 Seymour, William, Ist Marquis and 2nd Earl of Hertford and 2nd Duke of Somerset (1588-1660), 99 Seymour, William, 3rd Duke of Somerset (d. 1671), 98, 99, 100 Seymour estates, 98-110 Sezincote (Gloucestershire), 50 Shaftesbury, Earl of, 21 Shaftesbury (Dorset), 20, 21, 24—5; Abbey, 78, 85, 206; schools, 47-8 Shakespeare, William, 5 Shalbourne, 104; Eastcourt, 100; Shalbourne Wood, 100; Westcourt, 100 shale objects, 162, 171; gold-covered, 174 Shaw, Alexander, 237 Shaw, Derek, 237 Shepherd, A. N., 170 Shepton Beauchamp (Somerset), 100 Sherborne (Dorset), Tinney’s Lane, 13 Sherfield, Henry, 19, 21—2 Sherfield, Richard, 19, 21-2, 23 Sheridan, Alison, 174 Sherratt, A., 14 Sherston, 80; Easton Town, 80; Little Sherston, 80; Wick, 80; Willesley, 80 Shorncote (Gloucestershire), 100 Shrewton, 170, 171, 176, 178; Crescent Copse, 58, 177; Robin Hood’s Ball, 236; Rollestone, 60 Shropshire, 49; flora, 95, see also Ludlow Sicily, 51 Silvanidae (beetles), 139 silver birches, 41 silver objects, 178, 218 Simpson, Derek D. A., 4 Singen (Germany), 175, 179 Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), 156, 215,220 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs): Landford Heath, 66, 67; legislation, 94; Savernake Forest, 41; Westbury, 93 Skinner, John, 124 slate, 60 Slocombe, Ivor, 224 sloes, 41 slugs, 60 Smiles, S., 124 Smith, A. C., 196-7, 200, 201, 204 Smith, Isobel, 2 Smith, J., 114 Smith, Margaret, 4 SMR (Sites and Monuments Record), 156, 215.220) Snell, Patricia, 214 Snow, John, 19-25 Snow, Leonard, 19, 20, 21 Society of Antiquaries, 119, 120 Society of Antiquaries of London, 5 Somerset, Anne, 100 Somerset, Charles (1661-98), 100, 102, 105, 106, 107 Somerset, Edward, 6th Earl and 2nd Marquis of Worcester and titular Earl of Glamorgan (1601-67), 99 Somerset, Henrietta, 100 Somerset, Henry, Ist Duke of Beaufort (1629-1700), 98-9, 101-2, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109 Somerset, Henry, 2nd Duke of Beaufort (1684-1714), 110 Somerset, Mary, Ist Duchess of Beaufort (1630-1715), 98-110 Somerset, Mary (d. 1733), 100 Somerset, 20, 66, 69, 102, 104; manors, 20; spiders, 132, see also Buckland Dinham; Camely; Castle Cary; Chillington; Congresbury; Glastonbury Abbey; Godney; Hatch Beauchamp; IIminster; Lamyatt Beacon; Martock; Meare; Norton Beauchamp; Pilton; Shepton Beauchamp; Stanton Drew; Stoney Littleton Somerset Levels, 65 Soper, William, 72 Soppitt, James, 48 sorghum, 208 Southampton (Hants): Hamwic, 218, 219; mint, 218; University, 206 Southern Electric, 230 spacer-plates, 180, 182, 183 Spain, 170 Spanish Armada (1588), 145 Spanish chestnuts, 42, 43, 46 Spanish Meseta, 177 Spanish Netherlands, 110 spearheads, Anglo-Saxon, 233 species diversity, 60 Species Quality Score (SQS), 138 Sphindidae (beetles), 139 spiders, 129-36 spiked bit rollers, bronze, 38 spindle trees, 41 Spitfires (aircraft), 159 springs, 237 SPTA see Salisbury Plain Training Area (SPTA) SQI (Saproxylic Quality Index), 137, 138, 140, 141 SQS (Species Quality Score), 138 SSSIs see Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Stafford, Pauline A., 85 Staffordshire, 163 stakeholes, 230, see also postholes Stalbridge (Dorset), 20, 48 Stanton Drew (Bath and North East Somerset), 125, 197 Stanton St Quentin, 85 Staphylinidae (rove beetles), 138 Staphylinoidea (beetles), 141 Stapleford, 100; Stapleford Down, 157 Staple Hundred, 81, 82 Startley Hundred, 79, 83, 84 Steam Cultivation Development Association (SCDA), 224-5 steam