SHORTER PAPERS A COLLECTION OF LITHIC ARTEFACTS FROM ASH PRIORS NEAR TAUNTON

Transcription

1 SHORTER PAPERS A COLLECTION OF LITHIC ARTEFACTS FROM ASH PRIORS NEAR TAUNTON The purpose of this note is to draw attention to a collection of flint and chert artefacts made by the late Laurence Walker and his wife Eileen from fields around the village of Ash Priors (ST ) some 10km to the north-west of Taunton. Although of modest size, this collection has a particular value in that all finds have been carefully provenanced and can be related to specific locations in the landscape. Originally from Hertfordshire, Mr Walker moved to Somerset in 1969, where he established an electronics manufacturing company and, with his wife, became interested in local archaeology. Soon after settling in Ash Priors in 1984, the couple began exploring the surrounding area and developed a keen interest in the history and archaeology of the parish. An active member of SANHS and the Taunton Deane Archaeological Research Committee, Mr Walker organised a field survey in Ash Priors as part of a community based programme undertaken in Taunton Deane during the 1990s. He also carried out research into the history of Ash Priors, much of which has been published or deposited in the Somerset Studies Library in Taunton (Walker 1997). Mrs Walker shared his interests and was particularly proficient in finding lithic artefacts and potsherds. Obtained mainly from ploughed ground crossed by public rights of way, the artefacts found by the Walkers were individually marked and retained in bags labelled with location codes. These latter were recorded on a 1:10,000 OS map, which shows that artefacts were collected from a total of 18 separate areas distributed across some 4.3km 2 of farmland (Fig.1). Eleven locations have produced sufficient material for an assessment of probable date range to be made on the basis of flake shape, core type and retouched pieces (Table 1). The remainder of the findspots have produced small quantities of undiagnostic flakes and debitage, all of which may be of Neolithic or later date. A selection of significant artefacts is illustrated in Fig. 2. Of particular interest is a cluster of recorded findspots which occurs on a south-facing slope overlooking the village and the Halse Water valley. Comprising locations C, D, N and R, these have produced significant quantities of artefacts; a large majority of which are likely to date to the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age. The number of finds from this area suggests that a substantial amount of both earlier and later prehistoric activity may have taken place here, although no evidence for this in the form of cropmark sites or extant monuments is currently recorded in the Somerset Historic Environment Record (HER). Amongst the more diagnostic pieces are a leaf shaped arrowhead from location R (Fig. 2.1), a number of small scrapers with shallow retouch characteristic of the final Neolithic/early Bronze Age (Fig ) and many small retouched flakes which may date to the same period. Earlier activity in this area is suggested by small quantities of typologically Mesolithic material, notably from location D. This includes bladelet debitage and cores, two denticulated pieces (Fig. 2.9), a microburin mishit (Fig. 2.5) and an obliquely truncated piece (Fig. 2.4). Also from location D is a stained and abraded chert artefact, probably the butt of a lower Palaeolithic handaxe, which appears to have been reworked as a core during Mesolithic or later times. To the south of Ash Priors village, small collections of artefacts from locations G, J and K contain material of predominantly late Neolithic or early Bronze Age type, including several small round scrapers and a barbed and tanged arrowhead from

2 SOMERSET ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY, 2006 Fig. 1 Location of lithic artefact findspots location K (Fig. 2.2). The same area has also produced a small obliquely backed microlith of Mesolithic type (Fig. 2.3). To the west of this, location B near Lower Stoford is of particular interest as it lies near a cropmark enclosure of probable later prehistoric date identified from recent air photographs (Somerset HER no ). The collection from here contains scrapers and retouched flakes of late Neolithic or Bronze Age type. Also present is a large chert flake, which is stained and abraded and has much ancient edge damage (Fig. 2.10). Although the striking platform is missing, the TABLE 1: DETAILS OF LITHIC FINDSPOTS; FOR LOCATIONS SEE FIG. 1 Area NGR Total Cores Flakes/ Retouched Probable date range artefacts debitage pieces A ST Neolithic/Bronze Age B ST ?Palaeolithic to Bronze Age C ST ?Mesolithic to Bronze Age D ST ?Palaeolithic to Bronze Age E ST Neolithic/Bronze Age G ST Late Neolithic/Bronze Age J ST Late Neolithic/Bronze Age K ST Mesolithic to Bronze Age N ST ?Mesolithic to Bronze Age O ST Neolithic/Bronze Age R ST ?Mesolithic to Bronze Age 180

