Table Of Content

Contents Listofillustrations The Arretine and Samian sherds by Listofplates Dr. GSimpson . . 88 Summary Chapter VII TheStonebyDGBuckley .. . . 89 Introductionandacknowledgments Chapter VIII TheOtherFinds 98 Part I The structures Part III Economy, environment and population ChapterI TheEnclosure Chapter IX The debris of metal working by ChapterII ThePitsbyJSJefferies ManselGSpratling .. .. .. 125 Chapter HI ThePhase 1 Settlement ChapterX TheAnimal BonesbyRHarcourt .. 150 Chapter IV ThePhase2Settlement ChapterXI TheHuman BonesbyCKeepax . . 161 Chapter V ThePhase3 Settlement ChapterXII The Plant Remains by A Evans and MJones . . .. . . ■ ■ 172 Part II The finds Chapter VI ThePottery Part IV Discussion Introduction ChapterXIII Gussage in its Setting by H CBowen 179 TheCeramicFabricsbyFEGale Chapter XIV GeneralConsiderations . . .. 184 TheCeramicForms TheAmphoraebyDPSPeacock Bibliography . . . . .. .. . . ■ ■ 195 TheGallo-Belgic sherdsby VRigby Index 198 List of illustrations Vesseltypes39—40 Simplified siteplan Vessel types43—8 Detailedexcavation plan Vesseltypes49, 55—59 Plan oftheexcavated settlement Ceramic groups: Phase 1 (286, 292, 296) . . Section key 3 Ceramic groups: Phase 1 (296, 297, 305, 308) Sectionsofenclosureditch 4 56 Ceramic groups: Phase 1 (606, 637, 639, 642, Entranceplans 5 655,682,812) Sectionsofentrancearea 6 57 Ceramic groups: Phase 1 (379, 382, 383, 388) Sections ofantennae ditches and entrance area 7 58 Ceramic groups: Phase2(1M) Diagramsofpit profiles 10 59 Ceramic groups: Phase 2 (1M, 1M/N, IN) Histogram relating profiles, dimensions and 60 Ceramic groups: Phase 2 (52, 53, 55, 57, volumesofthepits 10 603) Pit sections 11 61 Ceramic groups: Phase2(57, 187, 209) Pit sections 12 62 Ceramic groups: Phase 2 (209, 215, 351, 416, Pit sections 13 424) Pit sections 14 63 Ceramic groups: Phase 3 (342, 371, 359, 380) PlanofthePhase 1 settlement 17 64 Ceramic groups: Phase3 (380) Plan ofthe Phase2settlement .. 22 65 Ceramic groups: Phase 3 (380, 381, 387) Plan ofthecircularhut 23 66 Ceramic groups: Phase 3 (402, 410, 415) Plan ofthePhase3 settlement .. 26 67 Ceramic groups: Phase 3 (709, 711, 781, 933, Planofenclosure310 .. 27 815) Sectionsof310enclosureditch 28 68 Stoneartefacts: Phase 1 Planofenclosure 130 .. 29 69 Stoneartefacts: Phase 1 Sectionsof 130enclosureditch 30 70 Stoneartefacts: Phase3 Sectionsoffeatures2, U, IK, 857, 861 31 71 Stoneartefacts: Phase3 Plansofburials62, 285,359 33 72 Chalk artefacts: Phase 1 Plansofburials 139, 204—5,435 34 73 Chalk artefacts: Phase3 Plansofburials31, 387,410, 815 35 74 Flint artefacts Detailed planofAreaF.. 36 75 Shaleartefacts DetailedplanofAreaG 37 76 Objectsofbakedclay: Phase 1. . Detailed planofAreaH 38 77 Objectsofbaked clay: Phase2.. Detailed plan ofAreaJ .. 39 78 Objectsofbakedclay: Phase3.. DetailedplanofArea L/M 40 79 Objectsofglass: Phase 1 DetailedplanofAreaN 41 80 Ironartefacts: Phase 1 .. DetailedplanofArea P 42 81 Ironartefacts: Phase2 .. Detailed planofArea R 43 82 Ironartefacts: Phase3 . . Detailed planofAreaS .. 43 83 Iron artefacts: Phase3 . . DetailedplanofAreaT 44 84. Bronzeartefacts: Phase 1 Detailed planofAreaU 45 85 Bronzeartefacts: Phase2 Detailed planofAreaW/X 46 86. Bronzeartefacts: Phase3 Detailed plan ofArea Y 46 87. Bronzeartefacts: Phase3 Ceramic petrology. Group One: percentage of 88. Boneartefacts: Phase 1 .. heavyminerals 50 89. Boneartefacts: Phase 1 . . Ceramic petrology. Group Two: percentage of 90. Boneartefacts: Phase 1 . . fabricsA/B, F, J, P and L 51 91. Antlerartefact: Phase 1 Ceramic petrology. Group Two: percentage of 92. Boneartefacts: Phase2.. fabricsQ, R, Tand V 52 93. Boneartefacts: Phase2 .. Vessel type 1 57 94. Boneartefacts: Phase3 . . Vesseltypes2—6 60 95. Boneartefacts: Phase3 . . Vesseltypes7—11, 13—14 62 96. Section ofpit 209 Vesseltypes20—23 63 97. Bronze-plated steel link from the mouth-piece Vesseltypes24—6, 28—30 65 Vesseltypes36—7,41—2 67 98. Bronze billet and modelling tools of bone 68 (GussageAll Saints) 99. Two crucibles for melting bronze (Gussage All of three-link bridle-bits from Gussage All Saints) Saintsand South Cadbury, Somerset 100. Terrets of 'Arras' and 'Mill Plain' type from 105. Fragments of moulds for casting three-link Dorset and Suffolk and moulds for casting bridle-bit components suchterrets fromGussageAllSaints 106. Three-linkbridle-bit from HagbourneHill 101. Terret of 'Barbury' type from Dorset and a 107. Three-link bridle-bit from Ringstead 108. Three-link bridle-bit from Ringstead .. ments for casting a strap-union and linchpins 109. Scatter diagram of cattle metacarpals and fromGussageAll Saints diagrammatic illustration of a cow skeleton 102. 