ploughing, 224—5 steam threshing, 225 steelyards, Roman, 36 Steeple Ashton, 239; Green Lane Wood, 132 Steeple Langford, Grovely Castle, 112, 123 St-Etienne, 80 stewards (manorial) see manorial stewards Stillingfleet, Samuel, 19, 23 stone circles, 125, 210; Chiseldon, 222; Winterbourne Bassett, 195-205 Stonehenge, 7, 55, 61, 101, 122; axe carvings, 187; barrows, 169, 170, 172, 183, 186-8; beakers, 170; cemeteries, 161, 215, 217; cursus, 125; Hoare on, 116; pits, 60; postholes, 155; pottery, 177; Stonehenge Bottom, 14; surveys, 123; views, 116-17; visitor centre, 155, see also Amesbury Stonehenge World Heritage Site, 149, 233; INDEX mapping project, 155-9 stone objects, 163, 181 stones: buried, 200-1; burnt, 60; flaked, 57, 58, see also sarsen stones stone surfaces, medieval, 236 stonework: Anglo-Saxon, 206, see also flintwork; sculpture Stoney Littleton (Bath and North East Somerset), 124 Stourton, Edward, 145 Stourton, Frances (née Brooke), Lady Stourton, 143, 145, 146 Stourton, John, Baron Stourton (d. 1588), 143-7 Stourton with Gasper, 143, 145; Stourhead, 41, 46, 66 (Douglas at, 120; and Hoare, 114-15, 116, 118, 122; library, 124); Stourhead House, 163 strangulations, 14 Stratton, Arthur, 224—5 Studfold Hundred, 80, 81 Stukeley, William, 115, 125, 195, 197, 212, 213; Abury (1743), 196, 210; illustrations, 201-4; on Twining, 210 Stumpe, William, 238 Suffolk, 99 suicide victims, 15 Supermarine TS409 (aircraft), 159 Surrey: dragonflies, 63, see also Guildford Museum; Kempton Park surveys, 235, 236; aerial photography, 148— 60; Hoare’s, 122-4, 126 Sutton Benger, 79, 83; Draycot Cerne, 239 Sutton Veny, Pit Meads, 118-19 Swaddling, J. T., 35, 39 Swallowcliffe, 13, 22 Swanage (Dorset), 13 swans, 20 sweet chestnut trees, 42, 43, 46 S.W. Farmer & Co., 225 Swindall, Alan, 93 Swindon, 79, 219; Coate Water, 63; Great Western Hospital, 236; Old Town, High Street, 236, see also Lechlade Swindon Archaeological Society, 208 Switzerland see Lake Zurich sycamores, 43 Sylvester and Mackett, 214 symbolism, in pottery, 187 Symondsbury (Dorset), 99 Sympetrum danae (Black Darter dragonfly), 67 Sympetrum fonscolombii (Red-veined Darter dragonfly), 67-8 tabula rasa, 114 Tachinus bipustulatus (beetle), 139 Tacitus, 15; Annales, 14 tanneries, 232-3 Tanwedou (Brittany), 179 ‘Taxaceae (yews), 45 Taxatio (1291), 82 Taxodiaceae (conifers), 45 Taylor, H. M., 206 Taylor, Kay S., reviews by, 238-9 Taylour, William le, 73 teeth: animals, 58; cattle, 58 temples, Romano-British, 226 Tenebrionidae (sawflies), 139 Tertullian (c.160-c.220), 212 tessellation, Roman, 231 Tetragnatha spp. (spiders), 129-33 Tetragnatha extensa (spider), 130, 132 Tetragnatha montana (spider), 131 Tetragnatha nigrita (spider), 131 Tetragnatha obtusa (spider), 131-2 Tetragnatha pinicola (spider), 132 Tetragnatha striata (spider), 130, 132-3 Tetragnathidae (spiders), in Wiltshire, 129— 36 Tetratomidae (sawflies), 139 textile industry, 151 textiles, 178 Thames, River, 13 Thames Valley, 186 Thames Water Utilities, 27, 230 Theridiosoma gemmosum (spider), 129 Theridiosomatidae (spiders), 129 Thetford (Norfolk), 224 Thomas, Nicholas, paper on Frederick Kenneth Annable, 1—6 Thompson, M.W., 115 Thornborough Circles (North Yorkshire), 2 Thorngrove Hundred, 79, 83, 84 Thurnam, John, 163 Thynne, Sir James, 19 : Thynne, Sir John, junior (1555-1604), 143— 7 Thynne, Thomas, 100 Thynne, Thomas, 1st Viscount Weymouth, 144 Thynne, William, 19 Thynne family, 144 Tihel de Helléan, 228 tiles: Roman, 