3 Fig. 2 Illustrated lithics; scale 1:2 characteristic radial pattern of flake scars on the dorsal surface suggests that this artefact could have been produced by the Levallois technique and thus may be of middle Palaeolithic date. Together with the probable handaxe fragment from location K, it forms a useful addition to an accumulating body of evidence for early human activity in the Vale of Taunton (Norman 2000). In many respects, the collection of artefacts made by the Walkers is a typical result of amateur fieldwalking, such as has taken place elsewhere in Somerset over many years. However, it is unusual in that it is confined to a small area, has been well recorded and maintained and contains all finds rather than selected items. As such, it provides a useful indication of the overall distribution of earlier prehistoric activity in a previously unexplored part of the Vale of Taunton. Although there is a small Mesolithic element in the Ash Priors collection, this does not suggest anything more than a limited human presence in the area at that time. However, the artefacts from a majority of recorded locations suggest that activity during the later Neolithic and Bronze Age was widespread, particularly on topographically favourable terrain to the north of the village. This distribution provides the most detailed record of the occurrence of Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts for any comparable area in the Vale of Taunton and may be useful in the future study of air photograph evidence for earlier prehistoric sites in the neighbourhood. Of the latter, a significant number recorded in the Somerset HER for the parishes of Bishop s Lydeard, Halse and Norton Fitzwarren lie within a 4km radius of Ash Priors. These include cropmark ring ditches at Longlands Farm (HER no ), Conquest Farm (HER no ) and Halse (HER no ) and a possible late Neolithic henge or timber circle at Norton Manor (HER no ; Ellis 1986). Also potentially relevant is the evidence for a major Bronze Age enclosure at Norton Fitzwarren hillfort (HER no ; Ellis 1989), which might have served as a communal or ritual focal point for groups dispersed across adjacent parts of the Vale. In conclusion, the fieldwork undertaken by the Walkers around Ash Priors clearly shows that the properly recorded collecting of lithic artefacts can, in addition to indicating potential settlement sites, make a valuable contribution to a broader assessment of earlier prehistoric activity in a given area. Regrettably, similar collections from Somerset have often been inadequately recorded, with unmarked finds from different locations occasionally becoming mixed together in boxes or display cabinets. This can have serious consequences and may invalidate the results of many hours of careful fieldwork, as recently became apparent to the writer when recording a large private collection of lithics which had been made available to the Somerset County Museum for study. In this instance some 30% of the artefacts, totalling over 2000 items, could not be provenanced and were thus rendered archaeologically valueless. Happily no artefact found by the Walkers has suffered a similar fate, which stands as a tribute to the care with which their collection was maintained and to the simple but effective methodology used for the recording of finds. The lithic collection and its accompanying map have been deposited in the Somerset County Museum, Taunton (Accn no. TTNCM 54/2006). Acknowledgements The production of this report has been supported by a bequest from the late Mr Walker s estate administered by the Taunton Deane Archaeological Research Committee. Thanks are due to Mrs E. Walker for supplying biographical and other information. 181

