Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T00:24:07.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Agriculture of the British Early Iron Age as exemplified at Figheldean Down, Wiltshire*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Shimon Applebaum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The pioneer study of seed and plant-finds from prehistoric and Roman sites in this country was made by Helbaek and Jessen in 1944, and it was with the assistance of their findings that the present paper was originally written. Subsequently Helbaek carried the same research further, publishing his results in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for 1952. These new results have considerably modified our notions of the cereal crops grown in both the prehistoric and Roman periods in Britain, partly owing to the examination of hitherto unanalysed finds and partly to the accumulation of experience in identification, which made it possible to correct previous errors. Thus, it has now been established that Triticum vulgare (Breadwheat) and Triticum compactum (Clubwheat) are much rarer among prehistoric finds than previously thought; and many specimens previously identified as Emmer were found by Helbaek to be Spelt. These modifications have necessitated a reconsideration of the bases of the present paper, but seem to the writer to confirm its main thesis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , July 1955 , pp. 103 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 103 note 1 Cereals in Great Britain and Ireland in Prehistoric and Early Historic Times. Copenhagen, 1944Google Scholar.

page 103 note 2 Helbaek, , ‘Early Crops in Southern Britain’, P.P.S., XVIII (1952), 194–233Google Scholar.

page 103 note 3 Helbaek, loc. cit., 201.

page 103 note 4 ibid., 227, Find List A.

page 103 note 5 ibid., 228, Find List A.

page 103 note 6 ibid., 229, Find List B.

page 103 note 7 ibid., 211.

page 104 note 1 Beaven, E. S., Barley (1947), 23Google Scholar.

page 104 note 2 ibid., 318.

page 104 note 3 ibid., 321-2.

page 104 note 4 Helbaek, loc. cit., 207.

page 104 note 5 See Gray, H. L., English Field Systems (1915), chap, v, especially pp. 186–7 and 199–202Google Scholar; cf. Evans, Estyn, Irish Heritage (1942), 7Google Scholar.

page 104 note 6 Nat. Hist., XVIII, 133Google Scholar.

page 104 note 7 Diodorus Siculus, II, 47Google Scholar.

page 104 note 8 At Fifield Bavant, among carbonized specimens, Barley constituted two-thirds and Spelt one-third only.

page 104 note 9 Evans, J., Ancient British Coins (1864), pl. VIII, 12Google Scholar; IX, 3–14; XIII, 3, 4.

page 105 note 1 Beaven, op. cit., 12 and figs, 5a–b.

page 105 note 2 Bulleid, and Gray, , The Glastonbury Lake Village, vol. II, p. 369Google Scholar.

page 105 note 3 Clark, in Antiquity, XXI, 133Google Scholar; Childe, , Prehistoric Communities (1949), 241Google Scholar. Sheepbones were 88 per cent of the total animal remains.

page 105 note 4 Oxoniensia, XV, 12–13Google Scholar.

page 105 note 5 Antiquity, XXI, 132Google Scholar.

page 105 note 6 P.P.S., VI, 101Google Scholar.

page 105 note 7 P.P.S., XIV, 54Google Scholar and fig. 4.

page 105 note 8 P.P.S., VI, 101Google Scholar.

page 105 note 9 Arch, J., LIX, 214, pl. 1, 3aGoogle Scholar.

page 106 note 1 Pliny, , Nat. Hist., XVII, 5–8Google Scholar.

page 106 note 2 In the opinion of Dr E. W. Russell, the benefit of conversations with whom I here gratefully record.

page 106 note 3 The Land of Britain (1948), 237Google Scholar.

page 106 note 4 Gray, op. cit., 157 sqq.

page 106 note 5 cf. Owen, , Description of Pembroke (1603), 1, 61Google Scholar.

page 106 note 6 Arch. Cambrensis, CI, 1 ff.Google Scholar

page 107 note 1 Crawford, O. G. S., Air Survey and Archaeology: Ordnance Survey Professional Papers, N.S., no. 7, 1924Google Scholar. End map 1.

page 107 note 2 The area is at present War Office Property.

page 107 note 3 For evidence of a hedge of Late Bronze Age date on the line of a boundary-ditch at Quarley Hill, Hampshire, see Hants. F.C. Proc., XIV, 155Google Scholar.

page 110 note 1 cf. Early Iron Age and Roman enclosures also incomplete on the south-western i.e. windward, side, at West Blatchington, Sussex, —Suss. Arch. Coll., LXXXIX, 11–14Google Scholar, ditches A and B; also possible evidence of a Roman windbreak at the Langton villa, Yorkshire, see Corder, and Kirk, , Roman Villa at Langton (Roman Malton Report, no. 4), 17 and 55Google Scholar.

