Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:04:43.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Investigation of Ancient Cultivation Remains at Hengistbury Head Site 6, Christchurch, Dorset

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Helen Lewis  and
Julie Gardiner
Helen Lewis
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ
Julie Gardiner
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Excavations at Hengistbury Head Site 6 (Dragonfly Ponds) in 1984–5 uncovered a rare sequence of cultivation features, with pre-Late Iron Age to Romano-British period spade marks and an associated cultivation soil underlying proposed Romano-British furrows and another cultivation soil (Chadburn & Gardiner 1985; Chadburn 1987). Keyhole excavations for soil micromorphological study of these features and soils were conducted in 1997 as part of a larger project on identifying and characterising prehistoric cultivation from soil indicators in the field and in thin section (Lewis 1998). Profile inversion indicators identified within the implement marks suggest that the spade-mark horizon may show ‘double-digging’, and that the furrows were probably created by post-Roman mouldboard ploughing. Excavation and soil micromorphology results are presented here, and the importance of the remains at Hengistbury Head to the study of ancient agricultural land use is discussed in terms of methodological issues.

Résumé

Des excavations sur le site 6 à Hengistbury Head (Dragonfly Ponds) en 1984–5, ont mis à jour une séquence rare de vestiges de cultures, avec des traces de bêche dont les dates s'étendent d'avant l'âge de fer final jusqu'à la période romano-britannique et un sol cultivé associé se trouvant sous ce qui, suggérons-nous, doit être des sillons romano-britanniques et un autre sol cultivé. Des excavations par carottage pour des études micromorphologiques de ces vestiges et ces sols ont été entreprises en 1997 et faisaient partie d'un programme de recherches plus vaste sur l'identification et la caractérisation des méthodes de culture préhistoriques à partir d'indicateurs de sol dans les champs et en sections minces. Des indicateurs d'inversion de profil identifiés dans les marques des outils donnent à penser que l'horizon des traces de bêche pourrait indiquer un double bêchage et que les sillons ont probablement été causés par un labourage avec versoir datant de la période post-romaine. On présente ici les résultats des fouilles et de la micromorphologie du sol, et on examine l'importance des vestiges à Hengistbury Head pour l'étude de l'ancienne utilisation des terres agricoles en termes de problèmes de méthodologie.

Resúmen

Las excavaciones en Hengistbury Head Sito 6 (Dragonfly Ponds) en 1984–5 pusieron al descubierto una secuencia poco común de restos de antiguos cultivos, con marcas de pala de la pre-tardía edad del hierro al periodo romano-británico asociadas a un suelo de cultivo que se hallaba debajo de unos surcos posiblemente del periodo romano-británico y de otro suelo de cultivo. Las micro-excavaciones realizadas para estudiar la compositión micromorfológica de estos hallazgos y suelos fueron Uevadas a cabo en 1997 como parte de un proyecto más amplio que buscaba identificar y caracterizar el cultivo prehistórico a partir de indicadores en el suelo tanto en el campo como en micro sectión. Huellas de inversion de perfiles identificadas dentro de las marcas dejadas por las herramientas, sugieren que el horizonte donde aparecen las huellas de pala puede ser indicativo de ‘doble labranza’, y que los surcos fueron probablemente realizados con arados de tipo post-romano. Se presentan en este trabajo los resultados de la excavación y de la micromorfología de los suelos, al mismo tiempo que se discute desde una perspectiva metodológica la importancia que tienen los restos hallados en Hengistbury Head para un estudio del uso de la tierra de cultivo en la antigüedad.