4 SOMERSET ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY, 2006 References Ellis, P., A possible henge monument from aerial photographic evidence in Norton Fitzwarren parish, SANH 130, 165., Norton Fitzwarren Hillfort: A report on the excavations by Nancy and Philip Langmaid between 1968 and 1971, SANH 133, Norman, C., Early humans in the Vale of Taunton a new perspective, in C.J. Webster (ed.), Somerset Archaeology: Papers to mark 150 years of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, Taunton, Walker, L., A possible bell foundry site at Ash Priors, ST , SANH 141, 201. CHRISTOPHER NORMAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING AT THE KINGS OF WESSEX SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS, CHEDDAR Introduction Proposals for a new residential development in the south of Cheddar included provision for a new cycleway to link the housing with the town. The cycleway route was to run through part of the playing fields of the Kings of Wessex School which lie within Scheduled Monument SM (previously Somerset SM 305), the site of a Romano-British settlement and Saxon occupation (Fig. 1). The route was also immediately to the west of the former garden of Cheddar Vicarage, where excavations carried out in 1965 (Rahtz 1966) and 1970 (Hirst and Rahtz 1973), revealed extensive Roman and Anglo-Saxon remains, resulting in the scheduling of the area (Scheduled Monument SM previously Somerset SM 344). The likelihood of archaeological features and deposits being disturbed by the construction of the cycle-way led to a requirement for archaeological monitoring and recording in advance of construction, as a condition of the scheduled monument consent for the route. The archaeological mitigation was undertaken by Wessex Archaeology during August and October 1999, and covered a length of the cycleway from NGR ST to ST The topsoil strip and construction methods were co-ordinated to ensure that any archaeological remains were preserved in situ. Remains of walls and a possible trackway were exposed, along with soil and stone spreads containing occupation material. Finds recovered from the surface of these deposits indicate activity of Roman date in the northern part of the cycle-way route. A field drain and pit in the southern part of the stripped area produced artefacts of post-medieval date. Results Topsoil stripping revealed a dense concentration of archaeological features within the northern stretch of the cycle-way route, immediately outside the west wall of the former vicarage garden (Fig. 2). Remains of walls and a possible rutted trackway were identified, along with stone spreads and other deposits containing Roman occupation debris. As preservation of archaeological features in situ was the stated aim of the intervention, no sections were excavated, and it has not therefore been possible to fully explore the relationship between the various surfaces and features revealed. For the same reason, dating evidence was recovered only from the exposed surfaces of features and deposits. Most of the pottery was of Roman date and included both early and late types. A few sherds of medieval pottery and fragments of ceramic building material, including a fragment of glazed roof tile, were also found. No Anglo-Saxon material was identified. The remains of a north south aligned wall (111) lay immediately to the west of the vicarage garden wall. It was visible in plan as a discontinuous line of substantial angular stones measuring up to 0.45m, some of which had mortar adhering. The wall line was recorded for c. 70m, at a width of 0.4m. Because no excavation was undertaken, the surviving height of the wall was not established. Remains of a second wall (110) lay approximately 2m to the west of wall 111. It was aligned north-east south-west and constructed of closely set stone blocks up to 0.5m in size. This wall line was traced for only 7m as the southern end continued beyond the limit of the stripped area. 182

5 Fig. 1 Location 183

6 SOMERSET ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY, 2006 Fig. 2 Archaeological features in the north sector of the stripped area 184