28; Romano-British, 208; Iznik, 50; Syrian, 50 Tiliaceae (limes), 45 Till, River, 156 Tilshead, Silver Barrow, 236 Tilshead Westdown Camp, 236 timber: in buildings, 220-1; dendrochronology, 12; worked, 9-12 timber circles, 155 Timescape Wiltshire (2001), 151 Tisbury, 21; Castle Ditches, 22; church, 77; schools, 47-8; Wardour, 19, 21 Tithe Award maps, 201, 202 Titus, 211 Todi (Italy), 35 Toggye, George, 76 Tolpuddle Ball (Dorset), 13 Tomalin, David, 182 tools, Neolithic, 57 torcs, 37, 175 Tormarton (South Gloucestershire), 19 towns, Roman, 26-32 Towthorpe (East Riding of Yorkshire), 170, 181, 182 trackways, 159; ?>Roman, 231, 233; medieval, 236; 19th century, 237 tractors, 225 Transco Gas, 231, 233 trees: exotics, 43; millennium planting, 236; native species, 41—2; naturalized species, 42-3; Savernake Forest, 40-6; species list, 43-6 treethrows, 235 Trowbridge, 46, 214; Castle Street, 214; Silver Street Presbyterian Church, 214 Trowbridge Museum, 214 Trust for Wessex Archaeology, 152 Tucker, Donald, 93 tumuli see barrows Turkey, 50 Turms (god), 35 Twickenham (Greater London), 20, 24 Twining, Thomas (1668-1739), 210-13 Tyler, John, 224 Ucko, P. J., 210 Uffington (Oxon), 35 Uley (Gloucestershire), 226 Ulmaceae (elms), 45 Uloboridae (spiders), 129 Uloborus plumipes (spider), 129 Ulwell (Dorset), 13 Unetician culture, graves, 182 United Milk Dairy, 237 United Reform Church, 229-30 Upavon: Casterley Camp, 159; disc-brooch, 218-19 Upton Lovell, 171, 179, 183; barrows, 170, 177, 180, 185, 187, 188; Beaker objects, 172-4 Urchfont, 81, 92; Oakfrith Wood, 236 urns, 186; biconical, 182, 183; collared, 162, L63=705%5 devi, 1825) N8S5. ah85 (conservation, 161, 189-90); horseshoe handles, 183; whipped cord decorations, 165 Vainker, Shelagh, 37 Valor Ecclesiasticus (1535), 74 vases: Greek, 38; Irish funerary, 165 Vatcher, Faith de M., 152 Vaughan, Mr, 21 Verona (Italy), 35 Verulamium (Herts), 2 Vespasian, 210 vestal virgins, 35, 36 Vesuvius, Mount (Italy), 118 Victoria, Queen, 239 Victoria County History of Berkshire, 74 Victoria County History of Wiltshire, 219, 238 viereckschanze (rectilinear enclosure), 154— 5 Fig. 8, 159 villages: medieval, 7, 236; deserted, 7; surveys, 123 villas: Roman, 27, 154—5 Fig. 8, 159, 231; Romano-British, 208, 209 Vulcan figurine, 209 waggon ruts, 57 Wales, 99, 112, 118, 125; Marches of, 100, see also Anglesey; Carn Madryn; Gwynedd; Llanbleddian; Pembrokeshire walls: Iron Age, 238; Roman, 27-8; Anglo- Saxon, 206; medieval, 232, 233, 235; post-medieval, 231; 19th century, 237; chalk, 230 Walpole, Horace, 4th Earl of Orford (1717— 97), 119, 120 Walter, Bishop, 79 Wanborough: Calley Arms, 236; Half Moon Plantation, 236 WANHM see Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine (WANHM) WANHS see Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (WANHS) Wansdyke, 211 Warminster, 228 Warnewell, John, 74 Warren Farm Great Beech, 42 Wash, 170 waste disposal, 89 water authorities, 93 water meadows, 7—18, 156; post-medieval, 154—5 Fig. 8; creation, 22—3; dragonfly habitats, 65, 67 water pumps, medieval, 229 Watts, G. F., 49 WBS (Wiltshire Botanical Society), 96 Webber, Geoffrey, 90 Wedgwood (pottery), 163 Weld, Humphrey, 23 Weld, Lady, 21 Wellesley Pole, William, 239 wellingtonias, 43 wells, Early Roman, 30 Wessex, 61, 83; and Brittany, 228; enclosures, 158; field systems, 156-7; inhumations, 13 Wessex Archaeology, 152, 215, 236; evaluations, 231—2, 233, 235; excavations (Mildenhall, 27; Wilsford cum Lake, 