'Simple' terret from Glastonbury, Somerset from Pit 61 and fragments of moulds for casting 'simple' 110. Histograms showing percentages of features in terrets from GussageAllSaints which carbonised seedsoccur 103. Moulds for casting 'simple' terrets from 111. MapoftheareaaroundGussageAllSaints .. GussageAll Saints 112. Comparative plans of Gussage and Gussage II 104. Fragments of moulds for casting the side-links 113. Gussage All Saints: comparative period plans Figure 4falls at the end oftheplate section List of plates between pages 102 and 103 Theenclosure beforeexcavationviewed from the XX. Enclosure 310. south (Cambridge University Collection). XXI. View of the trapezoid enclosure from the south. Aerial view of the enclosure during excavation XXII. Longitudinal section of enclosure ditch 310 at (RCHM). the southern terminal. Aerial view of the enclosure during excavation XXIII. Section of ditch 3IOC. withthevillageofGussageAllSaintsin theback- XXIV. Section of pit 209. ground (RCHM). XXV. Human skeleton in pit 387. Aerial view of the enclosure after excavation XXVI. Human skeleton in pit 410. (Aerofilms Ltd). XXVII. Human skeleton in pit 204. Aerial view of the enclosure after excavation XXVIII. Human skeleton in pit 285. (Aerofilms Ltd). XXIX. Animal bones in pit 293. General view of the enclosure from the west. XXX. Cow and calf remains in pit 61. General view of the east entrance from the east. XXXI. Rotary quern in pit 604. The east entrance viewed from the west. XXXII. Clay support for rotary quern in pit 604. The east entrance viewed from the north. XXXIII. Iron-working hearth in the top of working- A palisade trench oftheeast entrancein Phase2. hollow 2. Section of antenna ditch 603. XXXIV. Porous Pits: Vertical view of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 (left, upperandlower) Navicular bones of205(5). enclosure ditches south of the east entrance. (upper right) Cuneiform bone of 205(5). Section of enclosure ditch IX. (lower right) Right femur of 205(5). Successive four-post structures. (centre) Right hallux of 31(6). Alignment of four-post structures. XXXV. Healed fracture on the right humerus of 285(3) Four-post structure. and cuts on the left humerus. Circular hut. XXXVI. Detail of injuries on the left humerus of 285(3). Working hollow 259. XXXVII. Skull of 204(8) with anomalous tooth wear, Working hollow 360. abscessing, and resulting periostitis. Summary A three-acre settlement at Gussage All Saints, Dorset was ticular interest is a collection of bronze-founder's debris, completely excavated and most of the archaeological including broken investmentmoulds, which wasfoundasa deposit removedso as toprovide a basisfor broader inter rubbish deposit. The excavation was aproblem-orientated pretations. Post-holesfor buildings, numerouspits, gullies project within a rescueframework, designed to look back and internal enclosures provided evidence that the settle at Dr Gerhardt Bersu's excavation of the site of Little ment was occupied throughout the second halfofthefirst Woodbury, near Salisbury, in 1938 and 1939, which, millenniumBC, andevidencewasrecoveredforitsdevelop although apartialexcavation, hadformanyyearsprovided ment, material culture, economy andpopulation. Ofpar thepatternfor Iron Age economy in southern Britain. Introduction TheGussageAll Saints Iron Age settlement is sited between exposed within an irregular rounded enclosure of about the 76m and 81m contours on the eastern slope of a ridge four acres, which had originally been surrounded at least 100m high; it overlooks a valley to the north in which now lie the villages of Gussage St Michael and Gussage All All the occupation wasassigned to whatwascalled the Iron Saints (ST 998101). It is roughly circular in plan and three Age A2—AB (300—100 BC), beginning with situlate jars acres in area with a single entrance in the east defined by and haematite coated bowls and ending in the first century two pairs of flanking antennae ditches. BC with saucepan pots in a smooth dark fabric. Unfor The Roman road which crosses the ridge from north to tunately, no complete plan of the enclosure was ever pre south strikes across the fields some 700m west ofthe settle pared, but from the aerial photographs it is possible to see ment. The 20-acre field in which the latter was discovered that the simple