Zusammenfassung

Ausgrabungen in Hengistbury Head, Fundplatz 6 (Dragonfly Ponds), in den Jahren 1984 bis 1985 deckten eine seltene Abfolge von Spuren von Anbau auf, die Spatenspuren aus Perioden vor der späten Eisenzeit bis in römisch-britische Zeit ebenso umfassen wie einen damit verbundenen Kulturboden, der unter vermutlich römisch-britischen Pflugspuren und einem weiteren Kulturboden liegt. Kleinflächige Ausgrabungen zur mikromorphologischen Bodenuntersuchung dieser Spuren und Böden wurden 1997 durchgeführt als Teil eines größeren Projekts zur Identifikation und Charakterisierung prähistorischen Anbaus anhand von Bodenindikatoren im Feld und im Dünnschliff. Indikatoren für Profilumkehrung, die innerhalb von Werkzeugspuren beobachtet wurden deuten an, dass der Spatenspuren-Horizont „double-digging“ aufweist, und dass die Pflugspuren wahrscheinlich durch nach-römisches Pflügen mit einem Streichbrettpflug entstanden.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 68 , 2002 , pp. 83 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2002

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashbee, P., Smith, I.F. & Evans, J.G. 1979. Excavation of three long barrows near Avebury, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 207–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1957. Worms and weathering. Antiquity 31, 219–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, G. 1985. Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Bonney, D.J. 1978. Early fields and land allotments in Wessex. In Bowen, H.C. & Fowler, P.J. (eds), Early Land Allotment, 49–51. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 48Google Scholar
Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: the economics of agrarian change under population pressure. Chicago: AldineGoogle Scholar
Bullock, P., Federoff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G. & Tursina, T. 1985. Handbook for Soil Thin Section Description. Wolverhampton: Waine ResearchGoogle Scholar
Carter, S.P. & Davidson, D.A. 1998. An evaluation of the contribution of soil micromorphology to the study of ancient arable agriculture. Geoarchaeology 13 (6), 535–473.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadburn, A. 1987. The excavation: site 6 (the Dragon-fly ponds) 1984–5. In Cunliffe, B.Hengistbury Head Dorset. Volume 1: the prehistoric and Roman settlement, 3500 BC–AD 500, 61–6, 128–35. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Chadburn, A. & Gardiner, J. 1985. A grooved ware pit and prehistoric spade marks on Hengistbury Head (Site 6), Dorset, 1984. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51, 315–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collcutt, S.N. 1992. Physical setting and geology. In Barton, R.N.E.Hengistbury Head Dorset. Volume 2: the Late Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic sites, 23–44. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Crummy, P., Shimmin, D., Carter, G. & Smith, N.A. 1992. Chapter 3: excavations at CulverStreet 1981–2 and 1984–5. In Crummy, P.Excavations at Culver Street, the Gilberd School, and Other Sites in Colchester 1971–1985, 21–126. Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Report 6Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1987. Iron Age and Roman. In Cunliffe, B.Hengistbury Head Dorset. Volume 1: the prehistoric and Roman settlement, 3500 BC–AD 500, 336–46. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D.A. & Carter, S.P. 1998. Micromorphological evidence of past agricultural practices in cultivated soils: the impact of a traditional agricultural system on soils in Papa Stour, Shetland. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 827–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D.A., Carter, S.P. & Quine, T.A. 1992. An evaluation of micromorphology as an aid to archaeological interpretation. Geoarchaeology 7(1), 55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. & Serjeantson, D. 1988. The backwater economy of a fen-edge community in the Iron Age: the Upper Delphs, Haddenham. Antiquity, 62, 360–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, E.E. 1970. Introduction. In Gailey, A. & Fenton, A. (eds), The Spade in Northern and Atlantic Europe, 1–9. Holywood, Co. Down & Belfast: Ulster Folk Museum & Institute of Irish StudiesGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.G. 1971. Habitat change on the calcareous soils of Britain: the impact of Neolithic man. In Simpson, D.D.A. (ed.), Economy and Settlement in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain and Europe, 27–73. Leicester: University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J.G. 1972. Land Snails in Archaeology. London: SeminarGoogle Scholar