page 110 note 2 Proc. Dorset F.C., XXIII, 34Google Scholar; Brighton and Hove Arch., III, 43 ff.Google Scholar; The Antiquary, July, 1913, 250 ff.Google Scholar; Crawford, O. G. S., Air Survey and Archaeology, 39Google Scholar; Curwen, , Prehist. Sussex (1929), 144–6Google Scholar; Arch. J., CIV, 33 sq.; P.P.S., VIII, 48 ff.Google Scholar

page 110 note 3 Woolidge, John, cited in V.C.H., Hants., V, 49Google Scholar.

page 110 note 4 Wilts. Arch. Mag., XLII, 450Google Scholar.

page 110 note 5 ibid., 451.

page 110 note 6 ibid., 452.

page 111 note 1 Hants. F.C., XIV, 152.Google Scholar

page 111 note 2 e.g. Glatting Down Sussex, Sussex Arch. Coll., LIX, 58Google Scholar.

page 111 note 3 Hants. F.C., XIV, 143Google Scholar.

page 111 note 4 e.g., Bavant, Fifield and Down, Swallowcliffe, Antiquity, 1, 61–5Google Scholar; and Down, Milston, Hants. F.C., XIV, 143Google Scholar.

page 111 note 5 Hants. F.C., XIV, 139, 187Google Scholar.

page 111 note 6 I would like to stress the provisional nature of this dating, since in relation to Sussex, Holleyman has stated (Arch. News Letter, Nov. 1948, no. 7, 16Google Scholar) that no sites of Early Iron Age character have been isolated in association with contiguous groups of fields; and on present evidence from the same county, the great expansion of the ‘square field’ system took place in the Roman period. Similarly, in Berkshire, P. Rhodes has found Early Iron Age surface pottery on 20 per cent of the square fields only.

page 112 note 1 P.P.S., VI, 30 ff.Google Scholar; XIV, 1–23.

page 112 note 2 Wheeler, , Maiden Castle Report, Soc. Ant. London, 1943, p. 36Google Scholar. In Sussex, the work of Mr Holleyman may give some clue to the approximate average area of cultivation of farms or villages associated with the ‘square field’ system, at least in Romano-British times. On his map of the system between the Ouse, and Adur, (Antiquity, XI, 443 ff.Google Scholar and fig. 84), three distinct blocks may be noted in each of which the number and distribution of the settlements suggests that all or nearly all of them are known: (1) centring on Slonk Hill: 600 acres, two settlements; (2) with Tegdown Hill in its northern part: 1264 acres; five settlements; and (3) centring on Falmer Hill: 608 acres; two settlements. The resulting averages per settlement are respectively 300, 252, and 304 acres, all comparable to the area of the Figheldean Down block. Evans, Estyn (Irish Heritage, 1945, 12Google Scholar) records the average size of the ancient Irish townland as 325 acres; Meitzen gives the average Irish ‘quarter’ as 200–400 (statute) acres (Siedelung u. Agrarwesen der Westgermanen (1895), I, 175Google Scholar; and Westropp, T. J. (Trans. Roy. Irish Acad., XXXI, 578Google Scholar) found averages of land to fort of 317 acres (Limerick), 327 acres (Sligo), and 550 acres (Donegal)—but for criticism of his figures, see Macalister, R. A. S., Archaeology of Ireland (1949), 257Google Scholar. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that certain Roman villas in Britain farmed similar areas; e.g. the Callow Hill farm, near Ditchley, Oxfordshire (Arch. News Letter, III, 92)Google Scholar, which had some 300 acres.

page 112 note 3 Cited Wilts. Arch. Mag., XLII, 452Google Scholar.

page 112 note 4 Antiquity, XXI, 134–5Google Scholar.

page 112 note 5 Ernie, , English Farming (1936), 27Google Scholar.

page 112 note 6 Wilts. Arch. Mag., XLII, 499Google Scholar, 455.

page 112 note 7 I have preferred this minimal yield figure to those of Dr Bersu in relation to Little Woodbury (11 bushels per acre of Barley, and 14 of Wheat, —P.P.S., VI, 104Google Scholar) in the light of the recorded medieval average wheat yields of the bishopric of Winchester in the 13th and 14th centuries, viz. 4.34, 10.8, and 6.98 bushels per acre in three characteristic non-successive years. (Percival, , Wheat in Great Britain (1948), 42)Google Scholar.

page 112 note 8 The average consumption is estimated at 4.5 bushels per year, as in Great Britain in 1938. Percival (op. cit., 35) estimates six bushels per annum; this is the adult ration only.

page 112 note 9 Arch. J., XIV, 79Google Scholar.

page 113 note 1 Wilts. Arch. Mag., XLII, 450Google Scholar.

page 114 note 1 Crawford, and Keiller, , Wessex from the Air (1928), 112Google Scholar, fig. 21.

page 114 note 2 P.P.S., VI, 105–6Google Scholar.