7— 18); observations, 230; watching briefs, 235 Wessex Water, 233 West Africa, 1 West Ashton: Manor Farm, 236; Rood Ashton, 239 Westbury: Biss Brook, 237; Northacre Business Park, 237; SSSI, 93; White Horse, 148, 151 Westbury Naturalists, 90 West Dean, Bentley Wood, 100, 104, 224 western hemlock-spruce, 42 western red cedars, 43 West Heslerton (North Yorkshire), 165 West Lavington, 90; dragonflies, 63 Westminster, 2nd Marquess of, 48 West Overton, 177; Lockeridge, 187 wetlands, conservation, 93 Wetlands Symposia, 89, 93 Weyhill (Hants), 20 Weymouth (Dorset), 145; barrows, 177, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187 250 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE Wheeler, Sir (Robert Eric) Mortimer, 2 whetstone-pendants, 183, 184 whitebeams, 41 white horses, 148, 151, 239 White, Raymond, 190 Whitespots (County Down), 180 Whittle, Alasdair, 151, 152, 153, 155 WHM « see Wiltshire Heritage Museum (WHM) WHSs (World Heritage Sites), 149 Willerby (North Yorkshire), 181 William I, King, 80, 227 William II, King, 105, 106, 109 William, Sir Ifor, 227 Wilsford cum Lake, 210; barrows, 7, 161— 94; Druid’s Lodge, 154-5 Fig. 11, 158; Lake, 7-18; Lake Bottom, 7, 14; Lake Down, 7, 117, 156, 157, 158; medieval settlement, 156; Normanton Down, 161, 169, 170, 172, 183, 186-8; Normanton Gorse, 170, 172, 186-8; North Kite, 186; Rox Hill, 7; Spring Bottom, 14 Wilson, Mr, 208 Wilton, 20, 78, 85; St Mary and St Nicholas’s Church, 237; West Street, 237 Wiltshire: manors, 19, 20, 23; maps, 122-3; natural history in, 89-97; Odonata (dragonflies), 63—8; schools, 151; spiders in, 129-36; Tetragnathidae (spiders), 129-36 Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine (WANHM), 2, 222; natural history in, 89 Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (WANHS), 90, 91, 161, 163; library, 33, 162; Natural History Section, 89, 90, 91, 96 Wiltshire Association for Environmental Education, 94 Wiltshire Botanical Society (WBS), 96 Wiltshire County Council, 4, 92, 93, 95, 238; Archaeological Service, 7,55, 151; Con- servation Centre, 161, 189; County Arch- ives, 46; Education Department, 90, 93; Library and Museums Department, 90 Wiltshire County Education Authority, 90 Wiltshire Flora Mapping Project, 89, 92, 95, 96 Wiltshire Flying Club, 159 Wiltshire Geld Roll, 79 Wiltshire Heritage Museum (WHM), 91, 236; Assistant Curators, 4; Bronze Age gallery, 189; collections, 4, 161, 163; Curators, 1, 2; Curator’s Report, 4; development (1952-86), 2—3; dog collars, 214; Museum of the Year (1984), 5; Stourhead Collection, 163 Wiltshire Library and Museum Service, 91, 92 Wiltshire Museums Council, 90 Wiltshire Natural History Bulletin, 96 Wiltshire Natural History Forum (1974— 2002), 89-97 Wiltshire Natural History Publications Trust, 96 Wiltshire Ornithological Society, 96 Wiltshire Regiment, 2 Wiltshire Society see Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (WANHS) Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre (WSBRC), 63, 68 Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office, 98, 219 Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation (WTNC), 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95 Wiltshire Wildlife Trust (WWT), 65, 66, 92; establishment, 89 Wimbourne St Giles (Dorset), 21 Winchelsea, Lord, 210 Winchester, Bishop of, 19, 20, 24 Winchester (Hants), 78, 85; Lankhills Roman Cemetery, 32; Nunnaminster, 80, 81; Old Minster, 85 windows, Byzantine, 50 Windsor, deans of, 72 