entrance through the earthwork in the east overlooks the valley to the north and commands extensive was at least 17.00m wide and flanked by characteristic views of the chalk downlands to the north and east. From antennae ditches. Excavation showed that the enclosure the west and south the settlement was overlooked by rising ditch had never been completed. Within the investigated ground towards the crest of the ridge. Aerial photographs area, Bersu excavated 190 pits of varying sizes, most of taken during the excavation indicate the presence of fields which he interpreted as being for the storage of consump now completely destroyed by ploughing to the west and tion grain. On the basis ofthe aerial photograph a total of south of the enclosure as well as to the north on the slope 360 pits were estimated for the whole settlement. In down to the village. A brook which runs through thisvalley addition, irregular oval to circular depressions were inves provides the nearest source of water. The settlement was tigated and termed 'working hollows'. Bersu considered founded on chalk bed-rock save in its southern part that they were structurally part oftheagricultural cycleand towards the high ground where the chalk was coated with a had probably been used for threshing grain. Other struc brown flinty clay. Pockets of this material occurred in the tures given agricultural connotations were square arrange- chalk over the remainder of the settlement but were less numerous on the downhill side. The enclosure was totally occasions. The ground plans were normally 00.90—1.00m excavated on behalfofthe Department ofthe Environment sq and they were interpreted as granaries for seed-corn on in the spring and summer of 1972 on account ofits erosion the basis of parallels amongst modern agricultural com by ploughing. However, the rescue excavation was the out munities. Numerous pairs of posts set between 1.00m and come ofa research project aimed at reviewing Dr Gerhardt 2.00m apart were interpreted as drying racks. The post- Bersu's excavation of the site of Little Woodbury, near holes of two houses were uncovered: House 1 stood in the Salisbury, in 1938 and 1939, which has for many years centreofthe settlement and was at least 15.00mindiameter appeared to provide a pattern for Iron Age life in southern with acentral setting offour posts set in a squarewith sides Britain. 3.00m long. House 2 was a simple post-ring 10.00m in There are two enclosures in theparish ofBritford, south diameter. west of Salisbury. The larger settlement was called The influence of Little Woodbury on Iron Age studies in Woodbury and to avoid confusion, the smaller settlement southern Britain has been far-reaching and can be sum 500m to the east was named Little Woodbury. The latter marised under three main headings. was selected by the Prehistoric Society as the site for a 1.The site hasgiven its name to a Woodbury typeeconomy research excavation because its size made total excavation a based around single farmstead units rather than villages. feasible proposition. The aim ofthe Prehistoric Societywas It is thought that the economy of such a unit was based the total excavation of the settlement to fulfil two objec- on stock-breeding, grain cultivation, the storage ofgrain for consumption in pits and the seed-corn above ground in four-post granaries. It was also characterised by the excavations at other sites and to reveal something of practice of roasting or parching grain before storage, by the nature and social organisation of Iron Age settle- the presence ofcircular houses, (although the Woodbury House 1 type is unique) by the presence of working hollows for threshing and winnowing grain, and fields on aerial photographs. from which the crops were harvested with small iron Thework was directed by Dr G Bersu whose pioneer recon sickles and dried on double posted racks. It was struction of farming practice there has rendered it the type envisaged as a well-characterised agricultural economy, site forthemixed farmingeconomyofthe British Iron Age, with mixed farming based predominantly on corn grow fundamental to any understanding of settlement types ing and with a life span ofsome four and ahalfcenturies (Bersu 1940, Brailsford 1948, Brailsford 1949). before the Roman conquest. This concept was based By the end of the second season considerably more than almost entirely on the partial excavations at Little one-third of the whole settlement of 15,000 sq m had been Woodbury (Piggott 1958).