7 The date of the two walls was not entirely clear, but Roman pottery dating to the 2nd century was recovered from soil overlying the surface of wall 111. A few post-medieval finds were also present in this deposit, however, and all of the material may relate to a robbing or destruction phase. A small group of early Roman (late 1st/2nd century) pottery was recovered from a spread of charcoal-rich silty loam (108) filling the space between the two walls. This deposit also produced an animal bone assemblage that included cattle, horse, sheep or goat and bird species. Remains of a possible east west aligned wall (109) at the northern end of the site were represented by a line of stones up to 0.2m in size, traced for a length of 2m. The alignment of this wall suggests that it was not contemporary with walls 110 and 111. Three late Roman sherds (mid 3rd/4th century) and a small quantity of animal bone were found amongst the stones. Two linear spreads of small, abraded stones (119 and 120) ran alongside and to the west of wall 111. Spreads 119 and 120 were traced for a length of 55m and 20m respectively. The area between the two was filled with greyish-brown clay loam (118). Hand cleaning of a small area suggested that the stone spreads represented a layer of rough metalling, perhaps a trackway, and that 118 may have been the fill of a rut worn through the surface of the track. Surface finds recovered from 118 included four Roman sherds, a medieval coarseware sherd and a fragment of post-medieval red earthenware. Another metalled surface (121), comprising a spread of small stones measuring between 0.01m and 0.04m in size, overlay wall 111. An adjacent, more dispersed stone spread (122), produced ten sherds of late Roman (3rd/4th century) pottery and a few fragments of animal bone. In the south of the site, wall 123 was represented by a dense concentration of angular stones on a north-west south-east alignment. It was constructed of large angular stones up to 0.45m in size that lay immediately below the turf. The wall was traced for 5m across the stripped area and a single fragment of undated ceramic brick or tile was recovered from the top of the stones. Hand cleaning of part of a diffuse spread of large stones (124) revealed a number of flat, angular stones resembling those making up wall 123, set in a sandy clay loam matrix. An undated brick, several fragments of ceramic tile, and a single sherd each of early Roman (1st century) and early medieval (11th/12th century) pottery were recovered from this feature. The stones may have belonged to another, more ruinous, wall on the same alignment as wall 123. A spread of greyish-brown silty clay with dispersed concentrations of stone of varying size (126) lay to the south of feature 124. Finds from this deposit included a sherd of 12th/ 13th century pottery and several pieces of ceramic brick and tile, including a fragment of a medieval glazed roof tile. A number of post-medieval and modern features were recorded. Feature 114, located at the northern end of the site, cutting metalling layer 119, was probably a post-medieval pit, visible in plan as a sub-circular reddish-brown deposit containing coke and slag. Pottery dating to the 18th/19th century was recovered from the upper fills of a field drain and a stone spread located in southern part of the site, to the south of the vicarage gardens. Few archaeological features or deposits were visible in the stripped area to the south of deposit 126. The quantity of Roman artefacts decreased markedly and no medieval finds were recovered beyond this point. The total pottery assemblage recovered from the site was small (69 sherds, weighing 711g). Roman coarse greyware sherds from various, probably mainly local, sources made up the bulk of the assemblage. A few oxidised wares, including Severn Valley wares, Black Burnished ware from the Poole Harbour area of Dorset, coarse grog-tempered wares, samian and Oxfordshire red-slipped ware made up the rest of the group. Most of the identifiable vessels were everted rim jars and dish/bowl forms. The range of fabrics and vessel forms indicated a date range spanning the later 1st 4th centuries. No Anglo-Saxon pottery was found and only three sherds of medieval pottery were identified, each in a different fabric coarse sandy, sandy/calcareous and sandy/flint-tempered. A small jar rim was the only diagnostic sherd and the group was broadly dated to between the 11th and 13th centuries. The post-medieval assemblage included redwares (mostly glazed), Staffordshire-type slipware and mottled ware, modern stoneware and industrial whitewares. Several fragments of medieval glazed tiles and post-medieval pan tiles, roof tiles, field drains and bricks were recovered. A decorated clay pipe bowl and a piece of worked stone, possibly part of a roof slab, were found on the top of wall 111. A single unstratified coin of AD 348 was found during topsoil stripping in the southern sector of the site. 185