Everton, A. & Fowler, P. 1978. Pre-Roman ard-marks at Lodge Farm, Alveston, Avon: a method of analysis. In Bowen, H.C. & Fowler, P.J. (eds), Early Land Allotment, 179–85. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 48Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, E.A. 1993. Soil Microscopy and Micromorphology. Chichester: WileyGoogle Scholar
Fowler, P.J. 1971. Early prehistoric agriculture in Western Europe: some archaeological evidence. In Simpson, D.D.A. (ed.), Economy and Settlement in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain and Europe, 153–82. Leicester: University PressGoogle Scholar
Fowler, P.J. & Evans, J.G. 1967. Plough-marks, lynchets and early fields. Antiquity 41, 289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, J. 1987. The occupation 3500-1000 BC. In Cunliffe, B.Hengistbury Head, Dorset, Volume I: the prehistoric and Roman settlement, 3500 BC-AD 500, 22-66. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt, A. 1990. Evolution du paléopaysage agricole dans le nord-ouèst de la France: apport de la micromorphologie. Unpublished these de doctorat. Université de Rennes IGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt, A. 1992. Micromorphological analysis of soil structural modifications caused by different cultivation implements. Prehistoire de l'Agriculture: Nouvelles Approches Expérimentales et Ethnographiques, 373–81. Paris: CNRS Monographie du CRA 6Google Scholar
Gebhardt, A. 1995. Soil micromorphological data from traditional and experimental agriculture. In Barham, A.J. & Macphail, R.I. (eds), Archaeological Sediments and Soils: analysis, interpretation and management, 25–39. London: Institute of ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt, A. 1996. Fossés parcellaires et micromorphologie des sols: une aide à l'interprétation archéologique d'un paysage agraire? In Castelletti, L. & Cremashi, M. (eds), Paleoecology. XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlì (Italia), 8/14 September 1996. Colloquia: V. Numerical analysis and image processing in archaeobotany; VI. Micromorphology of deposits of anthropogenic origin, 107–13. ForlìGoogle Scholar
Glob, P.V. 1951. Ard og Plov i Nordens Oldtid (in Danish with English summary). Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter Bind 1. Aarhus: UniversitetsforlagetGoogle Scholar
Goody, J. 1976. Production and Reproduction. A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Greig, J.R.A. 1991. The British Isles. In Zeist, W., van Wasyloikowa, K. & Behre, K.-E. (eds), Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany: a retrospective view on the occasion of 20 years of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany, 299–234. Rotterdam: BalkemaGoogle Scholar
Guilloré, P. 1985. Méthode de Fabrication Méchanique et en Séries des Lames Minces. ParisGoogle Scholar
Hansen, H.-O. 1969. Experimental ploughing with a Døstrup ard replica. Tools and Tillage 1(2), 67–92Google Scholar
Jones, M. 1992. Food production and consumption. In Jones, R.F.J. (ed.), Roman Britain: recent trends, 21–7. Sheffield: CollisGoogle Scholar
Jongerius, A. 1983. The role of micromorphology in agricultural research. In Bullock, P. and Murphy, C.P. (eds), Soil Micromorphology, Volume 1: Techniques and Application. Proceedings of the 6th International Working Meeting on Soil Micromorphology, London 1981, 111–38. Berkhamsted: AB AcademicGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 1990. Ard marks under barrows: a response to Peter Rowley-Conwy. Antiquity 64, 322–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrick, G. & Robinson, M. 1979. Iron Age and Roman Riverside Settlements at Farmoor, Oxfordshire. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 32Google Scholar
Lerche, G. 1977. Double paddle-spades in prehistoric contexts in Denmark. Tools and Tillage 3 (1–4), 111–24Google Scholar
Lerche, G. 1982. Additional comments on the Lindholm Høje field. Tools and Tillage, 4(2), 185–91Google Scholar
Lerche, G. 1994. Ploughing Implements and Tillage Practices in Denmark from the Viking Period to about 1800 Experimentally Substantiated. Herning: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters' Commission for Research on the History of Agricultural Implements and Field Structures Publication 8Google Scholar
Leser, P. 1931. Entstehung und Verbreitung des Pfluges. Anthropos B.111, 3Google Scholar
Lewis, H.A. 1998. The Characterisation and Interpretation of Ancient Tillage Practices through Soil Micro-morphology: a methodological study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, S.-O. 1974. The development of the agrarian landscape on Gotland during the early Iron Age. Norwegian Archaeological Review 7(1), 6–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macphail, R.I. 1992a. Late Devensian and Holocene soil formation. In Barton, R.N.E.Hengistbury Head Dorset. Volume 2: the Late Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic sites, 44–51. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Macphail, R.I. 1992b. Soil studies. In Crummy, P.Excavations at Culver Street, the Gilberd School, and other sites in Colchester 1971–85, 273–5, 703–8. Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Report 6Google Scholar
