236 



THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 



identified by the shallow drainage gully surrounding 

 the structure itself. In this scenario, the walls of the 

 building are made of turf blocks or cob (mud) 

 plastered to a wattle screen. In either case, there is 

 no need for a series of substantial structural 

 postholes, and therefore it is quite possible that very 

 little archaeological trace of the structure will remain 

 other than the drainage gully, which would serve to 

 channel water running from the overhanging eaves. 

 Buildings identified in this way are fairly common; 

 many examples are known from settlements through 

 the South Midlands, such as Farmoor (Lambrick 

 and Robinson 1979, 14, fig. 6), Larkwhistle Farm 

 (Hardy and Cropper 1999, 4-5, figs 4 and 5) and 

 Pennyland (Williams 1993, 20, fig. 12). 



The gully's position relative to the walls of the 

 structure would depend upon the roof angle and 

 the height of the walls, but an approximate diameter 

 of the building can be estimated at 13- 14m. This 

 would put the building at the upper end of the range 

 for contemporary structures, which are more 

 typically between 8-1 lm in diameter (see Cunliffe 

 1991,242-6). 



None of the postholes within the hypothetical 

 wall line of the building could definitely be identified 

 as structural elements by their position; indeed, they 

 may not be associated with the building at all. 



To the west (the 'front') of the building, lay a 

 scatter of pits, and short lengths of gully, which 

 appear to represent fence lines of paddocks or small 

 screens. The pits showed some variation in size 

 which may relate to their original function. It is likely 

 that the bell-shaped pits were originally dug for 

 storage and later used as rubbish pits. 



To the south of the main focus of activity there 

 was a further small concentration of pits and 

 postholes. The group of four pits appears to define 

 the large postholes of a '4-post structure'. Their 

 interpretation as elevated stores - possibly for grain 

 (Cunliffe 1991, 376) - is generally accepted, and 

 in this case the interpretation is supported by the 

 presence of cereal grains and chaff in the posthole 

 fills. The other pits and postholes in the vicinity 

 possibly represent further small structures. 



Settlement character and chronology 

 The artefactual and environmental evidence both 

 point to a modest farmstead, practising a mixed 

 farming regime. The presence of two iron 

 implements (Figure 8.1-2), both agricultural tools, 

 is unusual, as such implements would be valuable 

 and not likely to be routinely discarded. It could be 

 suggested from this that the site was abandoned 



suddenly, although there is no other evidence to 

 support this hypothesis. 



The pottery assemblage also confirmed the 

 modest status of the settlement, with most of the 

 assemblage deriving from typical 1st and 2nd 

 century BC domestic forms, all locally made. The 

 presence of 29 sherds of Late Iron Age/early Roman 

 pottery is notable, but by its distribution appeared 

 to imply a continuance of activity along the possible 

 precursor to the Roman trackway (see above), rather 

 than a continuance of occupation of the farmstead. 



The environmental remains indicate an arable 

 regime based on spelt wheat and hulled barley, with 

 the notable addition, especially from pit 98, of 

 Brassica, or mustard. As Pelling argues, the 

 mineralisation of these seeds may be a factor of the 

 local soil types, but could also suggest that some 

 pits were being used either as ad hoc latrines or 

 were being backfilled with midden material 

 containing faecal material or manure. 



The bone assemblage supports the conclusions 

 drawn from the environmental evidence, that the 

 character of the settlement appears to be that of a 

 small mixed farmstead of unremarkable status. 

 Cattle and sheep predominated, the former 

 probably used for traction or milk production, the 

 latter providing a meat source. 



Settlement context 



There is little evidence to indicate whether this 

 farmstead was isolated, or formed part of a larger 

 settlement. The clear western limit of the pit activity 

 corresponds with the margin of the lower wetter 

 ground, so it seems likely that no further occupation 

 was sited to the west and south. It is possible that 

 further occupation could be sited to the immediate 

 north and east, although the proximity of the 

 relatively steep slopes of Jump Hill would suggest 

 that any such occupation would not be widespread 

 or intense. 



A much smaller cluster of pits of a similar type 

 and date to those identified here was recorded at 

 the north-eastern limit of the excavations at Wayside 

 Farm (Valentin and Robinson 2002). This may 

 suggest that such scattered and unfocussed 

 settlement was characteristic of the locality in the 

 Iron Age. 



As has been suggested, the Roman trackway to 

 the north of the Iron Age occupation may have had 

 an Iron Age antecedent, which may have carried 

 on over the south-east shoulder of Jump Hill. The 

 record of ploughed-out barrows to the east of 

 Brickley Lane suggests that the high ground to the 