8 SOMERSET ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY, 2006 Discussion Despite the limited size and scope of the cycle-way monitoring programme, clear evidence of archaeological activity was observed in the area immediately adjacent to the west wall of the vicarage garden. Though it was not possible to fully characterise the features and deposits encountered, artefacts recovered from the top fills of exposed features indicated that most of the archaeological activity encountered was of Roman date, spanning the 1st 4th centuries. The pattern of activity suggests that the features were likely to relate to those previously identified by Rahtz and Hirst (1973), though there was no direct link to any of the specific features described by them. The results therefore add to the existing evidence for Roman occupation at Cheddar (Richardson 2003) but does not allow for any fresh interpretation. Webster, however, has suggested that the evidence for Roman Cheddar, taken as a whole, may in fact indicate the existence of a small town rather than a settlement and villa as suggested by Rahtz and Hirst (Webster 2000, 80). The area investigated ended some way south of the school buildings where pre-construction investigations by Rahtz had revealed an Anglo-Saxon settlement and royal palace (Rahtz 1979), and it is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that no Anglo- Saxon features or artefacts were recovered. There is consequently, nothing to be added to the existing knowledge and recent re-interpretation of previous results (Blair 1996, ). Finally, there was a marked decrease in occupation evidence in the southern sector of the stripped area as a whole, suggesting that this was used for other purposes in the Roman and Anglo- Saxon periods. Acknowledgements The archaeological programme was commissioned by Prowting Homes South West, and the assistance provided by Andrew Cox and Steve Rossiter is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to Bob Croft and Steven Membury of Somerset County Council and to Rob Iles of English Heritage for advice and assistance. The fieldwork was directed by Charlotte Matthews and supervised on site by Jamie Wright and Janice Grove. Lorraine Mepham identified the finds and Nicholas Cooke provided information on the Roman coin. The illustrations were prepared by S.E. James. References Blair, J., Palaces or minsters? Northampton and Cheddar reconsidered, Anglo-Saxon England 25. Hirst, S.M., and Rahtz, P.A., Cheddar Vicarage 1970, SANH 117, Rahtz, P.A., Cheddar Vicarage 1965, SANH 110, , The Saxon and Medieval palaces at Cheddar. Excavations , BAR 65. Richardson, M., An Archaeological Assessment of Cheddar, English Heritage Extensive Urban Survey. Webster, C., The Dark Ages, in C.J. Webster (ed), Somerset Archaeology, Somerset County Council. JANICE C. GROVE WITH LORRAINE MEPHAM AND ROB GOLLER PISCINA IN ALL SAINTS CHURCH, TRULL In October 2006, during alterations and repairs to the chancel and south chapel of All Saints church, a blocked medieval piscina, carved from Ham Hill stone, was exposed in the south wall of the chapel. The projecting front of the bowl is missing, but the surviving part of the bowl, which includes a drainhole, is lightly scalloped inside. The piscina has a cinquefoil arched head with prominent cusping (spatulate rather than acute), although one of the cusps is missing. A hollow chamfer runs around the cusping and down the jambs. There are sunk spandrels between the lobes of the cusping, creating a two-centred arched outline. The piscina is probably 15th-century and seems to be later in style than the plain trefoil-headed piscina which has long been visible in the sanctuary close to the site of the medieval high altar. An area of rough stonework low in the east wall of the south chapel, which was also exposed during the alterations, may be a trace of the side altar (or the reredos behind it) with which the 186

9 Fig. 1 Exposed piscina rediscovered piscina would have been associated. The south chapel was probably a chantry chapel, possibly associated with a religious gild dedicated to the Virgin Mary which is recorded in Trull in the first half of the 16th century but may have been set up earlier. Also exposed, during work on the floor of the chancel, were a badly defaced medieval floor tile, a metal strap-hinge and the probable remnant of another, and varied fragments of inscribed stonework, presumably from ledger stones or memorials, all possibly buried during the restoration of the church in 1863 or during alterations in The floor tile may have originated in Taunton Priory, from which some recycled stonework is known to have been acquired by the churchwardens of Trull after the Dissolution. Two carved 16th-century bench-ends, which had been reused on later seating in the chancel, and have been displaced once again during the reordering of the chancel, await alternative use. MARK MCDERMOTT 187