Macphail, R.I. 1994a. The reworking of urban stratigraphy by human and natural processes. In Hall, A.R. & Kenward, H.K.Urban-Rural Connexions: perspectives from environmental archaeology, 13–43. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Macphail, R.I. 1994b. Soil micromorphological investigations in archaeology, with special reference to drowned coastal sites in Essex. SEESOIL 10, 13–28Google Scholar
Macphail, R.I. 1998. A reply to Carter and Davidson's ‘An evaluation of the contribution of soil micromorphology to the study of ancient arable agriculture‘. Geoarchaeology 13(6), 549–643.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macphail, R.I., Courty, M.A. & Gebhardt, A. 1990. Soil micromorphological evidence of early agriculture in north-west Europe. World Archaeology 22(1), 53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, P.K. 1980. Medieval ploughing marks in Ribe. Tools and Tillage 4(1), 36–45Google Scholar
Murphy, C.P. 1986. Thin Section Preparation of Soils and Sediments. Berkhamsted: AB AcademicGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, V. 1986. Ploughing in the Iron Age. Plough marks in Store Vildmose, North Jutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology 5, 189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, V. 1993. Jernalderens Pløjning. Store Vildmose. Hjørring: Vendsyssel Historiske MuseumGoogle Scholar
Noe, P. 1976. Pre-medieval plough marks in Viborg. Tools and Tillage 3(1), 59–64Google Scholar
Nye, S. & Jones, M. 1987. The carbonised plant remains. In Cunliffe, B.Hengistbury Head Dorset. Volume 1: the prehistoric and Roman settlement, 3500 BC–AD 500, 323–8. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Parrington, M. 1978. The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement, Bronze Age Ring-ditches and Roman Features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon (Oxfordshire) 1974–1976. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 28Google Scholar
Rausing, G. 1988. More on the ard marks. Antiquity 62, 285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, S.E. 1979. Agricultural Implements in Prehistoric and Roman Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S69Google Scholar
Romans, J.C.C. & Robertson, L. 1983a. The general effects of early agriculture on the soil profile. In Maxwell, G.S. (ed.), The Impact of Aerial Reconnaissance on Archaeology, 136–41. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 49Google Scholar
Romans, J.C.C. & Robertson, L. 1983b. The environment of north Britain: soils. In Chapman, J.C. & Mytum, H.C. (eds), Settlement in North Britain 1000 BC to AD 1000. Papers presented to George Jobey 2, 55–80. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 118Google Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P. 1987. The interpretation of ard marks. Antiquity 61, 263–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šach, F. 1968. Proposal for the classification of pre-industrial implements. Tools and Tillage 1(1), 3–27Google Scholar
Scaife, R.G. 1992. The vegetational history. In Barton, R.N.E.Hengistbury Head Dorset. Volume 2: the Late Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic sites, 51–9. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology MonographGoogle Scholar
Sherratt, A. 1987. Wool, wheels and ploughmarks: local developments or outside introductions in Neolithic Europe? Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 23, 1–15Google Scholar
Tarlow, S. 1993/1994. Scraping the bottom of the barrow: an agricultural metaphor in Neolithic/Bronze-Age European burial practice. Journal of Theoretical Archaeology 3(4), 123–44Google Scholar
Thomas, C. 1970. Bronze Age spade marks at Gwithian, Cornwall. In Gailey, A. & Fenton, A. (eds), The Spade in Northern and Atlantic Europe, 10–17. Belfast: Ulster Folk Museum & Institute of Irish StudiesGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1996. Neolithic houses in mainland Britain: a sceptical view. In Darvill, T. & Thomas, J. (eds), Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond, 1–12. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Thrane, H. 1989. Danish plough-marks from the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Journal of Danish Archaeology 8, 111–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usai, M.R. 2001. Textural pedofeatures and pre-Hadrian's Wall ploughed paleosols at Stanwix, Carlisle, Cumbria, U. K. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 541–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In Topping, P. (ed.), Neolithic Landscapes, 15–22. Oxford: Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2Google Scholar