Winterbourne: Cusse’s Gorse, 154—5 Fig. Qo; 157, W593 (Haigh Post; 159; Winterbourne Dauntsey, 159; Winterbourne’ Earls, 19, 22; Winterbourne Gunner, 13, 60, 157 Winterbourne Bassett: Lambourne Ground, 197, 201; Rabson Manor, 196; Rabson West Field, 202; St Katherine and St Peter’s Church, 196; Stanmoor, 201; stone circle, 195-205; Upper Oxleaze, 195, 196, 197, 204; Winterbourne West Field, 204 Winterbourne Monkton, 201; Hackpen Hill, 123; Monkton Down, 37 Winterbourne St Martin (Dorset), 171, 174, 179, 180-1, 183, 187; Clandon Barrow, 170; inhumations, 186-7 Winterbourne Stoke, 177; barrows, 123, 124, 179, 183, 185, 187 (Cross Roads Group, 186, 217) Winter, Dominic, 219 Winton, Helen, paper on aerial photography, 148-60 woad, 22 women, inhumations, 185-6 wooden objects, 176, 178 Woodford, 8; Heale Hill, 154—5 Fig. 8, 156, 157, 158, 159; Smithen Down, 154-5 Fig. 8; Woodford Down, 154—5 Fig. 8 Woodforde, S., 121, 122 Woodford Valley, 7-18 woodland: management, 22; sites, 140 Woodward, A. B., 217 Woodward, P. J., 217 woolstores, 235 Wootton Bassett, Red Lodge, 237 Worcester (Hereford and Worcester), 67 Workers’ Educational Association, 90 World Heritage Sites (WHSs), 149 World War J, steam ploughing, 224—5 World War II, airfields, 159 wristguards, 178, 186; gold-covered, 179; stone, 176 WSBRC (Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre), 63, 68 WTNC (Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation), 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95 Wulfran, 15 Wulfric, 84 Wulfstan, 86 Wurttemberg (Germany), 175, 179 WWT see Wiltshire Wildlife Trust (WWT) Wyche, Benjamin, 24 wych elms, 41 Wylye, River, 133, 156 Wylye Valley, 112, 113, 170, 225 Wyndham, H. P., 121 Wyndham, Percy, 48 Yarnton (Oxon), 60, 61 Yatton Keynell, 79 yew trees, 41, 131 Yorke, Barbara A. E., 85, 86 Yorkshire, 109, 110, 227-8, see also Cantley Estate; Croft; Dewsbury; Doncaster; Driffield; Garton Slack; Jolby; Leeds; Ripon; Thornborough Circles; Towthorpe; West Heslerton; Willerby Zeuner, Frederick, 2 Zurich-Mozartstrasse (Switzerland), 174, 180, 182, 187 Zygoptera (damselflies), 64—5 Publications of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Recent and some earlier issues of the Magazine may be purchased from the Society. Volumes 93-95 are available at £15 per copy. For details of earlier volumes apply to the Curator. Other WA&NHS publications may also be purchased, as follows: Annable, F.K., and Simpson, D.D.A., Guide catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze Age collections in Devizes Museum, [viii] 133pp, plates, casebound, 1964 (reprinted), £15.00 (+ £3 p&p) Dillon, Patrick (ed.), Mammals in Wiltshire, xii, 156pp, paperback, 1997, £7.50 (+ £1.50 p&p) Ellis, Peter (ed.), Ludgershall Castle: excavations by Peter Addyman 1964-1972, ix, 268pp, ill, A4 paperback, 2000 (WANHS Monograph Series 2), £19.95 (+ £4.50 p&p) Ellis, Peter (ed.), Roman Wiltshire and after: papers in honour of Ken Annable, xii, 240pp, ill, casebound, 2001, £19.95 (+ £4.50 p&p) Haycock, Lorna, Devizes in the Civil War, 24pp, ill, paperback, 2000, £2.95 (+ £1.00 p&p) During 2003 the Society plans to publish volumes on art in Wiltshire; a volume of essays to mark the 150th anniversary of its foundation; and in its Monograph Series a report on barrow cemetery excavations at Snail Down, 1953-7. WILTSHIRE HERITAGE MUSEUM GALLERY « LIBRARY Published by - © The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society ISSN Seasons)